Red_October

It's just a soft sell on Slavery Lite, all the oppression with only half the calories.

That orange stain on history is the only one who SHOULD be detained in Alligator Auschwitz.

If I went to all the trouble of hacking you and I emptied your bank account and savings, I'd get $12.

If I emptied Sony's accounts, not only would I have potentially millions or more, but I could also get industrial secrets that could be worth even more, or possibly could be used to further my own electronics industry.

One of these isn't worth the effort.

In what context would that ever be useful?

If the secret police are trying to find you, they could turn on your flashlight and make hiding harder?

Broadly speaking, Feminism does mean to oppose sexism and level the field between men and women. There are of course going to be people, overwhelmingly men, who are opposed to that in the first place, but we don't care about their opinions right now.

Unfortunately, some people have taken to using the label of Feminism not to advocate for women, but to attack men. This comes in both the form of denigrating men as a whole and also attempting to erode their rights specifically. I don't think it's an especially large group, but rather is fairly vocal by nature and their message gets amplified by men eager to feel like they're actually the victims. Either way, it does somewhat taint the well of "Feminism" when a portion of it's purpose seems to just flip the oppression, rather than eliminate it.

Anti-sexism then is a more neutral term that doesn't have that "Us vs Them" mentality baked into it. It also has the added benefit of including advocating for those who don't strictly define themselves as Men or Women, being a term that opposed sex-based discrimination of all forms. Ideally, Feminism and anti-sexism would be basically synonymous, and in most use cases it would be understood to be. When presented side by side, though, the finer details will stand out more.

It's almost like a qualified and effective government isn't his priority.

You seem to have missed the point. Whether or not you think that would be an easy job, the whole reason you'd be there is to be the one that takes all the blame when the autopilot kills someone. It will be your name, your face, every single record of your past mistakes getting blasted on the news and in court because Elon's shitty vanity project finally killed a real child instead of a test dummy. You'll be the one having to explain to a grieving family just how hard it is to actually pay complete attention every moment of every day, when all you've had to do before is just sit there.

This technology purely exists to make human drivers redundant and put the money in the hands of big tech and eventually the ruling class composed off of politicians risk averse capitalists and beurocracy. There is no other explanation for robo taxis to exist.

There is another reason, though, and it's much simpler. Basic greed.

There are people who see the opportunity to make more money for themselves, so they'll do it. When it comes to robo taxis, they're not interested in class struggles, it's not about politics, their interest in making human drivers redundant extends only so far as increasing their customer base. These aren't Machiavellian schemers rubbing their hands together and cackling at their dark designs coming to fruition, it's just assholes in suits who's one and only concern is "number go up."

Even when it comes to their politics and to the class dynamics, their end goal is always the same. Number go up. They don't care about what harm it could do. They're not intent on deliberately doing more harm, they give no thought to doing less harm, they do not care. All that drives them, ever, is Number Go Up.

Remember guys, Tesla wants to have a living person sitting behind the wheel for "safety." Don't YOU want to get paid minimum wage to sit in a car all day, paying attention but doing nothing unless it's about to crash, at which point you'll be made the scapegoat for not preventing the crash?

Welcome to the future, you're gonna hate it here.

No, it won't "possibly pay off." It might not explode in his face, and it's an important difference. You don't get to push the world to the brink of a new world war, and then not actually start a world war, and act like you're a hero for averting war. That's like someone walking into a crowded theater, shooting two people, and then calling themself a hero because they didn't shoot a whole bunch more.

Just a reminder, Iran already HAD a nuclear-averting deal before Trump decided to abolish it. The very threat he claims he was trying to stop only existed because he killed the safeguard against it in the first place.

Yeah a big gamble, who knows what might happen if people think he's a liar!