Dogyote

I thought stuff like this was cool when I was a kid, and I suppose it is when the technical achievement is only considered. But I'm now I'm left wondering why we would ever want anything like this? It's meant to replace a person.

Hey they have three more wishes, give them a second

If I remember correctly someone else in this thread mentioned The Dawn of Everything. I'm sure you'd like it if you haven't read/listened to it yet. It's about periods of history where there weren't kings and what life might have been like during those periods.

Ugh those tech barons. It seems like they're drunk with power and and high on their desire to make their imagined futures a reality. The problem is they don't seem to care what the rest of us think, and will gladly subvert democracy to impose their "utopian" visions on the masses. Their absurd levels of wealth and power are likely corrupting their utopian ideas as well. I'd go as far to say that they are the current problem, more than a distraction. This shit never ends.

It'd be fine to have a national/global discussion about the ideas these guys have. Their ideas can't be completely bad, there must be some good bits, but the way they're working behind the scenes with Trump and especially Vance (Musk, Thiel, Andressen, Horotwitz, Armstrong, and Sacks) really ruins any trust I could possibly have in their ideas.

I don't think you're wrong, I don't think you're quite right either. I do like what you're getting at. Bernie, relatively speaking, is way better than the other candidates we can currently choose from. That's what I'm getting at, you're attacking someone on a single issue and ignoring everything else they say and do. Hardly anybody will listen to you. They're writing you off as a weird, single issue voter. Don't you think your issues would have a better shot of being addressed if there were more people like Bernie in congress? Seems like abstaining instead of choosing the lesser evil also isn't working.

For your first point, yes, I doubt such a system could coexist alongside a more powerful capitalist system.

Second point, I think if you own all the wealth but are socially ostracized, what's the point of having all the wealth? A caveat to that is most of the wealth in a potlatch society was renewable and not very easy to hoard. Their primary food source was salmon, which can be preserved but not as easily or for as long as grain. In our society, it seems you could hoard a lot and that gives you power.

Just some life advice. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your comment, but a fairly awful person once said: however beautiful your strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Really, there's nothing wrong with being an idealist but at some point you need to work with what you have.

I think most people are operating within the framework given to them. That framework is composed of material and philosophical values, and this is what determines how someone pursues growth, progress and personal ambition.

Take for example the potlatch societies on the pacific coast. This will be an awful summary of those societies, but my understanding is that people accumulated food and possessions. They then held a potlatch event where they gave all their stuff away. The more stuff you gave away, the more successful you were, the more you were liked and valued. (Again that's my basic understanding, could be very wrong).

How would an ambitious person behave in a potlatch society? They would probably go through cycles of accumulation/potlatch to increase their social standing. What would be the billionaire equivalent in a potlatch society? Maybe a village chief that held such extravagant potlatches that they are now fully supported by their community, maybe to the point they're a burden? I doubt such a thing could happen in a potlatch society, but it's a funny idea.

Basically the idea I'm trying to convey is that people are operating within the framework given to them, and their potentially toxic traits could be expressed differently under different frameworks. Our current system promotes unlimited accumulation and selfishness, so we have idiots like Musk and Trump doing their thing. They probably wouldn't do very well in another type of society, assuming they didn't change their behavior.

So how do we change our framework so we stop valuing what we're currently collectively valuing? Do most people actually value what's being encouraged by the framework? If so, why? If no, why is the framework persisting?

Bah, don't be a weiner. They sometimes have good points. Keyword is sometimes. It'd be a community disservice to remove their perspective from the mileau.

If Moscow perceives NATO as weak, Russia could be ready to wage a "large-scale war" in Europe within five years, the Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) has said.

They didn't say Russia will, they said Russia could. I feel like this is fearmongering to a certain extent. How is the war in Ukraine going for Russia? They're winning, sure, but they're fighting hard for every kilometer and it's costing them. I really don't think any other country is worth as much as Ukraine is from Russia's point of view.

Well it was more like a greenhouse in function. It became quite hot after the sun came out.

Four different cooking techniques were tested, namely hard-boiling, soft-boiling, sous vide or 6X °C and periodic cooking. Hard-boiled eggs were placed in boiling water for 12 min; soft-boiled eggs were placed in boiling water for 6 minutes; sous vide eggs were placed in water at 65 °C for 1 h and periodic eggs were placed alternatively in boiling water (Th = 100 °C) for th = 2 min and water at Tc = 30 °C for tc = 2 min, for a total cooking time of 32 minutes, which corresponds to the repetition of the hot and cold cycles for a total of N = 8 times. In the case of periodic eggs, a bowl filled with water kept at 30 °C was used for the cold cooking cycle.

My dad put their cage in our sunroom during the night because they were making too much noise. Eventually the sun came out.