Man, when I predicted that libs will suddenly see Palestine as an issue now that Trump is in office, I didn’t fully realize that they’d use the fact that they purposefully buried their heads in the sand as proof things were better back then.
I can agree with that general viewpoint even though (I assume) portrait painters got paid more relatively since they work more hours than photographers. I don’t even think I blame AI on the fact the post production was all cut, but instead blame it on the “hype” surrounding it. My industry at large is still operating at 40% of typical since covid which is unrelated to AI, but jobs getting cut for the explicit purpose of trying AI still stings. 1/3 of post was laid off prior to covid because workers in South America were much cheaper. AI is just the new excuse for an existing problem.
So anyway, I’m planning to become an electrician now.
I wouldn’t say “every time new technology appears” since portrait painters definitely got replaced by photography as a widespread industry and a structural shift did happen. Technology in general tries to reduce human effort because human effort is expensive. Any expense that can be shaved down year after year to make more profits will be made regardless of if the quality is consistent. AI doesn’t need to be as good as creatives to replace them (either in part or in whole) eventually. It just needs to be “good enough”. And the thing about technology is that it’s always trying to get to a point to replace people whether it’s there yet or not. Photography couldn’t replace portrait painters initially due to color and image quality, but it eventually got there.
The CEO of a company I worked for decided to fire all the people in post production because he was convinced AI could replace humans in that department. He then sold the company after realizing AI wasn’t the magic solution he thought it was.
So it likely doesn’t matter if AI is replacing jobs or not if the people in charge of the workforce believe it can so much that it impacts decisions. The results are the same.
Arguably more successful is Abraham Lincoln. Though, it might be more accurate to say that the newly formed Republican party didn’t kill the Whig party; rather the Whig party killed itself due to not listening to their constituents (which seems pretty relevant to our current situation)
If the voters are too apathetic to what the DNC is offering, the thought of abandoning them for something that is much more popular isn’t a contradictory prospect. Having an enthusiasm problem so big that trump was able to be elected twice kinda points to the fact that people want something else.
people whose politics is premised on empathy
You must not have read this part. Republican politics don’t rely on empathy, but democratic policy supposedly does, thus less turnout for a less empathetic democratic candidate.
But you clearly used a slur that was removed
Choosing current republicans and current democrats is choosing the weapon to be used against you and especially against minorities. Both parties choose to uphold a system that relies on “winners” and “losers” to exist, which makes both of them willing to use minorities as a cost of maintaining profits and systemic power. Why is it acceptable to think it is better to choose the less lethal weapon instead of doing literally anything else to try to prevent all this systemic violence?
Yeah my ideal scenario is something NFC based. I have a bunch of games across a bunch of launchers and emulators and I always get the ADHD issue where I forget I have certain games if I don’t see them. Little NFC cards with game box art printed to it would be amazing for this.