i just learned that my @Inoreader will AI-read-aloud arbitrary RSS feeds. hmm.

“It's no wonder that Zuck thinks that chatbots can replace our friends… At some foundational level, he thinks we are all chatbots” @pluralistic pluralistic.net/2025/08/18/see ht @carolannie

sociopathy is a full time occupation, and it does require staff.

opposites are alike in most ways. hot and cold are both temperatures, have much more in common with one another than they have with green or tall.

and so it is with human adversaries. the bitterest of enemies are always more alike than different.

what has hurt stack overflow more, “cozywebification” (discord, etc) or “ask AI”?

@dpp @petrillic at this point, i’ll say i’ve no idea. by traditional metrics, yes, it’s a bubble, but it has been for a long time.

crypto has proven, though, that assets can fly strictly on game theory for a long time, and crypto doesn’t (well, ‘til recently hasn’t) enjoyed the tacit but assertive backing of the economic policy apparatus.

i’d agree most likely collapse scenarios would see both crypto and equities plummeting, but there are also flight-from-USD scenarios that might favor crypto.

in reply to @dpp

i wish the correlation between exhaustion and ability to sleep were stronger.

Congratulations! You are invited to apply.

distinctions btw money and equity and debt are much more a spectrum, a continuum, then we mostly acknowledge, and tremendous good could be done developing instruments between currently conventional points along this spectrum. see moneyontheleft.org/2025/08/13/ ht @jwmason

i mean, who would you go to for advice on how to run free and fair elections?

so many AI videos are just the marketing of marketing.

@Phil @adamgurri Yes. But we improve on nature. In a state of nature, you and I both would almost certainly be dead. (I’ll be 55 soon.)

We do, as a society, have to work. But the terms on which we work and organize the proceeds (for humans it is always a “we”, even on the savannah, our survival is as a group) are negotiable and improvable. A good society, like the Nordics, both ensures individuals have a lot of choice and control over how they work, and succeeds in engendering abundant work.

in reply to @Phil

@Phil @adamgurri yes. in the Nordics too. people literally get away with quitting and living off the dole. they’ll be harassed a bit by well-meaning helpers, but they won’t be homeless or hungry.

yet they don’t. we don’t need the whip hand of immiseration to have a decent society. you choose to work even though you don’t have to, even though you’d not be poor if you didn’t. that is far from slavery. it is choice. in the Nordics taxes are high but almost everyone chooses work. 1/

in reply to @Phil

@Phil @adamgurri slaves are the people for whom, if they lose their job or don’t accept a job no matter how much they detest it or feel like its terms are unfair, will lose their homes, be short of food, have no health care, watch their children suffer. and we have a lot of slaves in the US, unfortunately. but you are not among them. (thank goodness!) /fin

in reply to self

@Phil @adamgurri labor force participation is higher in the Nordics than it is the United States. you can have a society where people understand they are getting a fair deal even as some of the value of their labor is shared. they don’t sulk away, do nothing, choose to be poor.

in reply to @Phil

@Phil @adamgurri the vast majority of business regulation is local. but some regulation does need to be Federal.

in reply to @Phil

@Phil @adamgurri now you sound like a Marxist.

if an employer sells my work product for $10 and pays me only $5, am I 50% a slave?

not if I have a reasonable option to take another gig or not to work at all. if labor markets are really competitive, you could argue i’m paid the maximum owners can afford. but they usually are not, usually owners are extracting substantial “surplus value”.

doesn’t render the work slavery, if workers have meaningful alternative choices. you do.

in reply to @Phil

@Phil @adamgurri you are not a slave for any of the years. those are the terms on which you work at the income level you are at. you can choose to, or choose not to.

i agree there is a ton of bad BS in rules and regs. the art of regulating is to do it well, not to do it or not to do it. just as you see government folly behind most of the ugliness, private influence, both in preventing necessary regulation and imposing self-interested regulation, behind our collective nightmare. 1/

in reply to @Phil

@Phil @adamgurri (at some level, it’s arguable a chicken vs egg question. the only answer is to improve our institutions.) /fin

in reply to self

@Phil @adamgurri many of the highest margins are in the least regulated industries (unless you view intellectual property law as regulation). you don’t need government for predators to acquire market power. you do need government if you want any hope of addressing it.

in reply to @Phil

@Phil @adamgurri i’m glad you pay your workers well!

the lowish prices you enjoy at the grocery store are made possible in part by very low paid pickers and meatpackers. the checkout lady can’t live off 40 hours. she’s unlikely even to be given 40 hours, at least as much as topline wages retail workers struggle with inconsistent and insufficient hours, rendering everyday life impossible both to pay for and to plan. 1/

in reply to @Phil

@Phil @adamgurri the prices you pay at restaurants, well that hostess might make $10 an hour. the waitstaff are all entrepreneurs, living on the limited upside of tips with little guaranteed income. our very expensive hospitals farm out much of their work to not-so-well-paid orderlies and assistants. etc. 2/

in reply to self

@Phil @adamgurri i’m not a socialist. i’m a social democratic. that means free enterprise, but with boundaries. you can earn ten time more, maybe a hundred times more, than the least of your colleagues, but (after taxes) not a thousand times more. and the money those who would become very rich don’t keep ensures a decent baseline for everyone. /fin

in reply to self

@Phil @adamgurri I hope the subsequent 37 have been longer and so, so much better. (Although not, like, paradisiacal. We’d not have the benefit of your orneriness if it was all roses and angel’s wings.)

in reply to @Phil