Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

The US can just impose a reciprocal tax on Polish tech’s US earnings.

Who knows what the British government acutally means when they say ‘AI’? I doubt they do.

And I assume there is a sliding scale from what I described my excel speadsheet is capable of today, to whatever it is they hope AI will eventually interpret. And in fact barring the inevitable fuckups AI probably can eventual handle a lot of interpretation currently carried out by human civil servants.

But honestly I would have thought that all of this is obvious, and that I shouldn’t really have to articulate it.

My main point is that they claim they will save one million jobs (so sack one million people) and this will somehow boost the UK economy. I don’t see how it can.

Covid really showed that most jobs are not essential. I would suggest most jobs exist because the people exist to do them: a situation an increasingly small number of people have got themselves into a position to profit from.

What happens when AI takes away swathes of bullshit jobs but the people still exist? Silicon valley is hoping to make AI functional enough essentially leave somebody else holding the bag, after emptying it of goodies. For some reason, the UK government seem to think this will be a boost to the UK economy: I’ll assume basic cluelessness until I see some other reasonable suggestion.

My excel spreadsheet does it on a daily basis.

This is boring.

Serious.

1. Fill in form online
2. AI analyses it, decides if applicant is entitled to benefits.

Why do you ask the question?

Presumably ‘AI’ can make simple rules based decisions, if done properly (unfortunately, being the UK government this is a big ‘if’).

But what exactly is sacking a million people supposed to do to the economy?

Carney is a neo-liberal banker. Him being the best option really isn’t a good thing.

You have conflated health labels on alcohol - the point of this thread - with graphic images on cigarette packages. An afterthought in the post I replied to.

I will not be wasting a second reading that.

Edit - also, please note, in your second reply in this mini-thread you claim you never questioned the effectiveness of health warnings, when this is exactly what you did in the post I replied to. You are a timewaster. Post evidence of your original assertion and I will read it.

Provide evidence and I will read it.

I am not interested in baseless claims that may or may not be relevant.

I am not the slightest bit interested in the majority of your post, it is irrelevant. However I will say that I sense you might assume political affiliations I do not have.

what’s the alternative to nuke sharing? Germany builds its own arsenal and you have no stake or say in it whatsoever. Does that sound more appealing to you?

If Germany are allowed under international law to build nuclear weapons then it is their choice whether they do so or not. I don’t mind either way.

Edit - and you downvote this too.

There is a complete lack of reality here. You mistreat the UK when it chose to leave the EU. You continually conflate Europe with the EU. You talk about building a European army, comprised of EU countries, excluding the UK from your EU-driven version of Europe, then you expect the UK to weaken our relationship with the US and give you our nuclear weapons! For nothing!

When the silliness of it is pointed out to you you downvote. I guess this is where lemmy is at.

Here is a life lesson for you: if you don’t deal with reality, expect reality to deal with you. American liberals are learning this. It looks like European liberals are going to learn this too. I can tell you I wish all Europeans would learn this quickly before we are all forced to learn the hard way.

Not only were health warnings self‐identified as an important source of health information about smoking, but also an effective means of communicating health information. The results provide evidence at both the individual and country‐level that health warnings on cigarette packages are strongly associated with health knowledge.

…

his pattern is best illustrated in the case of smokers’ knowledge of impotence. Canada was the only country where packages carry warnings about impotence, and accordingly, Canadian smokers were almost three times more likely than smokers from the other three countries to believe that smoking causes impotence.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2593056/#sec14

Honestly, blah blah blah I don’t think it would change much of anything blah blah blah is just really silly. The information is out there, why not look at it?

Musk’s various ponzi schemes, up to the Artemis-killing SpaceX fiasco, were coming due. Trump provided the opportunity for him to pivot into government, by replacing it with his AI, gps with starlink, air traffic control with whatever he comes up with, etc etc etc, making himself even more too big to fail. The US government the latest offering on the ponzi|pyramid. Trump’s ideology aligning with Musk’s own true beliefs is a bonus.

It will severely weaken the US in direct measurable short and long-term ways, to the point it is a real disaster for the US. Those to blame are all those that never called him out throughout his rise. Not to mention those governments (Republican and Democrat) who fed him public money throughout the entire period.

Edit - Bezos’s The Washington Post is apparently supporting him now. No surprise, they want an oligarchy. The Democrats are moving rightward, they are more or less happy with it too.

I guess it is some version of the land of the free home of the brave, but maybe it is the freedom to do what you want if you’re rich, and have been brave enough to brazenly take everything and exploit everyone.

Edit - these posts will get downvoted. If only you could downvote reality away, eh?

Well clearly we did hold cards. The very post you replied to has pointed out exactly the cards we held, and still hold.

What I will say is remainers (including the UK government charged with managing the negotiations) weakened the UK’s bargaining position just like your attitude would weaken the UK’s position going forward.

But this isn’t a brexit argument, that is a long-resolved issue.

This is about the UK’s relationship with the EU. And notice I say EU, not Europe. I read media reports conflating the EU with Europe every week. Even this week talking of EU countries creating a ‘European Army’: well if they are going to define Europe as ‘EU countries’ (a corporatist takeover of the continent, if you like lol and most certainly something that I have read week in and week out, in corporate/billionaire owned/‘mainstream’ media and on subreddits alike, for years) so be it. Why wouldn’t we maintain our special relationship with the US, and lean towards Russia, while maintaining our friendly relationship with China, given that the UK has been redefined out of Europe anyway? Kind of like Stalin editing his now-dead-former-rivals out of historical photos.

You reap what you sow.

Now if the EU wants the protection of our nuclear weapons, or even if they simply want the UK to intentionally weaken the special relationship with the US, then they demonstrate how they have significantly changed their attitude towards the UK on an ongoing basis and they redefine the EU’s power in Europe, and they pay economically.

If not that, then you get Reform, and a UK that is completely aligned with Trumpism, which the easily riled won’t believe is something that I very much do not want to see.

Edit - these posts will get downvoted. If only you could downvote reality away, eh?

They did everything they could to weaken the UK. To punish the UK for deciding to leave the EU.

No quarter given.

But the reason people voted to leave the EU was the importation of cheap Eastern European labour that was used to undermine pay and conditions for British workers of every origin. Saying brexit was the result of ‘Russian interference’ is as reductionist as saying ‘Hilary’s emails’ was why people voted Trump in first time around.

The BBC and others framed the debate as EU ‘liberalism’ v xenophobia. (But political liberalism is the soft-and-fuzzy glove of socially liberal policy hiding the hard-and-ruthless fist of economic liberalism/neo-liberalism/Reaganism-Thatcherism) v. something xenophobic.

The reality on the ground was far more complex. Like in the US, the stories of poor people harmed by political liberalism were ignored. They still are being, hence Trump 2, and the rise of Reform in the UK. As long as they are ignored the Reform party will continue a rise to power and you will see a UK split from EU countries further anyway. Here I am just describing the most extreme possible version of that.

It might not sound like it but I would rather the UK have closer ties to Europe, including freedom of movement. But that is a different story to wanting closer ties with the monolithic, corporatist EU who harmed UK workers. You can’t have freedom of movement without adequate protection of worker’s pay and conditions. The EU did the opposite, harming workers for the benefit of corporations.

But ok, I am very happy to agree to disagree on all of the above.

If it was reasonable for the EU to treat the UK badly over brexit, then it is more than reasonable for the UK to give no quarter back now that Germany are asking for the protection of our nuclear weapons.

Now, to some degree the UK is going to remain aligned with the US. Our military and intelligence capabilities seem to be very much intertwined. The alternative for the EU is a UK completely aligned with the US, Russia, and a friend of China. The EU winding back the harm they have intentionally caused the UK is a small price to pay to avoid this. I don’t believe any rational politician would disagree.

Perhaps they should have been reasonable when the UK decided to leave the EU.

You can’t downvote reality away.

I doesn’t look like us Brits can completely break with the US in military or intelligence terms, at least for the time being (if not foreseeable future). But closer military co-operation with the rest of Europe clearly has to happen, assuming maintenance of our nuclear capability isn’t completely reliant upon, or tied up with the US.

Late edit (after a few people upvoted this post) - given the disgraceful way the EU treated the UK during brexit negotiations this sharing of nuclear weapons should come at significant economic cost to EU countries that might want it. I mean, the alternative, a UK aligned to the US and Russia, military bases and nuclear weapons ready, full of US bases, puts the shitty way EU countries were happy to deal with the UK into a bit of perspective.

The Chinese are going to build their biggest embassy in Europe in London about half a mile or so from the US embassy. I’d guess the UK will continue trying to play a mediating role.

This is what Canadian and European rivals of the US should have been doing for some time, and should be doing now.

Unfortunately I think there is a good chance that history will come to view brexit as a warning shot that was ignored.