I don't think you'd make it far as a hunter-gatherer if you had physiological myopia. Both of my parents are severely nearsighted (my dad around -4 or -5, my mom is worse than -8), and all of my siblings have myopia. It's definitely genetic too, but for less severe myopia, I think it's our environment.
In such a world, if we still kept cats as pets, how would we feed them? Would non-industrial, more small-scale farming of animals be able to sustain that, or would exceptions need to be made? I use cats in this example since they, unlike dogs, are carnivores, and they must eat meat to live healthily (unlike us, where a bit of supplementation is enough for entirely vegan diets to be viable).
I'm curious how problems like this would be dealt with in a vegan world. Just let the cats loose on the local rodent and bird population, maybe?
Are there historical examples of this ever happening in any significant numbers? This idea that people en masse just won't work and live off of the state where opportunities for work are reasonably available seems more like a boogeyman than a real thing. (obviously, if work is not really available, I can see this happening, but I wouldn't describe the people unable to find work as "leisurely" in that case)
Legally, the corporation itself is similar to a person and has rights unto itself, as stupid as that sounds. Those rights are different from those the individuals who run the company have.
At home, a tenkeyless GMMK with box white switches, and at work and on the go, I use a Redragon K649 Pro, which has some custom switches for their clear keyboards, but it's a smooth linear that feels and sounds nice. The redragon has 2.4 and Bluetooth and wired, I use it on Bluetooth most of the time, and switch to 2.4 if it's a device I'm only hooking up to once.
The person you replied to said many of them were armed, then said more than one did that, and you took that to mean that's the only reason any of them do that? I think you misread.
The original source in the top comment of this thread is much better than the hit piece linked in the thread itself. Read that and see if your comment is still accurate, because as much as Zuck is a terrible human, this article is presented really dishonestly.
Can you think of anything you can do that is exclusively a positive behavior? Drinking water in excess kills you, excess breathing kills you, excess exercise kills you, I think the logic here can be used to sow the seeds of uncertainty in nearly anything, honestly.
The problem with his work is that a lot of the conclusions he comes to are a step too far, but the problems he identifies with how money is moving or how much datacenters cost or how no one has ever built a 1GW datacenter and we're expected to believe they can build a bunch of them, or even a 10GW data center - those are real.
I am not so sure that those are actual problems? I mean, "they're problems" - but everyone is still acting like it's 1996! The world is changing fast...
And if he can consistently be so wrong on those things, and has no real education in the field, then why the hell should I listen to him when he's screaming FUD at the top of his lungs?
It reminds me of the gold guys who constantly talk about how the dollar crash is mere months away. One day that is likely true, but when those guys predict it month after month and get it wrong all of those times, I don't really take their theses seriously.
There's certain figures he gives that paint the picture well enough without him having to really even make the argument. For example, in his piece "The More You Buy, The More You Lose"[1], a few paragraphs in, he says:
"Hyperscalers will have sunk over $1.3 trillion dollars into generative AI by the end of 2026, and have plans to spend a trillion dollars more next year. On a very rational level, nothing that large language models (LLMs) have done, do or will do in the future can or will ever bring in the more than $2 trillion (or more) in brand new revenue that will be required to make any of this worth it."
He explains some more numbers in the following paragraphs (that aren't needed to make my point), but the problem isn't even that AI can't make any money, it's that the scale of the money spent is so colossal, what they would need to do to actually make it back is insane! They'd need to actually replace most of the workers in the world because that is such a ridiculous, unimaginable amount of money! It outclasses all of their combined revenue significantly, and remember, these companies don't tell us how much money they make from AI (anymore), they bundle it in with other things, and if it was good, you know they'd be shouting it from the rooftops how much they were making.
I also don't take seriously any of his predictions that have dates attached to them - after all, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. I don't trust his timing, but the numbers don't lie.
reply