It's relevant because a lot of people here might think this is news.
I.e. this lawsuit isn't taking place because it was just discovered. So a question becomes, why only take action now? Is this actually a case that has a chance of winning, or is it a political stunt?
ackshually I don't think that's the best case, but indeed very likely. SCOTUS judges (politicians in robes, really) are first selected for their pro-business bent.
The word 'scheme' means that it isn't true if it's only true effectively. If you concede that Amazon didn't deliberately work towards this outcome, you concede that it's unfair to call it a scheme.
> "Here is an annotated version of the Citrini Memo with my own intro. It is analyslop - scare-fiction written to ingratiate AI boosters and analysts/traders with tales of ultra-automation and socialist data center policies. Shameful that the markets reacted at all."
It is well know that big corporations take good regulations and change them to make them:
1. Easier to bypass for themselves.
2. Create extra work for incumbents.
3. Convince the public that the problems are solved so no other action is needed.
In many industries goverment and corporations work together to create regulations bypassing the social movements that asked for the industry to be regulated and their actual problems. The end result are regulations that are extremely complex to add exceptions for anything that big corporations paid to change instead of regulations that protect citizens and encourage competition.
See the Mattel lead painted toy scandal. The end result was congress passed regulations that manufacturers had to have their toys tested for lead and then made large companies like Mattel exempt from it because they were deemed large enough to handle it on their own. Even though they were the reason for the legislation because they weren't handling it on their own. Mattel sells lead painted toys and congress responds by hobbling their competitors.
I think it is cynicism; at least, there’s an idea that once a company is dominant it should want regulation, as it’ll stifle competition (since the competition has less capacity for regulatory hoop-jumping, or the competition will have had less time to do regulatory capture).
I call that "hidden inflation", and if I were to guess, the ongoing degradation of services across the board, in every aspect, can easily account for actual inflation figures being half of what it feels they should be.
It's the tiny things. Like, you visit a beauty salon or restaurant today, and compare it to the same or equivalent place 5 years ago. PDF menus instead of paper. Apps for booking instead of support staff. Leaflets where there used to be magazines to browse. No complimentary coffee. Kitchenware that used to be pristine and high-quality, is now the cheapest offering for commercial wholesaler. There's less light, worse decor, no music (or louder music, to boost turnover), worse sound-proofing, etc.
Sure, the prices are the same, or maybe little higher. But the overall quality of service - not just direct service, but whole experience and ambiance - took a nosedive, so you pay a little more, for much less.
You start looking for it, and the slow decay of everything becomes apparent even on the scale of months.
Is it not literally true that he is calling for action from the populace without doing it? You all can only lift a finger to downvote a literal call to action lmao
I didn’t say “illegal immigration” I said being “anti-immigration”. Not sure why you’re mentioning Bernie—think that’s more a comment on your politics than mine.
But to be explicit: The current administration’s deportation push is racist. The administration is racist. If you think there’s any other rationale you’re either lying or being duped.
This is irrelevant.