> Sometimes my work will give me problems which I'll continue to think about even outside of my customary working hours. Sometimes the solution will come to me as I'm doing something else. Does that mean I'm working 168-hour weeks?
If you are working on them for 168 hours per week, then yes it does.
> I doubt my employer would.
No, and nor should it. They can't and should not control what you do or think about outside of work hours. Presumably they aren't asking you to do any of that.
"But our brains can't just turn off" -- sure, and a lot of blue collar work has a significant cerebral component too and people think about what they've done or will do on their time off. Your body is also tired and worn down on your days off after hard manual labor. Working in public facing jobs can take a strain on mental health. Etc. None of that is explicitly accounted for as line items, it is just taken as a cost of the job and presumably implicitly factored in to cost of labor as part of supply and demand if nothing else.
Axed EV subsidization, openly called EVs -- and climate change -- a scam, and then made noises about cutting emissions standards, and aggressively pursued fossil fuel expansion?
That and threw tariffs on the auto makers parts and imports such that their businesses are under threat?
GM just axed the Bolt again. The only domestic affordable EV. Stellantis killed all of theirs, from what I hear. And Ford has pulled back as well.
I don't understand your questions, please rephrase them.
Anyway I'm still curious about the mechanism the administration used to direct manufacturers to stop producing EVs, and how they could invoke such a power without covering Telsa or Rivian. Nothing about the administration would surprise me, but I'm surprised there hasn't been more noise made about it.
The idea that companies need "cover" to perform layoffs (particularly in the US) doesn't make sense to me. Tech companies, all companies lay people off regularly. (To a first order approximation) if a worker is a net positive to a company then the company will want to keep them, and if they are not then the company will want to get rid of them. AI or no AI.
I’ve seen many essential people being laid off for stupid reasons, the gp reason above being part of the story for some. Finance runs the world not tech. Tech is only welcome when it helps finance else it is marginalized.
Seems like the cover might be for investors. If a company is shrinking but you don't want investors to know it's shrinking, you can say you're improving productivity with AI.
The unscientific regulation, and in some countries bans or practical stoppages and embargoes on approvals and research, of nuclear power under the guise of saving the environment has been probably the most environmentally destructive initiative ever to come about, and the largest self-imposed contributor to "the worst environmental crisis in human history". The coal industry loves it though.
Needless to say, I disagree with your assessment. Every [action by governments and bureaucrats] is motivated by the desire for personal gain or to perpetuate the power of the state or both.
Environmental regulation, workers rights, drilling for oil in Alaska, making up stories about WMDs to invade Iraq, domestic spying are all fruit of the same tree. Don't let them fool you, the good of these things is never the primary goal, and in many cases does not even exist. And "environmental regulation" is a big culprit.
> Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated.
>> The unscientific regulation, and in some countries bans or practical stoppages and embargoes on approvals and research, of nuclear power
Parent comment language isn’t entirely clear, but depending how you interpret it, it can be said that far more harm has been shown, in reality, from nuclear power than from climate change.
> Parent comment language isn’t entirely clear, but depending how you interpret it, it can be said that far more harm has been shown, in reality, from nuclear power than from climate change.
But it can not be said that far more harm has been shown, in reality, from nuclear power than from burning coal for electricity. It's actually the opposite.
This is a good joke, but it's also true that the whole charade of trying to look "institutional" and "fact-based" was a pretty decent way to go about pursuing the US agenda. "Hey we are the good guys, we show you real numbers" was a good line to push, and it could often show up the opposition as cranks and liars.
Nowadays, nobody even pretends to not be a liar, from any side. There is no debate that even attempts to look at the facts - it's vibes all the way down and fuck you if you don't agree, only money and guns matter. In the long run, this can't hold.
Your grievance is that we won’t have good cover to pursue our interests when they conflict with the sovereignty and security of others? You think it was good to lie and say that we’re the good guys while we inflict harm on others?
Looking like you are trying to pursue the general interest is how we all get things like international tribunals, supranational organizations where conflicts are discussed and sometimes resolved, coordination to raise health standards and address natural disasters, etc etc. If the price to pay for those activities is sneaking in the occasional spy, or being a bit overzealous when defending certain business interests, I think it's worth paying, yes.
That order was not perfect, but the alternative is going back to the naked power struggles of the XIX century, which ended in global carneficine - and the next time it will be so much worse.
Thanks for clarifying your position. I do see that model as only temporarily possible but eventually reality catches up with the propaganda, the Iraq war being a somewhat recent example. Also, as a citizen the previous model is also essentially requiring the government to lie to us, so I don’t think that as good either, because who will be benefiting from these “good guy” adventures?
> eventually reality catches up with the propaganda
Actually, I don't think that's necessarily the case. Look at the Chagos deal: that's the new reality created by international organizations catching up with the naked power of the original occupation, and pushing it into a corner. Again, far from perfect outcome (why Mauritius, etc etc), but quite a step forward from brutal colonialism. Humanity wins some and loses some, but at least we're still in the game. If we just give up and accept that might makes right, we slide backwards into the jungle.
Then don't watch "Everything is a Rich Man's Trick" that was what showed me a bit of the under dealings of how that organization was structured and created.
Spoiler: The CIA was formed around rich people's interests and continue to represent them, not in fact, the American people. Harsh reality but helpful to know.
The CIA was formed in 1947 and the first known controversy was in 1953. And has a whole list of controversies since then. From giving citizens LSD, wiretapping citizens, to supporting Central American cocaine distribution. And this is where you draw the line on trustworthiness? Lol
> One of the most prestigious universities in the US offers perks to those who say they have ADHD, night terrors, even gluten intolerance. You’d be stupid not to game the system
Used to be that was called fraud and it was considered wise not to do it. I guess all that is in the past these days.
> If we beat the Chinese somehow, I don't think they'll just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth.
The Soviet Union won the "space race" of course (or perhaps Germany did if you define it as suborbital space flight), it just lost the "man on the moon race". In any case, after losing the man on the moon race, the Soviet Union did not just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth. They continued to invest a great deal in their civil, scientific, and military space capabilities after 1969.
Will the Chinese Communist Party similarly collapse in the 2050s? Perhaps not, but they will be going through significant demographic decline from the 2030s; they are increasingly in conflict with the west and with their territorial neighbors; they may become involved in significant military conflicts (e.g., over Taiwan); their current leader has consolidated power and succession could be spicy. So who knows? It's not inconceivable. China would surely continue and continue a space program as Russia has.
Those things were pretty clear well before 2-3 years.
Social media is seen as a driver for people having opinions deemed a threat to the status quo. Western governments have been fighting a long battle to use these tools to control domestic influence and at times have probably thought they were winning, but recently things seem to be turn a bit.
"Think of the children" is obviously the oldest and most pathetic trick in their playbook. We know it's a bald faced lie because data and studies on social media harms on children has been coming out for well over a decade by now, and not a finger was lifted for years. So we know that is not the reason, and we know they are lying about the reason. Therefore we know the real reason is seen as unpopular with the electorate. And curbing foreign (including US government) influence and access to data is not unpopular anywhere.
If you are working on them for 168 hours per week, then yes it does.
> I doubt my employer would.
No, and nor should it. They can't and should not control what you do or think about outside of work hours. Presumably they aren't asking you to do any of that.
"But our brains can't just turn off" -- sure, and a lot of blue collar work has a significant cerebral component too and people think about what they've done or will do on their time off. Your body is also tired and worn down on your days off after hard manual labor. Working in public facing jobs can take a strain on mental health. Etc. None of that is explicitly accounted for as line items, it is just taken as a cost of the job and presumably implicitly factored in to cost of labor as part of supply and demand if nothing else.
reply