But op is frankly absurd. It sounds reasonable for about 1 second before you think about it. What sets tech apart from every other area of human innovation? And why limit it to that? What about mineral exploitation? Oil etc.
It's just not a well thought out comment. If we focus on the "better path forward", the entrance to which is only unlocked by the realisation that big techs achievements (and thus, profits) belong to humanity collectively... After we reach this enlightened state, what does op believe the first couple of things a traveller on this path is likely to encounter (beyond Big Techs money, which incidentally we take loads of already in the form of taxes, just maybe not enough)?
Tech is the most set apart area of innovation ever.
First you have tech's ability to scale. The ability to scale also has it creep new changes/behaviors into every aspect of our lives faster than any 'engine for change' could previous.
Tech also inherits, so you can treat it as legos using, what are we at, definitely tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of human years of work, of building blocks to build on top of. Imagine if you started every house with a hundred thousand human years of labor already completed instantly. No other domain in human history accumulates tens of millions of skilled human years annually and allows so much of that work to stack, copy, and propagate at relatively low cost.
And tech's speed of iteration is insane. You can try something, measure it, change it, and redeploy in hours. Unprecedented experimentation on a mass scale leading to quicker evolution.
It's so disingenuous to have tech valuations as high as they are based on these differentiations but at the same time say 'tech is just like everything from the past and must not be treated differently, and it must be assumed outcomes from it are just like historical outcomes'. No it is a completely different beast, and the differences are becoming more pronounced as the above 10Xs over and over.
Being cynical i would say it's because Burnham could potentially challenge Starmer. Less cynically Labour has a big enough majority they can afford to lose this by election. The headache of replacing the mayor of Manchester is not worth it.
Why can't he just do both jobs? Boris did it iirc.
If memory serves, Dan Jarvis also did it, being both MP and mayor of the South Yorkshire city region or whatever it was called at the time.
It is fairly innately political. No Prime Minister has ever polled as low as Starmer and come back from it, or so is being said in the press. Burnham might be a smart electoral move, but he's not a plaything of the Labour right, so they kept him out.
That's not inconsistency in the rules, that's inconsistency in what being the mayor means. In Sheffield it means you show up wearing funny clothes every so often, in Greater Manchester it means you have a full-time job, a large budget, and actual responsibilities.
For our American brethren, it's like the difference between being the Mayor of NYC vs the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade King.
It's actually the role of Police and Crime Commissioner that prevents them from being an MP simultaneously. In Greater Manchester (and London) the PCC role is combined with that of Mayor, but it isn't in most other city regions.
There's not much actual difference in the mayoral aspect of the roles - Jarvis was the Mayor of the South Yorkshire Combined Authority, not simply the mayor of Sheffield City Council.
I came on here to say that point but you said it much better then i ever could. For the record i am unapologetically pro israel, and their actions in Gaza while regrettable were largely unavoidable.
What is striking is that the death toll in Iran from a couple of weeks of demonstrations is half as much as what Gaza suffered in 2 years of a devastating war. Even taking into account the difference in population this is shocking.
Well done to my fellow Hners for trying to gaslight op that the 2 are not comparable, when everyone here knows what is really behind this anomaly.
You have all my sympathy. Even Israelis understand the difference between the regime and the people of Iran. From a practical point of view how do feel the West should respond? Would you welcome American airstrikes? What do you feel about the looming possibility of another conflict with Israel?
A lot of people died that did not have to, they are certainly comparable. Russia and Ukraine are a better comparison; Putin says that Ukraine doesn't exist and that he was forced to by NATO, etc.
The IRGC had "no choice" if they wanted to remain in power; but they did have a choice.
I would love to visit the US one day and i do understand that it has no obligation to just let me in, but this seems a bit excessive for a short visit especially seeing as my country has a deal with the US not to require visas. I wonder if i would have to disclose my hn account(s). My cover would be blown! I guess i'm lucky i've made pro Trump comments...
People complain a lot about planned obsolescence but i'm mildly impressed, even if this update is only to keep the lights on and nothing else.
I remember people complaining that the design of the 5 was already outdated when it was new and they needed to have bigger screens and be thinner to compete with Samsung...
And it was the scientists and doctors of the WHO, who denied the existence of Covid until after every country in the world had shut down. I thought covid denial was a bad thing, but you're still getting downvoted... In response to your last question i've got no idea. I don't have any confidence the vaunted scientists got it right back then either. Just look at the disasters inflicted on countries and states that imposed heavy handed and IMO largely unnecessary covid measures.
It's easy to say COVID measures were unnecessary when you live in a timeline where you were spared from the worst case scenario of an immediate global pandemic. The economic harm was huge, but we don't know what it would have been if we had not taken any protective measures and we didn't know back then either how dangerous the disease could be
I think the WHO have a lot to answer for over the Covid debacle, international health cooperation is important but i don't care if WHO dies so another body can be built on it's ashes.
It's just not a well thought out comment. If we focus on the "better path forward", the entrance to which is only unlocked by the realisation that big techs achievements (and thus, profits) belong to humanity collectively... After we reach this enlightened state, what does op believe the first couple of things a traveller on this path is likely to encounter (beyond Big Techs money, which incidentally we take loads of already in the form of taxes, just maybe not enough)?
reply