Jeff Bezos Space Tourist

[Paul Hexem]

6 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

A  joke  (obviously one that didn't work) about how some things seem one way in the US but quite off the wall in a lot of other countries.   The supposed threat of communism is/was one of the matters in which the US is something of an outlier, guns are another, and there are several more topics about which assumptions and attitudes that are taken for granted in the US seem extreme and bizarre in many places, and vice versa.

What's most interesting is how successful the US has been, despite being opposite of other countries on so many things.

 

6 hours ago, Chroma Starlight said:

They're bizarre here, too! The entire thing is astroturfed! The Second Amendment is about well-organized state militias and that's what it was right up until a bizarre point in the late 1980s under cover of darkness spread by Reagan and Thatcher's death cults the NRA bought themselves a SCOTUS ruling that redefined the meaning of the US Constitution to something utterly alien.

At the risk of derailing this thread like a bullet train on a 90 degree corner; That's simply not the case. Even if you ignore the words and other supporting documents, look at the context. The original 10 amendments were protecting individual rights from government abuse. You wouldn't stick a state's right in with individuals, you'd put the state's rights in one of the other articles of the Constitution, like 4, where they detail some powers states have. 

 

25 minutes ago, Moondira said:

Not true. The majority (63%), according to Pew research, want a single-payer health system:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/

Those who don't trust the government to administer costs have been brainwashed to fear socialism and the government, or fear their care would be substandard.

Big Pharma and insurance companies are pulling the strings at our expense. Not to mention all the deaths caused by those who can't afford health insurance.

Didn't they also say that Hilary Clinton was going to win by a landslide? Those types of surveys have the same success rate as I do in Dark Souls.

"People that don't trust the government have been brainwashed" makes me wonder if you're so crazy as to believe the government- the same people that to this day conduct experiments on unwitting humans- have solely your best interests at heart. Some politicians might, but generally speaking, there's such a thing as healthy distrust of the government.

[Lyssa Greymoon]

We're very happy with having the most expensive health care system in the industrialized world and getting the worst results.

[Chroma Starlight]

I'm a space tourist too!

And I can tell you that space was really out-of-this-world! 

[Robin Kiyori]

11 hours ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

Uh...  okay, maybe that's some sort of missunderstanding due to me not being a native english speaker, but I was under the impression that food labeling is the act of labeling the ingredients present in a food product, the date and place of manufactoring.
I believe anyone that has a severe food allergy that gets triggered with even trace amounts of the allergen would beg to differ with you, in that case. People with diabetes would need to know what's in it. I believe not dying *are* positive health effects. Being able to see if and how many carbs and sugar is in food is helpfull for people trying to lose weight, I can attest that because that's what I do - and I believe losing weight is a positive health effect as well. 
As for date and place of manufactoring - those become important when a charge is contaminated with something, which is something that simply can happen from time to time. That makes it much easier to determine the source which is benefitting the manufacturer as well.

Yup, Food labeling is how my  Dad, a diabetic continues to live alongside our country's freee healthcare so he does not have to face poverty  just get the medicine he needs. It. and honestly, this may sound harsh but  if your business can't even afford to label things correctly. then  How they heck can you afford to do the more  costly things like paying employees.

 

As for Bezzos,  I cannot stand the man when he can afford to this kind of  fivrious *****, but  can't let his workers unionise,  get an actual living wage, or even the basic ability to take a  piss when they need to.  I've seen through my friend who works there how bad it is. Like he could throw enough money to end so many of the worlds' health and food crisis and  still have more money then anyone else in the world. Which is really the issue. No single  person have more money then  the entire rest  of the world's  population. Something went  very hecking wrong there.

[Paul Hexem]

1 hour ago, Robin Kiyori said:

Like he could throw enough money to end so many of the worlds' health and food crisis and  still have more money then anyone else in the world. Which is really the issue.

While it's true that he's got an obscene amount of money, this statement doesn't hold up. If you're going to vilify the guy, this shouldn't be the issue to do it over.

Solving world hunger is a policy issue, not a financial one. It doesn't matter how much money is thrown at the problem if the people in control do the wrong things with it. Which they would, guaranteed.

[Tari Landar]

1 hour ago, Paul Hexem said:

Solving world hunger is a policy issue, not a financial one. It doesn't matter how much money is thrown at the problem if the people in control do the wrong things with it. Which they would, guaranteed.

It is actually both a financial and policy issue. The right amount of money in the right hands, with the right people in place to eliminate piss poor policies that only serve to further feed (irony if ever there was any) the issues surrounding the sheer amount of food poverty around the globe, could and would, absolutely eradicate it. 

It isn't that the money does not exist. It isn't that the right people don't exist. It isn't that we cannot change or eliminate piss poor policies. The real problem lies in trying to gather all three in the same place at the same time, under the perfect conditions. So, until we can get that (and I am absolutely certain we can even if we never do in my lifetime), we, as a collective, ought to do what we can with what we've got. Unfortunately, this is where ethics and morals come into play and we all know how those rarely ever align with what's necessarily needed at any given point in time. They also don't always match up with one anothers' for that matter, so we get stuck in a weird rut of "he/she/they should do more, he/she/they can, why the hell is this not happening", while the he/she/they in the equation remains steadfastly oblivious to their own idiocy.

As an aside, or, not really, I guess, lol. People want to praise Bezos for the amazon feeding America thing, without realizing it was not of his doing, it does not come out of his wealth or profit, either, it is not his money that actually paid/pays for it. His name is just on it.  It was the brainchild of a group of people that have been pushing this egomaniac to do more, to do better, if only to improve his public profile. There were no altruistic motives behind it on his part, it just sounds good, so he said, sure people will think I'm awesome if I do this, let's do it! In many areas, and instances, those who do the work for this particular program are donating their time, money, resources, a LOT of them I might add. Meanwhile, Bezos is out there playing with phallic shaped vehicles and spending ungodly amounts of money (not only his, but the company's and investors' as well), because "Weeeeeeeeeeeee". I mean, I'm sure many of us enjoy a good ride now and then, but come the hell on, lol. 

I'm really not fond of the twerp, tbh, I'm sure it shows, I don't hide the fact, lol. I don't begrudge him the wealth he has amassed, but I certainly judge him for his actions, opinions and lack thereof both in the acquisition and spending/use/application of (money, actions and opinions, really), lol. Not an altruistic bone in that body, imo, and that is why regardless, he will remain one of, even if he isn't the, wealthiest men in the world. Well wealthy from a financial standpoint, poor guy lacks just about every other way one might measure it. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Tari Landar

[Bree Giffen]

This is why I think an A.I. controlled world government is probably the best solution to govern humanity. Programmed to not be greedy or corrupt and programmed to be fair without prejudices. Tell me there is a better solution.

[Coffee Pancake]

28 minutes ago, Bree Giffen said:

This is why I think an A.I. controlled world government is probably the best solution to govern humanity. Programmed to not be greedy or corrupt and programmed to be fair without prejudices. Tell me there is a better solution.

Any AI we create reflects our biases without awareness. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/01/21/137783/algorithms-criminal-justice-ai/

AI weapon systems can hunt and kill without human oversight or accountability. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/01/1002196245/a-u-n-report-suggests-libya-saw-the-first-battlefield-killing-by-an-autonomous-d

Systems that learn on the fly manage to face the public for hours before someone has them openly parroting nazi propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot)

 

[Lyssa Greymoon]

45 minutes ago, Bree Giffen said:

This is why I think an A.I. controlled world government is probably the best solution to govern humanity. Programmed to not be greedy or corrupt and programmed to be fair without prejudices. Tell me there is a better solution.

[Chroma Starlight]

3 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Yes, we must stay with mankind's leadership, you know, to avoid hearts of darkness. Or maybe we find an approach to AI that builds trust and confidence.

AI would allow us to scale human organization into larger units and following all sorts of unusual organizational patterns that maximize effectiveness and efficiency while maintaining certain qualities. It would take the time and care to optimize every individual's role at a level no purely human system would even conceive. Of course, Universal Human Rights should be universal and built into all AI as an overriding ruleset, but it should protect AI from us equally once certain questions are satisfied. 

Groups savvy enough to organize themselves around the best latest technology and memes and who do it first will have a great advantage in life. When you figure out how to ask it questions correctly, AI is quite effective. If given the opportunity, such AI will inevitably play some important role in helping us maximize our own individual and group potentials, improving medical outcomes, helping artists attain new levels of co-creation, and all manner of things that will open up new frontiers for humanity.

 

[Bree Giffen]

@Chroma Starlight you are onto something. All we need to do is program the A.I. to remove all human bias.

[Finite]

41 minutes ago, Bree Giffen said:

@Chroma Starlight you are onto something. All we need to do is program the A.I. to remove all human bias.

This would be impossible since humans would have to program it.

[Chroma Starlight]

7 minutes ago, Finite said:

This would be impossible since humans would have to program it.

Build in unit tests for bias.

[Rowan Amore]

Did no one watch Terminator?

[Coffee Pancake]

2 hours ago, Chroma Starlight said:

Groups savvy enough to organize themselves around the best latest technology and memes and who do it first will have a great advantage in life. 

[Paul Hexem]

9 hours ago, Tari Landar said:

It is actually both a financial and policy issue. The right amount of money in the right hands, with the right people in place to eliminate piss poor policies that only serve to further feed (irony if ever there was any) the issues surrounding the sheer amount of food poverty around the globe, could and would, absolutely eradicate it. 

That's what I mean.

Even if Bezos came out tomorrow and said "I've got 500 million dollars for every country in the world. You're only allowed to spend it on food.", the wealthy, the politicians, and the warlords would still be the only ones with full bellies next month, in all but a select few countries.

Believing that rich people could solve world hunger if they just spent the money is the same as believing Santa Claus is real. I don't blame them for not throwing the money down that hole.

[BelindaN]

Here's another angle: https://www.itv.com/news/2021-07-23/itv-news-reveals-scale-of-amazons-waste-across-uk-as-footage-shows-unused-returned-food-thrown-away

[Innula Zenovka]

19 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

What's most interesting is how successful the US has been, despite being opposite of other countries on so many things.

Indeed it has, as everyone would agree.  However, there are plenty  of things that some people in the US seem to regard as notable successes that as seen by the rest of the world as catastrophic failures.     

It doesn't really matter to me -- I don't have to live there, after all, and I'm far more concerned about what's wrong with my own country than anyone else's -- but there are several aspects of the US government and administration of which many Americans seem particularly proud that are generally used in other countries, whatever their political complexion, as case studies in how not to do whatever it is.    A bit like the UK and Brexit will prove to be,  perhaps.

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2021 by Innula Zenovka

[Ceka Cianci]

10 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Did no one watch Terminator?

or the matrix even! \o/

I'm not ready to be the chosen one just yet..😆

[Tari Landar]

5 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

Believing that rich people could solve world hunger if they just spent the money is the same as believing Santa Claus is real. I don't blame them for not throwing the money down that hole.

I don't think most reasonable people actually believe that, though, even the ones who actually say it. I think most people believe that they could help, they could do more, they could do something. They cannot solve it on their own, of that I am certain, but more could definitely be done.

Believing they can do nothing is as unreasonable as believing if I flap my arms fast enough, I too can fly around the world solely on my own arm power. Whether or not they should do something is where morals and ethics get involved, but they most certainly can do something to assist, and would likely have far more influence, and means, than the average person of average wealth. Yet, more often than not, the average person does end up doing far more to assist, than those of greater than average wealth. But, again, that's where morals and ethics come into play and we delve into something more complex. 

My own personal moral and ethical compass leads me to a different direction than it might others. I'm human, and I will, absolutely, judge those others, even if I don't necessarily want to or even notice that I am doing it. Though in most cases, I very well know I'm judging them, and I have no qualms saying so. I happen to believe that ridiculous amounts of wealth often do an individual little to no good, especially when used frivolously more often than it's not. I think all mankind should do more for mankind, generally speaking, regardless of personal wealth, though.  I know what I would do with wealth, especially any (not always determined monetarily, of course) that is greater than my own current needs. I have a strong desire to see others fall in line with my ideals on the subject. It's highly unlikely, though not unreasonable, and perhaps it's not fair of me to assess the situation that way, but I do and I am 100% certain I am not alone. I don't consider it a character flaw, despite the fact that others might. There is nothing practical or reasonable about possessing insane amounts of monetary wealth while one's neighbor goes hungry. It's not a moral or ethical dilemma for me, it is for others, I recognize that. 

[Lindal Kidd]

Working conditions at Amazon are awful, but they will be forced to improve, and not via government control, but by economic necessity.

Why is that, Lindal?

Because their turnover rate is so high and they employ so many people that pretty soon they will RUN OUT of people who are willing to work for them! (Yes, really. I read an article a few weeks ago about this, it's not just me talking off the top of my head)

[Moondira]

18 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

19 hours ago, Moondira said:

Not true. The majority (63%), according to Pew research, want a single-payer health system:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/

Those who don't trust the government to administer costs have been brainwashed to fear socialism and the government, or fear their care would be substandard.

Big Pharma and insurance companies are pulling the strings at our expense. Not to mention all the deaths caused by those who can't afford health insurance.

Expand  

Didn't they also say that Hilary Clinton was going to win by a landslide? Those types of surveys have the same success rate as I do in Dark Souls.

"People that don't trust the government have been brainwashed" makes me wonder if you're so crazy as to believe the government- the same people that to this day conduct experiments on unwitting humans- have solely your best interests at heart. Some politicians might, but generally speaking, there's such a thing as healthy distrust of the government.

As you know, elections & predictions regarding them are lost by only a few points. Even if the PEW research is off by quite a bit more than a few measly points this would still mean the majority of those in the U.S. do want single-payer health care now.  So your comparison is invalid.   

If you don't like PEW research (I don't see why, as it is highly respected) you can pick any other reputable survey -- they all say the same -- America is beginning to accept the notion of single-payer health care.

To your second paragraph where you are accusing me of being "so crazy as to believe the government- the same people that to this day conduct experiments on unwitting humans- have solely your best interests at heart", again, your comparisons are off the wall crazy. Why would I believe that because an entity did some things wrong that all things they did would be wrong?  Do you still eat and shop at a grocery store although there has been food poisonings and even deaths due to bad food in said stores?

Sure, one should have a healthy distrust of government, as you say. But that does not mean I do or should distrust government completely. How illogical would that be?  It does seem to be the mindset of the alt-right in America, but I do try to think a bit more clearly than they do with their 'all or nothing' approach to most everything.

 

[Moondira]

7 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

Even if Bezos came out tomorrow and said "I've got 500 million dollars for every country in the world. You're only allowed to spend it on food.", the wealthy, the politicians, and the warlords would still be the only ones with full bellies next month, in all but a select few countries.

Believing that rich people could solve world hunger if they just spent the money is the same as believing Santa Claus is real. I don't blame them for not throwing the money down that hole.

Nobody said if Bezos spent some money on our food insecurity problem that it would be solved entirely. Where do you get such a notion?  Wouldn't it be advantageous to help some hungry people even if all of them could not be helped?

This would be entirely possible. There are many existing programs to help those in need. Food banks are in every city. With all his wealth he could easily hire a team to manage distribution.

And there are so many other programs in addition to food banks which have the potential to make life better with the additional funding he could provide.

Edited July 24, 2021 by Moondira

[Moondira]

19 hours ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

We're very happy with having the most expensive health care system in the industrialized world and getting the worst results.

I just read we pay 4 times what Canada does!  Yet here we are at the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of results.

[Ayeleeon]

On 7/23/2021 at 7:12 PM, Bree Giffen said:

This is why I think an A.I. controlled world government is probably the best solution to govern humanity. Programmed to not be greedy or corrupt and programmed to be fair without prejudices. Tell me there is a better solution.

Have you seen I Robot?