Trump was already president once and my political work was actually easier because liberals were outraged and could not understand the complicoty of their representatives. Their representatives merely reflect the cynical apathy of their position that is shielded when they are in power.

If Trump were an existential threat would you just be sitting around posting bad logic? You know he is just an incremental partial detriment in some ways and some vague miasma in other ways. Biden is, for example, a much more coherent genocidal Zionist, as is Harris.

Rather than quibble about how to appease one’s inner Eichmann, why not fight against it?

deleted by creator

The Democratic Party-supported the genocide of Palestinians. Democrats Abroad should understand this and demand a non-genocifal candidate.

Climate change cannot be sufficiently addressed without oveethrowing capitalism. China built more solar capacity last year than the entirety of American installations and both American candidates support fracking.

Join a local socialist org!

You said to Organize and admit a genocide is occurring, while not letting yourself be convinced that voting is the only course of action.

Of course voting is not the only course of action. Voting is incredibly little. What, you check a box? Maybe wait a few hours at most to get into a pilling station? Dear God.

This is an incredibly limited amount of political action, particularly given the way in which box checking translates into any political action (electoral college, media monopolies, biased education, wage slavery limiting political education, campaigns built on donations from capital).

I’m saying that’s awesome but what do we do when trump gets elected because no one wants to vote now?

You actually do political work. You become educated and join an organization that does more than act as a sheepdog that turns alienatuon into genocide votes.

If you want people to work from the bottom up to achieve the necessary changes to prevent this country from being genocidal you will rapidly discover that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties can be that vehicle. They are our enemies and work against us, only dithering with cynical PR and pandering to avoid losing without actually needing to deliver on any demands. Unprincipled attempts to enter and change the Democrats on their terms leads to alienation or cooption, e.g. “the squad” supporting Israel or getting destroyes by capital.

Rather than support a genocoder, please do the actual change work. At least then you can see it fail and then do actually useful things against the genocidal empire.

My comment already contradicts your response, even with its inventions. Please try to address what I say rather than making things up.

You should be against genocide and not vote for genociders.

You can fight the trolley itself instead of justifying supporting genocide.

PS this is the real world not a meme. Political power is not a trolley problem, it is a matter of organization and education. You disempower yourself and others by pretending you can only backseat cheerlead a genocide. Instead of supporting this, go and join an organization that is actually opposing it and start doing work.

In the US, every student is eventually presented with lessons on the Holocaust and asked to think about what they would do. Right now, to be honest, your answer would have to be, “support it using poorly thought out propaganda”.

If you oppose massacres and genocide, get involved in work to oppose the “Israeli” project. BDS campaigns (like tabling for them, not just doing a boycott yourself) are a good way to get started. Just as important is to educate yourself on Palestine and Zionism, particularly its very recent European roots and the parallels it has with other settler colonial projects (the USA’s genocide of indigenous Americans, South Africa, etc) and other apartheid states (South Africa, etc). Most of what you are taught about “Israel” is a lie or a misleading equivocation to avoid the elephant in the room, of occupation, of stealing land and homes and orchards, of checkpoints and a two-tiered system, of torture and indiscriminate bombing, and of a cynical and, itself, antisemitic weaponization of claims of antisemitism.

Finally, confront the role your state plays and therefore what role you can play against its support for Israel. If you are American, this means being unfriendly towards both Biden and Harris, both of whom are supporting all of this. Ask yourself what will actually constitute consequences for their genocide. Ask yourself what it means to work against them rather than “reluctantly” supporting them.

If not now, when?

lmao the futurology grifter

I thought he was head of AI not maps tho

It coincides with their switch to more and more “AI” black box models. Whereas before they would use a hand-tuned heuristic model to describe whether you are turning, merging, or continuing on a road, they just use a less correct but automagic model where they still inevitably have to tune it a whole lot but it is “AI” so it has the approval of the petty lords of management.

Incorrect entrances and closed roads are another example. They’re just using satellite and street level imagery and tossing it at some models that spit out things like “door 99% confidence” and “road 98% confidence” while neglecting the question of, “are you actually allowed/able to use this?”

PS under basically every correct answer in this category is a team of poorly-paid “labelers” whose answers directly turn into the data in the map. Your door-that-is-not-an-entrance was marked entrance because someone making $8/hr only had 10 seconds to review before moving to the next question.

I… agree but isn’t then contradicting your previous point that innovation will come from large companies if they only try to secure monopolies rather than genuinely innovate?

Nope.

I don’t understand from that perspective who is left to innovate if it’s neither research

Who said there’s no more research?

not the large companies… and startups don’t get the funding either.

Both are, on average, just doing boring work minorly translating research in the hope to become more monopolistic, just at different levels of the good chain. The former eats the latter.

It is of course up to data providers to say when it’s being used incorrectly. They can do that whenever they want to. Why couldn’t they? It is in no way unprofessional to call out bullshit.

Having seen and done this transition I can tell you that companies do very little for innovation compared to university researchers. Companies are exclusively focused on profit, they don’t do the five to ten year moonshot project unless they are already a massive corporation, not a startup, and even then the massive companies want the easiest thing to translate to a product and begin making money. At best they have engineers that make scaling up more practical, and while that is a fun and interesting thing, it is also very straightforward and is something a company has to avoid screwing up, not investing in massively to make it right.

I’ve seen several companies that did literally nothing except swap a couple things on their production line and call it a day. The only transition from research to industry was an IP agreement and a few meetings.

Large companies are not looking for innovation by buying startups, they are usually looking to secure monopolies. Sometimes they want the product and to work it into their own product offerings. This is often a way to vertically integrate more, not innovate. They bring in-house because they see a competitor emerging and want to hedge their bets or because they see a way to take over a market by just doing the same thing. Sometimes it is just a way to hire some employees that seem pretty competent and thereby deprive your competitors. Large companies operate with a monopoly mindset. This is also why Google kills every project that they declare won’t scale into a huge money-maker (they really mean take over a market).

Small companies are often started with the plan of actually making and selling their product long-term but run headfirst into the fact that their industry is dominated by just 3 companies that will gladly do the one-two punch of threatening to bleed you legally with nonsense lawsuits while offering to buy you up. Or, on the flipside, just copying your work and changing it just enough that they know they could bleed you legally even though they have broken IP law. Usually, they would rather just buy you out at less than you are worth but enough to make the VCs happy.

The source of their data says they were using it incorrectly, that it simply does not mean what they reported. I have not gone into exactly what their data is, just that it was reported as total new funded startups and the data provider says, “that’s not what this is”.

It also looks like these numbers might not even be accurate: https://nitter.privacydev.net/NuryVittachi/status/1834747250666508679

I would expect a decrease in VC startups based on the way China is tackling finsnce, though.

I think innovation will happen more through universities and existing large companies. Most research and innovation happens through universities anyways and China is currently having an academia boom.

Companies like Huawei are way up, and domestic consumption is slowly rising.

The metrics here are those most relevant to finance, which is not synonymous with innovation. Startups are notorious money sinks that are only invested in due to a promise of monopoly profits later, basically a gamble. They usually fail, and dramatically. Finance is necessary for private capital investment and liquidity but when it grows too large it becomes parasitic and also tries to dictate policy. The real estate bubble that China is now dealing with is a direct result of financialization and an expectation that it would be “too big to fail” and that real estare finance would get bailed out by government.

China is tackling this issue by limiting the impact of finance on its economy, changing its lending terms and what it guarantees, including not bailing out real estate finance. This has the direct effect of making startups and venture capital less common as they simply can’t make as much money from pure speculation. They don’t have a state-funded safety net for their worst gambles and interest rates are higher.

Overall, this is a good development. China’s finance sector absolutely needed to be limited and it is good for the state to take on a greater role in running companies.

It is virtually impossible to work individually against landlords. Instead, form or join a tensnts’ union. And maybe some orgs opposed to landlordism.