That’s clearly not the thing I was referencing. I don’t even know what the hell this is.

Posts article on social media. How ironic!

Why is the implication here that scientists are going to somehow genetically-engineer more resilient humans?

Let’s wait for us to get past the dystopian Gattaca era before we make outlandish claims like that.

Did you reply to the wrong message?

No, not really. I was both agreeing with you and pointing out the awkwardness of the example sentence in a different way than its reading level. I dunno… maybe it works better as a direct reply.

Are you a native English speaker?

Is this the latest form of a passive-aggressive insult to “win” an grammar argument?

and during the last of those

The problem is really with this fragment. What is “those”? There’s a lot of nouns in that sentence fragment, and it’s not immediately obvious what “those” is modifying, without having to piece together which noun has the plurality to justify a plural determinative. It’s an awkward sentence without changing it to “those years”.

Also, if you’re going to write above a middle-school level, learn about commas. It’s “last of those, there”. The lack of comma just forces you to re-read this run-on sentence fragment.

I’m sure a large part of that has to do with David Zaslav.

I love the first season of the Witcher because it respects the source material and was clearly made with passion by an actor who really loves the Witcher.

I hate the other seasons of the Witcher because it was clearly made by shitty writers who actively hated the source material.

Never forget the cardinal rule of adaptations: The source material is what made millions of dollars, not your shitty untested ideas.

it respects the source material

That’s a hard ask, considering how often writers will completely fuck over the source material. Especially egregious are the ones who just slap a IP on top of whatever shitty script they were writing at the time.

democratic centralist government run by the communist party

Sounds like a dictatorship ran by one party.

It’s international. It doesn’t need to be based in England.

Lenin wanted to create socialism from the top down, establishing a dictatorship

When somebody casually says the word “dictatorship” as a serious solution to a problem, they have already failed.

The Soviets tried socialism as a ladder to communism, were about instantly corrupted.

No, they tried communism as a ladder to socialism, entered the dictatorship of the proletariat phase, and were instantly corrupted. Because, you know… dictatorship.

Lenin’s idea of socialism will never work, because it is far too optimistic, and does not factor the corruptibility of humans. Every single example of communism that has ever plagued a country is a prime illustration of that failure.

Capitalism ain’t the problem. Capitalism for the economy and democracy for the government is the best we humans have figured out. Problem being, money, as in any system, has been funneled to the top. The top took our vote via lack of education and media control, and their power has been snowballing for the last 20-30 years. Now we’re too ignorant and misled to vote in our own best interests. We’re seeing the end game, the end game of any unregulated system.

Capitalism was the system the rich wanted to ensure they still had a foothold. In the past, it was fiefdoms and land ownership. Then a bunch of rich Americans got together (the founding fathers) and democracy wasn’t going see the light of day unless there was some level of compromise, and they got to keep their power in some way. Democracy was supposed to be a counterbalance, yes, but capitalism isn’t actually necessary for a functional society.

Ever since humanity evolved into a barter system, the enemy has always been the rich and powerful (who also happen to be rich), and the tools they use to keep themselves in power. Never ever forget that.

Instead say, “The GOP did this!” (politically) and “The billionaires did this!” (economically). Words matter if you want to win hearts and minds.

The GOP is a tool for the rich, and billionaires are just another identity of the rich. It all funnels to a single root cause.

The internet was a bubble. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful. It just means that companies are overselling its value. There are too many companies jumping on the bandwagon, and not all of them with survive when the bubble pops.

It’s still bad and destructive, but I think far too many people are interpreting this bubble as “if I wait a few more years, this technology will disappear and I won’t have to worry about it any more”. No, it’s more like the internet where if people wait a few more years and don’t use it, they will lag behind and be replaced by people who understand the tech. Companies that don’t use it will die out.

I like Hank Green’s recent takes on AI.

The level of competition is extremely high, and no one will be willing to pay for AI services.

Companies are already paying for AI services. You think everybody has a free account? Please!

I use LLMs every day in my job. It’s a useful tool for programming, and it’s saved me a lot of time searching for information.

The writers famously hate the source material, and seem to forget the cardinal lesson with adaptations: The source material is what made millions of dollars, not your shitty untested ideas.

I feel like this would be as batshit crazy as handing the beloved Dune series to a madman like Alejandro Jodorowsky.

Or torrents. If piracy’s on the rise (again) as a replacement for streaming, you can sure as hell bet that it was already replacing sites like PornHub way before that.

Enter The Matrix was one of the rare exceptions. That game genuinely slapped.

The game was glued together with duct tape. And not the good kind. The cheap Chinese knock-off brand that’s been sitting in the hot garage for 5 years.

Every country has a whole bunch of “that guy” who likes to do stupid shit to the detriment of society. Sometimes it’s the poor and uneducated, sometimes it’s the ultra wealthy unburdened by their sociopathy. It varies.

The poor and uneducated are that way because it’s in the ultra-wealthy’s best interests.

“I love the poorly educated!”

If the data is falsified that’d be illegal.

Oh no! It would be illegal!

And what would be the punishment if it was found out that they released illegal data? A fine that could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars? On top of their tens of millions of dollars of profits?

Do you have a reason to think otherwise?

Yes, they are directly incentivized to either push their data in a biased direction or outright falsify their numbers, in order to facilitate the marketing strategy of these taxis being a “safe” technology, and increase their profit margin.

Fuck… have we learned nothing from the tobacco industry?!