This has always been true. I think some of the most well known tech CEOs have philosophy degrees.

Your wit combined with your ability to uncomplicate what the hell is going on is inspiring. Did not expect today’s full on performance; hoping more sketches are in the future lol.

Not trying to defend it, but GDP's purpose is mostly to check if the economy is running. It was invented nearly 100 years ago when this wasn't happening. Its creator even warned against using like we do today. Sadly, economists only see the world through simple models from the 19th & 20th centuries.

The economy needs a W, and the media in desperation is pretending this circular financing is going to get us there.

Not justifying it, just explaining the dynamics I've seen. I think broadly though, in the world of policy (outside of online punditry) there is probably more consensus. But I know less about that.

Because it's a squishy concept, there's like 6 versions of abundance, some of which are hostile to reg/anti-trust. Also back in July Thompson seemed to misrepresent the anti-monopoly position, so the loudest voices are now opposed to abundance because they believe it's in bad faith.

I literally learned this an hour ago. As well as his links to Bitcoin. Wtf? MFer literally created every evil in the 21st century?

That’s especially true for tech that affects labor and capital (like crypto and AI)

Doesn’t help that the industry’s politics flipped very overtly. But Thiel (and now Epstein???) involvement in the industry suggests that Big Tech was always intended to be a political project.

Was going to say this. But honestly AI polarization is just an extension of the broader tech backlash that happened post Cambridge Analytica and accelerated during COVID and again during NFT + FTX collapse. Technology is never neural; arguably fits into Karl Polanyi’s double movement.

For this admin constraint is “weak.” Power is being able to “dominate” by eschewing norms.

Unironically, thank god they have no understanding of what power is and how to maintain it. They literally are little bullies stuck in grade school whose only objective is lashing out to fill a void.

Agree with your frustration, though. A lot of analysis, esp. online seems to boil down to “Kamala didn't address my pet issue, but if she did, she would have won.” But given the circumstances of her nomination and the low approval of Biden those are clearly primary.

I think a charitable view of the Cheney complaint is there are other places she could have spent her energy that would have mattered more. At least over courting republican old guard. I don't have strong opinions on that, but I think that's a “good faith” version of it.

It’s always a good time to use the full extent of the law to prosecute illiberal, bad faith actors who break the law. Hopefully we can all push the performative liberals in congress to remember that liberalism is at its best when it stands for something and enforces standards.

What saddens me is it didn’t have to be this way. The internet, like all technology, exists as a series of governance choices. At each stage of its existence decisions were made about how to maintain and extend its function. At some point we just started deferring to Big Tech for those choices.

They've not been democratic for a long time. They've just stopped committing to the pretense.

Policies like the immigration enforcement we’ve been pursuing over the past decade only result in performative cruelty. In an attempt to show people something is being done enforcement escalates into extremes. Trump is not a break from that, but one logical conclusion.