65
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by yokonzo@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

Of course as concerning as the implications are, a small part of me is thinking “ooooh I can’t wait to see what they create”

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well." ~Andrew Ryan, Bioshock

This is the origin story IRL for Rapture lmfaoo

[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And like Rapture this will be a total success*!

*The term success is not defined in the scope of this comment.

[-] Mahlzeit@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

“I am Andrew Ryan, and I’m here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? ‘No!’ says the man in Washington, ‘It belongs to the poor.’

How do Americans feel about this attitude?

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

[-] ripcord@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I assume you mean the overall libertarian screed here and not the thing about Washington saying it belongs to the poor.

Most think it's stupid.

A bunch say it makes sense but don't really understand it or are naiive.

A few do understand it and say they support it, but don't really when push comes to shove. Or support for knowingly dishonest reasons.

A few do understand and genuinely support it.

[-] Mahlzeit@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was really asking about that specific bit. The idea of the state doing much to help the poor seems a little dated, from what I see of USA politics on the internet. I don't see much opposition to redistribution, but then, neither do I see much favor for it.

ETA: Thanks for the answer, though.

[-] DemBoSain@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

I would rather it go where it can do some good, instead of into the hoard of another billionaire.

[-] TrenchcoatFullofBats@belfry.rip 2 points 1 year ago

"Would you kindly vote against your interests?"

[-] Mahlzeit@feddit.de 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“ooooh I can’t wait to see what they create”

My first thought was: "Isn't that obvious?"

My second thought was: "Wait. You can do that cheaper in Japan."

It's just a scam. Every couple years, some guys sell a ship to some naive libertarians.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

The arrangement it makes with adjacent governments is nowhere near as important as the arrangements it makes in regard to physical security at sea.

Sealand is a stone's throw from the UK mainland, and even though it is not technically British it benefits from the UK's very well protected shipping lanes and coastlines. Other parts of the world, not so much. For example, they can park this thing off the east coast of Africa and have zero interference from local governments -- for the day and a half it lasts before getting stripped bare by pirates.

A government that won't interfere is likely also a government that will not protect them. They need to choose their location wisely.

[-] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 3 points 1 year ago

That's true. This thing would be pretty scifi with heavy guns to supplement

[-] ultra@feddit.ro 3 points 1 year ago
[-] burliman@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

One of many things that will happen when you try to regulate esoteric concepts like “AI”. It all goes dark on you, but it still happens regardless and benefits the few instead of the many.

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

"Benefits the few instead of the many" is literally one of the main reasons regulation of AI to some sane human ends need to happen. Major profiteers will have less resources under regulation and black markers would have less as a result.

[-] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

That boat looks like a light gust of wind would capsize the whole thing. What a stupid idea.

[-] Yoddel_Hickory@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

This is just the plot to Snow Crash

[-] deafboy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The reason nobody is claiming a dominion over the international waters is not the lack of ability, but the fact that there's nothing worth fighting for. If somebody, anybody, establishes a profitable business in the ocean, there will be a mile long line of entities wanting a cut of the profits in exchange for "protection". A phenomenon also known as extortion in private sector, or taxation in public sector.

this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
65 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59334 readers
4563 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS