Sounds like narcissistic tendencies, when you stop feeding them they come back.

Had an ex like this too, the moment I called her bluff and said I was going to grab boxes to move out she changed her tune since the power dynamic shifted. Then she wrapped the conversation around how we should try again and it wasn’t that big of a deal what I’d done, etc.

Most of them just don’t want to admit anything they’ve ever said was wrong so the perspective changes and gaslighting starts to creep in.

An entire generation of people was convinced this would make them shredded cause of Dragonball lol

Trust me, I used to do a lot of calisthenics. You can build endurance that way, but it’s difficult to cultivate strength and size when you are theoretically limited to whatever your bodyweight is. Eventually you just feel like you have to do a thousand push ups to get a good chest workout when you could just go hit the bench or cable fly machine and get similar results in a fraction of the time.

This article says virtually nothing, giving examples of how automated systems have human backups (no shit) and mostly focusing on two fiction novels where those backup solutions are hidden to the public. It doesn’t really make any kind of a statement about how automated transportation solutions are inherently bad, it just pretends that having a human operator backing up the system somehow changes or reduces the value of it, and insinuates that we shouldn’t make any kind of attempt at technological innovation because fiction novelists were able to show how it could look dystopian if you construct the narrative in such a way as to make that happen. As if black mirror hasn’t already illustrated that it’s possible to do that with virtually any technology.

The conceptually simple possibility that better transit options could be provided by government, as a collective undertaking for the public good—and that this might be preferable to developing a radically new technology—is treated as an obvious non-starter.

Ah, here we go. The whole article could have just been this one sentence, as it’s the obvious focus of the message.

1. The government doesn’t do anything. When it has a need for say… Construction of a new transportation system, they hire a private company that does such a thing and uses taxpayer money to accomplish this. We refer to it as “public” due to the source of the funding being from the taxpayer, but the government doesn’t usually do that work themselves, they simply contract it out.

2. Once more with this idea that alternatives to vehicles are somehow “simple” or “preferable” to developing new technology, as if that’s ever a question someone asks when they try and create something for the consumer. “Does this fulfill a need that the government could do for us instead?” Absolute nonsense. Refer to point #1, all government projects are just private industry operating on taxpayer money. Even if you asked the government to accomplish this task, there’s no telling what the solution would be. It could be that it’s cheaper to develop self driving cars than it is to construct a national high speed rail network, or alter city design to accommodate a light rail system where it wasn’t included initially.

3. No one asks if developing any given technology is good/bad, we just do it and then let society decide if it has value or not. To ask why we attempted to create self driving cars instead of something else is to completely misunderstand how and why new technology gets created in the first place. We do it because we can, and because there’s an obvious use-case.

This is pretty good satire.

Drink idiots hit things in cars all the time.

Make the test to acquire your license actually difficult to the skill level required instead of the “you can take two left turns and park shitty, here’s your license” level of difficulty that most states use for road vehicles.

Calm down MacOS hasn’t done shit to make it better. They decide what you do and don’t get, daddy apple already made the decision and you have to deal with it.

“We did the thinking for you, and you’ll like it.” Might as well be their slogan.

What about guitar music and anti-capitalism is inherently cyberpunk?

It seems like you played CP77 and went “yeah this is what cyberpunk is about” even though it’s just one entry into a genre that’s existed since the 80’s.

Blade runner had a lot of synth, so most likely that I guess.

The amount you’d save not hiring physical ticket sales workers would absolutely dwarf any amount of possible dev salaries for one website.

“Hey, we saved money by computerization, so we’re gonna pass that cost onto you!”

“Don’t you mean ‘pass the savings onto us?’”

:D “Nope!”