cf-d-ycom

I'd like to be proven wrong on this point, but it feels to me that this trend is two things, individuals and companies reaping the benefits of technological improvements towards efficiency, and _ALSO_ the revealing redundancy of more and more work.

It seems to me that the negotiating power of workers is largely connected to the dependency of the people that hired them to the output of those workers. As that dependency diminishes (ie. by realising technological advancement and thereby reducing work hours from 5 days to 4 days for example), it seems unlikely that these improved benefits will flow to the workers, as the required* negotiating power to get them is vanishing.

*required in the sense that going on strike becomes much less powerful, and with technological advancements in hiring/remote work, it increases the possibility of replacing the striking workers.

Also, this is largely going to affect the pyjama-laptop class, not anyone that actually needs to be somewhere, and perhaps is revealing that they have largely filled positions they could be significantly reduced.

I'm guessing the coming global recession(that the tech layoffs imply are coming to at least that sector) should be a way to see if these predictions are any where close to right, or just nonsense rambling.

Is not also the "idea of a social construct" a social construct? And by extension is also arbitrary and meaningless?

And surely then every idea of any category is dissolved as meaningless and arbitrary, and then reason itself is absurd?

Also, would there not be value in the words from someone who had experience with moral corruption? If I wanted to hear what the world was like outside the city walls, I'd expect that person to have gone outside the city walls before.

What if the advice that would really help someone just happens to be from people who are all below this person's purity test bar?

And perhaps a slightly more liberal approach would be that racism applies to ideas/worldviews/modes of communication rather than baked into people.

There is research to indicate people respond to visual cues as an indicator of in-group/out-group tribalism, but that mental software can be overrun by observing the individual as opposed to categorizing the individual into a group. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/look_twice This would be connected to one's communication that can be overcome.

As well as this, G. Loury describes racial stigma, which is to observe existing race gaps as a combination of past racist policies, exacerbated by present egalitarian/meritocratic policies, where the inequality is incorrectly ascribed to innate, immutable characteristics of race, rather than a consequence of an individual/hobbled community starting 50 meters behind everyone else in a 100m sprint. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc241a.pdf This would be connected with one's worldview which can be overcome by understanding racism within history, as well as global weather distributions, and geographical resource distribution (Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond).

And I don't think I need to cite anything about racist ideas not covered by the above can be overcome by using enlightenment values and unifying messages.

I'd say trump has proclaimed some very racist ideas which run against enlightenment values and consequently are repulsive. There are obviously some percentage of followers of trump that hold worldviews that I'd find repulsive due to my alignment with enlightenment values. That doesn't mean the ideas these people hold are immutable.

Whilst my main political priority is minimising inequality at large, which in this context will disproportionately assist populations currently in poverty and resolve a lot of racial tension and racial stigma, policies that DON'T assist communities suffering from poverty should not be assumed to be racist, but rather are exacerbating gaps generated from previous racist(read discriminating by skin colour) policies. Whilst it might be unpalatable, I believe it is more realistic when you consider a large part of the American dream is about pulling yourself up from your bootstraps.

Also, Trump holds positions on economics that resonate large swathes of the American populous in communities that have been decimated by both automation, and job exportation, as pointed out by Andrew Yang. And as scarcity replaces abundance, individual's sphere of compassion shrinks. As a general example, consider who you would be considerate to if you were in an unescapable location undergoing famine.

Whilst I appreciate the desire to simplify the world around you which all humans try to do, I think to try to compress an individual's political worldview into 3 binary dimensions is dropping the majority of an individual's motivation.

I'd say that the main cause of racial gaps is historical institutional racism, that are exacerbated by today's egalitarian/meritocracy policies practices. And since the 1970s, corporate America began it's ascendance to decimate the middle class, rural America, collective bargaining, profit over economic equality, and almost completely corrupt the political system. This means to me that the biggest problem in America is political corruption and corporate power/corruption which results in increased inequality. Solve that and I think America's other problems of racial stigma, various important gaps across populations, lack of national pride, strength of democracy locally and globally, and the decreasing ability to pursue happiness in America would be much easier to solve.

This is just one Australian's opinion though. I might be wrong about the whole thing.

I believe so yeh.

So the base case that they prove is S(1). And the inductive step is to show: S(1) ->(implies) S(2) -> S(3) -> S(4) -> ....

Or to write it more succinctly, that S(n) -> S(n + 1) assuming S(n) is true.

In this particular problem, the proof that is provided can be used to show S(2) -> S(3), that S(3) -> S(4), etc... are valid and true.

However, the proof could NOT be applied to show that S(1) -> S(2).

So whilst you CAN assume S(2) is true in a proof, the whole inductive chain needs to be attached to a valid base case.

Yeh, that makes more sense.

Potentially. However, I believe the inductive step is correct. I could be wrong though.

ie. If you assume S(2) is true, lets prove S(3), consider a set of 3 people, {a, b, c}.

apply S(2) to {a, b} are therefore the same age, apply S(2)_ to {b, c} are therefore the same age, this implies a.age == b.age == c.age, there for S(3) is true. The inductive step is done.

Thats what I thought made this a mind bender.

So this article shows that you can infer S(n+1) from S(n) for n > 1, and a base case of S(1) is true.

However, you can't infer S(2) is true from assuming S(1) is true in the same way, ie. a group of 2, could be represented as two groups of S(1) and S(1). You can't claim these two S(1) groups share the same age.

This means that the base case and the inductive step are not connected, which means the proof is invalid.