Robert Caro disagrees. Power does not corrupt, it reveals. If you somehow became a billionaire, you’d be able to do whatever you wanted, which means we’d be able to see what you wanted to do. If you start acting evil once you get money, it means you were evil but unable to act on it until you had money.

Specifically about Amazon, Bezos made it because he wanted to cash in on the early internet with his own startup, leaving a Wall Street firm to do so. And, yes, we was a dick to his only employee, which is why the man quit after only 5 years.

They made one comment. It’s a bit early to start drawing conclusions.

If you want an alternative, how about not giving it all to anyone? How about judging the company on their values and practices rather than their size?

You hit a false dichotomy. “Not your allies” does not automatically mean “class traitors”. They might be neutral.

Remember: Just because a business is small doesn’t mean it’s automatically better. For example, if Bezos ran a corner shop with only three employees, he’d still try and stop them from taking toilet breaks.

This isn’t “lesser known communities that need a spotlight”, this is “new communities”.

It’s possible your coworkers are the ones dealing with those issues, and you just never notice.

They said “perfectly”, not “90%”. You’re trying to move the goalposts.

all of your claims have so many asterisks attached that they’re essentially pointless

No they don’t, but say whatever you need to ignore me. That’s definitely what someone arguing in good faith would do.

internet access has been shown to have all the same negative effects

Citation needed.

it’s a useful technology

Quite the opposite, actually. It causes enormous problems and has no benefits that aren’t better served by existing technologies that lack those problems.

Nobody who uses AI treats it like a tool, they treat it like an employee they can claim credit for. And most tools aren’t actively detrimental to the user to the point of proven intelligence drops, lawsuits and environmental destruction. Also, the enemy charges you money to use it.

The only person who benefits from AI is the person selling it. So why are you trying to defend it?

I would rather wear a gimp mask. Less embarrassing.

And all without a single junior dev in the open office hearing their genius. Aside from the junior dev who bought the fucking thing in the vain hope they could roleplay as a more competent employee. That junior dev can hear themself going “no, fuck, delete, how do I- no, stop typing, you stupid fucking thing”, which I assume counts as “genius”.

Hang on. They had to ship three major updates in a single morning? How the hell is their workflow so bad that they have to- Oh yeah. Vibecoding.

If you see anyone wearing this shit, remember that you can laugh at how stupid they look as much as you want, and their weak copium that it’s a “skill issue” will be swallowed by their copium mask. So you’re free to laugh until they cry.

Alternate version:

“While you’re there, pick up some bread,” she added. He never returned.

Since this is an AI metaphor, the restaurant didn’t hire a cook. They just found a cook with an easily accessible oven and stole a pizza from it.

As a plot hook, you could have some rich jerk commission a custom chess set made using the bones/hide of a powerful, possibly endangered creature.

A rival could show up, trying to use monster parts to make checkers tiles.

I’m just gonna assume you’re thinking of D&D, or something similar.

I think the standard thing to do when it’s not your turn is plan your turn, so you can get straight to it when it is your turn. This also makes turns shorter, so you don’t have as much time to fill when it’s not their turn.

If you wanna build the habit, start getting into the swing of “Alice, it’s your turn. Bob, you go next, so get ready. Alice?”

isn’t the easiest sell in the privacy community

This is the easiest way to tell this is a bot. They don’t even know what community they’re posting their ad to.

You don’t understand why an unfunny ad on a humour community with a rule against ads is getting downvoted?

RT*** isn’t pointing at RT*, he’s pointing at the TV showing RT**. The fact you think otherwise is what makes the image unclear. I’m not sure why you insist on them being wrong.

I think int*** is meant to be pointing at int**, but the image is just unclear about where everything is in perspective.