I get that, and while that's super out of touch with pretty much everything, to me, that's the least weird thing about this

Lets go with his logic and pretend we do need roommates for chores.

Out of all of the chores he thinks I need help with he thinks it's making my bed? Not dishes, or cleaning, or shopping... making my bed? And not even my own bed, he thinks I have a roommate who comes into my room and makes my bed for me?

He thinks we all have strangers living in our houses to make our beds for us?

Yeah it's stupid as hell that this man thinks we have roommates as maids instead of people to help pay bills, but it's even more stupid that he thinks the #1 chore that we would need these people for is bed making. And now that there's a robot that can make your bed for you, that's it? That's the end of roommates?

I don't need a robot to cook for me or clean for me or anything else? Bed making is the end game?

WTF is wrong with this man. This is all so fucking weird

This is just weird

I looked it up thinking there had to be more to this that just isn't pictured here. We're missing context or something

I can find nothing.

This guy literally thinks people have roommates to make their bed for them?

Even thinking people have roommates to help with chores, instead of bills, why the fuck would he think the main chore we need help with is "making my bed"?

Like I'm going to bring somebody else into my house so they can make my bed for me? My bed? That's weird as fuck

I literally had a bunch of my comments removed for saying this same thing

Your problem isn't capitalism per-say, it's a government that supports corporations over you

Doesn't matter what system you technically have, if the government cares more about businesses than they do you, you're fucked

You're not allowed to use the navigation or anything while the car is in any gear other than Park in my car

I can't stress enough that most of AI is not used to create art

Can it do this? Yes. Is that what the majority of people engaging with AI everyday are doing? no.

The fact that this is your concern leads me to believe you know nothing of what AI is actually doing in society

ok, this is funny

You know Uncle Tom was basically the perfect human right?

That's the point of the book. Pro-Slavery people use to argue that slavery wasn't that bad so long as your slave master treated you well; so Uncle Toms cabin is a book about a flawless human who is also a slave named Uncle Tom that literally every single person who ever meets him deeply loves and respects but is powerless to stop anything bad from happening to him because he's not legally a person

If Uncle Tom sucked in any way the reader could always justify the bad shit that happened to Tom not as a result of his legal status, but as a consequence to his shitty actions or personality.

It destroys in every way the argument that slavery can be fine if your slave masters treat you well and for this reason it's rumored to be the book that broke the proverbial straw and kicked off the civil war.

I found articles from 6 years ago that says that uber drives have the choice to turn you down if they think you're too drunk or obnoxious

I would have thought that was always the case, but maybe not.

So it reads to me that it's not that Uber will be like, "he's legally drunk, he can't use our service", it's, "I went to pick this guy up and he was vomiting and his pants were falling down so I decided to turn him down"

It should be noted I did not actually click these links and read the articles or anything, that's just how it appeared. So, take it with a grain of salt. I might have read the articles except I don't drink so I don't really care

Again, I can't tell if you're serious with this reply or if this is another joke

BERNIE FUCKING SANDERS

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/does-medicare-all-end-private-insurance-depends-which-candidate-you-n1005071

"Harris made a decision early in the race to run on single-payer Medicare for All, specifically a bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would effectively replace existing private health insurance plans with a souped-up version of Medicare that covers more than the current program and requires no premiums or deductibles.

Asked by CNN's Jake Tapper at a town hall in January whether she really intended to ban people's existing private coverage in favor of this new Medicare plan, Harris didn't flinch."

This is almost 7 years old now and you still don't know this was a big part of the election? I'd say I'm shocked but I guess I shouldn't be because you probably didn't read any articles about the presidential candidates either

No, that was literally one of the options the Democrats were proposing. It was a bill drafted by Bernie Sanders. There were other options, but one such bill that could be backed was one that literally abolished private insurance entirely

Holy shit, how do you have such strong opinions if you don't even know what was going on?

Oh I know, because you never actually read the fucking articles

That's exactly what flat earth supporters say about NASA

It's not an opinion piece on health care. Nobody said anything about if universal health care is complicated or not. It's an article about the economic impacts of a potential sweeping resolution that abolishes private health insurance. It's also almost 7 years old and no longer relevant.

Are you an economist?

Then why do you think you know more about this subject than the actual economists in the article? Are you a journalists who specializes in writing about the business of health care; particularly in how financial incentives affect the way medicine is delivered? Then why do you think you know more that then Journalist? Especially when we consider that the journalist in question has been doing this since the late 90s and specializes in, "scrutinizing the financial interests of insurance companies and hospitals".

And the NYT in general is rated, "Leans Left"

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-news-media-bias

Funny how you know it's absurd to think you know more than the experts when it comes to things like medicine or science but when it comes to economics you and everybody else in this sub has it all figured out right?

Or do you also think vaccines cause autism and the world is flat?

you always focus on "kill art", that's not what AI is

Can it make images, short animation clips, songs? Yeah, but that's not what people are using it for.

You guys really need to understand that or else nobody is going to listen to you

Anyone who thinks AI's big selling feature is that it can do art does not understand how people are using AI

You think you know more about Economics than literal Economic Professors and yet you can't even figure out how an analogy works

They didn't. The tweet says that Medicare for all would abolish Private insurance. At the time, this was correct. The Medicare for all legislation that was being discussed was going to do literally that. Abolish private insurance

Then there's a quote that says, "There's no precedent in American History". This is also true. Private Health Care, for better or worse, is a trillion dollar industry that employs over half a million people nation wide and makes up a decently sized portion of peoples retirement portfolios, never in this history of America has such a thing existed one day and been destroyed the next

The tweet didn't say anything about private insurance being good or bad. The tweet didn't say anything about the abolishing of private insurance being good or bad. It just stated two facts.

They're talking about doing something that has never been done before

Somebody who didn't read the article decided, for no real reason at all, that it was a hit piece and replied. Then somebody else who didn't read the article thought the reply was this epic sick burn (even though it's stupid as fuck because it has literally nothing to do with the article) and then shared it on sites like reddit to a bunch of other people who didn't read the article and left a bunch of other stupid as fuck comments.

Here we are almost 7 fucking years later, and you're all still idiots still not reading the article, still sharing the image because you think it's relevant, and still commenting like you know something

Worse, is that when I point out that it's stupid as fuck to comment on something you haven't read, you guys think I'm the idiot. That's how fucked we are. Your own reply to me proves you know clickbait exists and you still don't think you should read the article before forming an opinion about it. That's beyond fucking stupid.

Just read the fucking article. Educate yourself. That shouldn't be a crazy thing to ask people to do

The article doesn't say any of that

When people can't tell if you're joking, it's a problem with your sub, not the joke

Poe's Law - without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views that someone won't mistake for the real thing. You cannot tell the difference between extreme satire and genuine stupidity or fanaticism because real-world opinions have become just as ridiculous as jokes.

I don't think Capitalism is the problem at all, the problem is a government that supports big corporations over small business

You want to go to the store and see a variety of TVs made by a variety of companies all competing with each other for sales by producing higher quality products for less money

The problem is that this is not what happens. Not because of Capitalism, but because of the government

I like to use the example of NYC Hot Dog carts

In theory I could pull out my grill, cook up a hot dog, and sell it to you for a buck. Why would you buy a $6 hot dog from the Nathan's Hot Dog cart when you could by mine for $1? Now Nathan's Hot Dogs have to compete with me, so they lower their prices or lose all their sales to me; capitalism

But, the government won't let me do that

Now on one hand, that's good. You want to know that the hot dog you buy is cooked well and cooked on a clean grill. If anybody could sell hot dogs anywhere at anytime the streets would be lines with hot dog carts and walking down the sidewalk would be near impossible. So you want the government to force business licenses on people, require inspections, and issue permits on who can sell where

However, you need the government to care more about you than they do Nathan's Hot Dogs. Let's pretend there are four spots available on the corners at Times Square. If the government gives all four spots to Nathan's Hot Dogs they now have a small monopoly on that block and can sell worse hot dogs at higher prices because people will still buy them due to a lack of options. It's not technically a Monopoly because there are other hot dog sellers in NYC, but locally, they control Times Square

So you need the government to not do that. You need them to make sure that all four corners go to different hot dog sellers

But, you need the government to do their homework. Giving the four corners to Nathan's, Ball Park, Oscar Myer, and Bores doesn't really do you, as a consumer, a lot of good. These are four huge corporations and while it's not technically legal we all understand that they could easily just agree to sell hot dogs for $7. Not that they have to sell them at this price, they just all kind of agreed to do so because they're all greedy corporations

Maybe they met up at a high-roller casino or charity event. Or maybe it's just a simple nod and a wink or a friendly email informing the other corporations that "unfortunately" Ball Park has to raise prices on hot dogs and the other CEO's understanding that this is a request asking if they want to do the same. "We at Oscar Myer are also in the unfortunate position of possibly having to raise prices to $7. We hope Ball Park understands"

How it happens, I don't know, that's not my point. My point is, the government handed the corners out to major corporations who continue to price gouge and offer worse and worse products. It looks like there is competition at Times Square, but there's not.

Or worse, the government doesn't do their homework (or they do and just don't care) and they hand the four corners of Times Square to Nathans, Sheinhardt, and Williams. Now it looks like there are two small companies competing with a corporation. But upon further inspection we find that Sheinhardg and Williams are owned by Nathans and Nathans Hot Dog corporation owns Times Square. You have the illusion of choice, but there is no actual choice. The name on the cart is meaningless as all of them belong to Nathan's

So you need the government to make sure shit like that doesn't happen. That Nathan's and Ball Park get two spots, but the other two go to small companies that will actually force real competition

The problem we have today is that the government does not want to help you, they want to help Nathan's and Pepsi and Google. So the laws and regulations in place aren't designed to hold them back and give you the upper hand, it's designed to keep you from being able to even begin to compete while handing them what is essentially a Monopoly on markets

So yeah, you can go to Best Buy and find rows of TVs all from different companies but every single one of them is essentially the same over priced piece of shit trash filled with spy ware and advertisements

And yeah, maybe you do have the skills to make a TV without that shit and sell it, but good luck actually doing so. You need licences, permits, inspections, etc... you have to strike deals with Best Buy to get your TV on the shelf, you have to purchase licences from Netflix or Disney to run their apps, you have to buy licences from Microsoft or Apple or Roku or whatever for their OS, etc...

By the time you do all of this, you have to cut corners to lower the cost of production and jack up the price

But if the government cared about you, they'd make it so that those companies can't do that shit to you. They'd work with you to encourage you to make a better TV

But you don't have enough money to grease the right palms in congress

So Capitalism isn't your problem, a government that doesn't care about small business is