Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:19 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:00 pm
Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:58 pm
malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:03 am She responded with a long speech about the moment. It actually is a pretty compelling speech and speaks to her communication talents.

Not sure why you say actually as if it was unexpected.
I read the comment more along the line of we expect most of these types of speeches to be grandstanding and worthless, but this one was better than the typical congressional speech.

Exactly. Yoho's apology was bad or even typical nowadays. This was the appropriate response for once.

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:25 pm**

I thought most people recognize AOC isn't typical, but I'm probably out of touch.

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:36 pm**

all he said was "It actually is a really compelling speech", and you seem to feel he's slighted her?

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:38 pm**

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:36 pm all he said was "It actually is a really compelling speech", and you seem to feel he's slighted her?

Correct. Thinking she's just another Yoho does her a disservice.

You don't see how "It actually is a really compelling speech" is different from "It is a really compelling speech"?

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:54 pm**

Well the other matter is that the clip is ~10 minutes. It very rare that any Congressional "infighting" clip is going to be worth that kind of time investment no matter who is involved.

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:33 pm**

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:38 pm
Unagi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:36 pm all he said was "It actually is a really compelling speech", and you seem to feel he's slighted her?
Correct. Thinking she's just another Yoho does her a disservice.

You don't see how "It actually is a really compelling speech" is different from "It is a really compelling speech"?

I see the difference, but I think the word was used to implore those that normally wouldn’t listen to a political video clip that this one was worth it. And that’s supported by how he said it shows off her communication skills. Which clearly is a nod to the appreciation you feel she (rightfully) deserves.

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:40 pm**

Analogy.

If I shared a peanut butter & jelly sandwich recipe from Alton Brown and said:

It actually is really good and speaks to Alton Brown’s culinary talents.

I wouldn’t be saying; that “for Alton Brown”, this is good.
That wouldn’t make sense with the other part of the statement.

It’s clearly a comment about what one would expect from a PB&J recipe.

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:59 pm**

I'm guilty of throwing "actually" into sentences where it probably doesn't belong, and not meaning anything nefarious by it. It's usually when I'm trying to "sell" the thing I want someone to look at or try, not a reflection of surprise.

Ex: "Tom Hanks was actually really good in that performance, you should watch it!" When I know A) Everyone already knows that Tom Hanks is really good in everything and B) I already love Tom Hanks.

It's almost like an unconscious attempt to head off any dispute about what I"m saying.

Maybe it's a colloquial thing, I don't know.

Posted: **Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:05 pm**

A Starting Point

A bipartisan website where you can watch different answers from politicians from both sides of the aisle on lots of different political issues, as well as short videos where a politician will talk about some issue, and video conversations between two politicians on different sides of the aisle on an issue.

(Given the time limit, the answers/discussions are on the simple side, though)

Posted: **Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:35 pm**

A Starting Point is a video-based civic engagement platform created by Chris Evans, Mark Kassen, and technology entrepreneur Joe Kiani. ASP’s mission is to create a bipartisan channel of communication and connectivity between Americans and their elected officials with the goal of creating a more informed electorate.

Wired coverage

Posted: **Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:39 pm**

CNN

Florida GOP Rep. Ted Yoho has resigned from the board of a Christian organization that works to fight hunger following his tense exchange with Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

Chris Ford, the deputy director for strategic communications and campaigns of Bread for the World, on Saturday evening confirmed Yoho's resignation to CNN. The Florida congressman resigned on Friday during a meeting with the organization board, according to a statement from Bread for the World.

"We believe that Rep. Ted Yoho's recent actions and words as reported in the media are not reflective of the ethical standards expected of members of our Board of Directors," the organization wrote in a statement.

"...read sought his resignation as an action that reaffirms our commitment to coming alongside women and people of color, nationally and globally, as they continue to lead us to a more racially inclusive and equitable world."

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:49 pm**

Pro Publica

Federal authorities are using a new tactic in their battle against protesters in Portland, Oregon: arrest them on offenses as minor as “failing to obey” an order to get off a sidewalk on federal property — and then tell them they can’t protest anymore as a condition for release from jail.

Legal experts describe the move as a blatant violation of the constitutional right to free assembly, but at least 12 protesters arrested in recent weeks have been specifically barred from attending protests or demonstrations as they await trials on federal misdemeanor charges.

“Defendant may not attend any other protests, rallies, assemblies or public gathering in the state of Oregon,” states one “Order Setting Conditions of Release” for an accused protester, alongside other conditions such as appearing for court dates. The orders are signed by federal magistrate judges.

For other defendants, the restricted area is limited to Portland, where clashes between protesters and federal troops have grown increasingly violent in recent weeks. In at least two cases, there are no geographic restrictions; one release document instructs, “Do not participate in any protests, demonstrations, rallies, assemblies while this case is pending.”

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:04 pm**

Just a little light fascism. You hardly even notice it!

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:13 am**

What could be more American than stripping Constitutional rights before a trial is had?

*Edit: Already being addressed and removed as a condition.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:25 am**

Always amusing to be doing my online ethics training in the age of Trump. Didn't we eliminate all of that already?

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:13 pm**

Not for the little people.

Posted: **Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:06 pm**

Politico

The House Intelligence Committee has opened an investigation into the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence arm, according to a letter its chairman sent to top DHS officials on Monday.

The probe will scrutinize how the department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis has responded to protests against racism and police brutality in Portland and around the country. In the letter, the panel’s chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), cited reports that the office had disseminated intelligence about journalists and protesters.
...
Schiff’s letter also cited a POLITICO article from the weekend that reported that DHS’s second-in-command, Ken Cuccinelli, limited the ability of department’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to oversee I&A’s work. That move came several months before the office’s reports on journalists and protesters drew national criticism.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:05 am**

In the event that they find any wrongdoing, they will enter a strongly worded repremand into the Congressional record.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:55 pm**

So firefox alwasy has the articles ads on their new tabs and the latest headline was

In Rich Countries, the Middle Class Is Getting Smaller and Smaller, Generation by Generation

And the catch line below it is

Automation and the rising cost of living are pinning the middle class into a corner.

What kind of crock is that?

1) How does automation correlate with rising cost of living? Shouldn't it correlate with a reduced cost of living?
2) Why are perpetuating the lie that automation necessitates more wealth should be concentrated at the top, rather than raising the wealth at the bottom?

This is just another bit of why day by day my conservative leanings slip away.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:17 pm**

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:55 pm So firefox alwasy has the articles ads on their new tabs and the latest headline was

In Rich Countries, the Middle Class Is Getting Smaller and Smaller, Generation by Generation
And the catch line below it is

Automation and the rising cost of living are pinning the middle class into a corner.
What kind of crock is that?

1) How does automation correlate with rising cost of living? Shouldn't it correlate with a reduced cost of living?
2) Why are perpetuating the lie that automation necessitates more wealth should be concentrated at the top, rather than raising the wealth at the bottom?

This is just another bit of why day by day my conservative leanings slip away.

it seems that 'conservative' is code for 'reality-denying, no-personal-responsibility-blame-everyone-else, short-sighted-no-planning, self-centered-i-got-mine-so-F-U' tribal affiliation

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:28 pm**

Automation eliminates skilled blue-collar jobs.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:05 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:28 pm Automation eliminates skilled blue-collar jobs.

But why does it follow that the middle class shrinks instead of grows? More is available cheaper, but why does it follow that the people at the bottom don't get more but rather we just get a larger pool of people at the bottom while the top get more?

The rise of automation saw people with limited skills making more money than ever, the people with skills become flat out wealthy, and the availability of goods become insanely high with costs being low. Then we hit 80s and increased productivity started to do a 180 to "the middle class" and we collectively buy in to the idea, why?

What makes this productivity increase the polar opposite Henry Ford's productivity increase? Suddenly more better faster means a burger flipper's tiny share looks smaller rather making their tiny share look more healthy. Rising tides raise all boats and all that.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:14 pm**

Are you asking why it's true, or if it's true?

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:04 pm**

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:14 pm Are you asking why it's true, or if it's true?

Which it are you referring to? What I'm asking is why we accept that productivity gains means a shrinking class. It seems to me that it's been true for over 30 years while it meant a growing middle class for the 70 years before that. I can only assume it's true because we accept it. That the oil crunch of the late 70s somehow changed everything in the US.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:14 pm**

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:05 pm
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:28 pm Automation eliminates skilled blue-collar jobs.

But why does it follow that the middle class shrinks instead of grows? More is available cheaper, but why does it follow that the people at the bottom don't get more but rather we just get a larger pool of people at the bottom while the top get more?

The rise of automation saw people with limited skills making more money than ever, the people with skills become flat out wealthy, and the availability of goods become insanely high with costs being low. Then we hit 80s and increased productivity started to do a 180 to "the middle class" and we collectively buy in to the idea, why?

What makes this productivity increase the polar opposite Henry Ford's productivity increase?

It trickles to the top. When Henry Ford created the assembly line, he put people to work on that line. When Ford Motors automates a plant, it puts people out of work. Those people don't reap the the benefits of automation, Ford and it's shareholders do. To a certain extent its customers may as well.

But most of it trickles up. Lower expense and higher productivity = more profitability.

AI driving means trick drivers, taxi and livery drivers, delivery drivers, etc all lose jobs. Hell, gig workers at Uber and Lyft and GrubHub, who lost jobs to other automation will.lose their gigs.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:05 pm Suddenly more better faster means a burger flipper's tiny share looks smaller rather making their tiny share look more healthy. Rising tides raise all boats and all that.

Burger flippers lose jobs. Their skills become less valuable if they manage to keep their jobs.

Rich get richer, poor get poorer. In this scenario, the middle class are poor.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:34 pm**

Even white collar jobs are starting to see some automation pressure. This is one of the really interesting thing that has been happening in the economy during our lifetimes. The complete decoupling of productivity improvements to income. Productivity is going up and getting mostly captured by the shareholders/capital. In other words, Marx was probably on the right track way back when. That's a gross oversimplification but people starting to coin the phrase 'late stage capitalism' is not a coincedence.

Piketty talks about it extensively but at the time he published he didn't have a strong opinion on it. He thought it was a possibility. 8 years later and it looks dead on the money. I'd be curious to hear his current thoughts. For extra fun I I'll even post some criticism of Piketty's theories...but that criticism is probably wrong. We're already seeing the evidence that Piketty's predictions are being borne out in the outcomes of the pandemic.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 pm**

But why do we accept that?

Here first thing I could find.

The average grocery worker in 1966 made $2.02 an hour.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflat ... 6?amount=1

$2.02 an hour in 2020 money is $16.07 in 2020 money. So, is the grocery worker making at least $16.07? Have they reaped any of the benefits of all of the productivity gains of the last 55 years?

Rich get richer, poor get poorer. In this scenario, the middle class are poor.

But why do we accept it?

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:44 pm**

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 pm But why do we accept that?

Here first thing I could find.

The average grocery worker in 1966 made $2.02 an hour.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflat ... 6?amount=1

$2.02 an hour in 2020 money is $16.07 in 2020 money. So, is the grocery worker making at least $16.07? Have they reaped any of the benefits of all of the productivity gains of the last 55 years?

Rich get richer, poor get poorer. In this scenario, the middle class are poor.
But why do we accept it?

Cheap stuff. Aspirational hope/opiates for the masses. And a system designed to benefit the 1%.

I mentioned it earlier, we're approaching 9 years since Occupy Wall Street. It was successfully put down and pretty much left little trace. What do we do now if we don't accept our lot?

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:47 pm**

Daily Deals:

West of Dead DE -32% $19.99 $13.59

Eastshade -50% $24.99 $12.49 (78)

Midweek Madness: PC Building Simulator -50% $19.99 $9.99

Weekend Deal: Street Fighter V -60% $19.99 $7.99 (89)
- free to play weekend

QuakeCon sale

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:51 pm**

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:52 pm**

That certainly is random.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:54 pm**

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 pm But why do we accept that?

Here first thing I could find.

The average grocery worker in 1966 made $2.02 an hour.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflat ... 6?amount=1

$2.02 an hour in 2020 money is $16.07 in 2020 money. So, is the grocery worker making at least $16.07? Have they reaped any of the benefits of all of the productivity gains of the last 55 years?

Rich get richer, poor get poorer. In this scenario, the middle class are poor.
But why do we accept it?

Because capitalism. You're acting like this is all new to you and I can't believe that is true.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:55 pm**

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:52 pm That certainly is random.

Cheap games keep us down.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:59 pm**

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 pm $2.02 an hour in 2020 money is $16.07 in 2020 money. So, is the grocery worker making at least $16.07? Have they reaped any of the benefits of all of the productivity gains of the last 55 years?

Probably not, but it's close.

They've reaped a hundred times that in benefits.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:36 pm**

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:59 pm
LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 pm $2.02 an hour in 2020 money is $16.07 in 2020 money. So, is the grocery worker making at least $16.07? Have they reaped any of the benefits of all of the productivity gains of the last 55 years?
Probably not, but it's close.

They've reaped a hundred times that in benefits.

For practical purposes, everyone got those benefits. Longer lives. Lots of cheap tvs. Cell phones. Less crime, etc. That doesn't mean that wealth inequality isn't a massive issue. Or that inequality and the policies that enable it are almost certainly implicated in our inability to address the massive problems that are strangling our nation.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:55 pm**

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 pm But why do we accept that?

Here first thing I could find.

The average grocery worker in 1966 made $2.02 an hour.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflat ... 6?amount=1

$2.02 an hour in 2020 money is $16.07 in 2020 money. So, is the grocery worker making at least $16.07? Have they reaped any of the benefits of all of the productivity gains of the last 55 years?

Rich get richer, poor get poorer. In this scenario, the middle class are poor.
But why do we accept it?

Because voodoo economics. Before Reagan, both parties understood that the economy flourishes from the bottom up. (Well, not the actual bottom, but the middle class up.) It's going to trickle down any...day...now....

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:19 pm**

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:36 pm
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:59 pm
LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 pm $2.02 an hour in 2020 money is $16.07 in 2020 money. So, is the grocery worker making at least $16.07? Have they reaped any of the benefits of all of the productivity gains of the last 55 years?
Probably not, but it's close.

They've reaped a hundred times that in benefits.
For practical purposes, everyone got those benefits. Longer lives. Lots of cheap tvs. Cell phones. Less crime, etc. That doesn't mean that wealth inequality isn't a massive issue. Or that inequality and the policies that enable it are almost certainly implicated in our inability to address the massive problems that are strangling our nation.

That's kind of a non-sequiter.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:54 pm**

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 pm
The average grocery worker in 1966 made $2.02 an hour.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflat ... 6?amount=1

$2.02 an hour in 2020 money is $16.07 in 2020 money.

(bolded for emphasis)

I know time has lost all meaning because of the pandemic. I guess value has lost all meaning as well.

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:22 am**

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:19 pm
malchior wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:36 pm
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:59 pm
LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:40 pm $2.02 an hour in 2020 money is $16.07 in 2020 money. So, is the grocery worker making at least $16.07? Have they reaped any of the benefits of all of the productivity gains of the last 55 years?
Probably not, but it's close.

They've reaped a hundred times that in benefits.
For practical purposes, everyone got those benefits. Longer lives. Lots of cheap tvs. Cell phones. Less crime, etc. That doesn't mean that wealth inequality isn't a massive issue. Or that inequality and the policies that enable it are almost certainly implicated in our inability to address the massive problems that are strangling our nation.
That's kind of a non-sequiter.

How so? Unless I'm getting the benefit you are describing wrong I am attempting to address the core of the logic in the claim. I'll rephrase if it helps, the idea is that waitresses wages haven't kept up but they got all the "benefits" of the advance of 'technology' and increased purchasing power for goods, right?

If so, my argument is that the emerging picture is that the "price" for that rising of all tides has been that the wealthy have been keeping an increasing share of the capital and income. Over time that price has cost the middle class more and more. They are struggling to pay housing that is three times the cost in relative terms for the average person since the 1970s. Their education costs grew well above inflation as did health care costs. So they indeed got a benefit but there is an implicit chasm opening where they increasingly can't afford the 'core staples'. In other words, to Lawbeefaroni's point, the opiates of cheap goods and gadgets has distracted them from the fact that they can't make ends meet. On top "wealth hording" has made it increasingly difficult to fix societal problems.

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:30 am**

It's far better to be in the lower class in modern American than in ancient Rome or whatever, but that's cold comfort when medical bills wipe you out completely or you have to work three jobs just to eke out security and and place to raise your kids. This, while those just a couple of rungs above you live like emperors.

Octopus Overlords

Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness