HN user

anthonyarroyo

29 karma
Posts2
Comments14
View on HN

Unfortunately (fortunately?) your rebuttal assumes that 1) companies can move easily from country to country and 2) companies are motivated entirely by profit.

As for 1, countries have many ways from persuasion to coercion to keep companies in their sphere of influence. There are plenty of business-unfriendly countries in this world that somehow retain businesses. In the real world, there's friction.

In my cursory research, I find 2 to be, once again, a liberal-democratic assumption which relies on our particular barrier between public and private. This barrier doesn't exist the same way everywhere: some corporations operate as extensions of nationalistic projects. Gazprom's relationship to Russia is different than Apple's relationship to the US. Samsung (and other Chaebol corporations) has a different relationship to the Korean nation than Google has with the US.

If, as this guy contends, the future economy won't adapt to automation as it has in the past, it will lead to massive unemployment and social instability.

When threatened with massive social instability, smart countries will regulate automation. Countries that fail to regulate will face rising social instability and eventually eat themselves alive, being taken over by countries that are more stable. Political elites will regulate automation purely out of the interest of keeping their jobs.

All of these technofatalist arguments (the technology is coming, so why fight it?) fail to take into account that Angloamerican laissez-faire politics are not a global inevitability.

I agree that we should stop calling them farmers, it allows them to leverage all the Norman Rockwell good sentiment.

I have family who farm lavender, grapes, pomegranates, etc. They work hard and they are a small operation. They are farmers.

This pistachio guy is a run of the mill corporate shitbag and should be reminded of such.

As someone who has a defibrillator with remote-access capabilities, I'm thankful that Jack was trying to bring this vulnerability to light.

"Schooling in general is a waste of time because it caters to this idea that life evolves around English, Math, Art, Science and General Knowledge. But real life doesn’t, and these things don’t help children figure out what they are good at or enjoy."

Sorry to nitpick, but how can life not evolve around General Knowledge which, ostensibly, includes all knowledge. Agree with the sentiment, disagree with the argument.

"The greatest disservice to a cause is to defend it with poor arguments." -- Some Famous Guy Dead Guy Who Couldn't Program