Yeah, but the resources they want to fight over are on earth… for now. Humans will just have to keeping moving to stay out of the robots way.

Of course they can change the law. But if they don’t do it before the election, the change would be legally dubious at best.

So they kinda do. Mainly because the constitution doesn’t set up a one, person, one vote type of government. So by circumventing the constitution, it would be disenfranchising people from small states that are supposed to have a “louder” voice in a way. Now, the concept dates back from when states were far more autonomous, and the federal gov was not so strong. So I think we agree that it is outdated, and one person one vote would be better. But disenfranchised doesn’t mean losing your vote, it means losing the power of your vote as granted by the current rules.

You’re a touch off. If the state passes a law backing the compact, it is now law in their state. The feds don’t have much of a say unless they make a case for discrimination. It’s true the other states have no power to enforce it, but they don’t have to. Someone from an offending state can sue their state for ignoring a law they passed. And there would be no shortage of such someones.

So… we got two ways to go. One the robot on robot wars end up wiping us all out by exhausting all or resources and of course killing civilians. Or we take to space and have the robot wars stay on earth. Mars at least I figure. For a few at least.

I’m not sure they are thinking that. I bet they think they are the one person who can somehow ride the wave that it trump and find a way off it and still win. Like how a golddigger is hoping the guy will die soon. I mean, while hw is a grifter, he is a sloppy one. So the people around him end up recieving plenty of the spoiles of his grifting (points to stock market data right before trump does something that affects it greatly). So even if he does turn on them, they usualy come out rather rich.

So what. He promises a lot of things he doesn’t deliver. Staffers know that best of anyone.

I think though if the progressives split their vote, that would open the door for an establishment democrat to win the primary. Not sure though, I didn’t read up on that particular race.

I wonder what would happen if people just stopped working for shitty companies. Like all at once. Don’t quit, just stop working, get fired and file for unemployment. Obviously it would crash the unemployment system. But I think the loss of labor would be a pretty significant disruption. Not the same level as a general strike. But more targetted at bringing back some semblance of corporate ethics. The hardest part would be determjning which companies weren’t shitty.

You don’t “have” to. You pay for the convenience and time savings. So really it should be, “imagine the gov making taxes so complicated just so an industry to help you file them can exist”.

Yeah, generally you want to owe. Otherwise you are giving the gov an interest free loan. And losing out on any interest you might get on that money. This year I had some wonky job stuff go down, and they significantly over withheld on a chunk of my money. Not sure I had any say in it at all. So big refund from the feds. Oddly, as always seems to be the case, my state return was a tiny refund. High state income tax and no sales tax will do that.

What if I am due a refund. Should I file my taxes to get money from them?

Words don’t mean the same thing to everyone. And there is no real authority. Websters dictionary company or whatever is sometimes seen as one, but they are just a company trying to sell a product. So I don’t think there is a rule on this. Since organized religion is a phrase used in various places, it implies the existance of unorganized religion. This would probably be a group of people who all believe the same thing, but there is no leadership and such. That would be tough to fit under spirituality. But neither interpretation is really wrong.

I think of innovation more like following ideas instead of money. Money is almost always involved, but somewhere there is a hard to define line between doing something innovative that will also make money, and doing something innovative to make money.
Butt right now, we have a lot of companies that just do what other companies have done to make more money from their existing products. Putting in more ads isn’t innovative.

You can believe in whatever you want, and that would be religion. Lots of people have their own flavor of religion. Even people who go to services often have their own flavor that doesn’t line up with any specific religion. I think there is like a whole religion around simply believing in some form of god. Unitarian I think they call. Not sure if it is actually organized or not. But once you have a human leader and a body that tells all others of a religion what to do, then you are organized. And that leader and body that makes descisions for the rest is the problem.

While I mostly agree, it’s really “organized” religion that is the problem. Not religion itself. And of course organized religion is just humans fucking each other over. It’s like the land was taken, so they needed another dimension to form thier group around so they could have power and influence. So they went with religion. It’s much more profitable.

Well business is where the money is at. So that part makes sense. And while it wasn’t completely new, building on something that already exists is still innovation. Most things are built on something else. I’m not sayi g he is an amazing innovator or anything. But what he tried to do was better than just buying more competitors and shutting them down while shoving more and more ads in people’s faces. So, innovation lite. Lol.

In the interview he was arguing that it shouldn’t be illegal. And that we were missing an opportunity… so now that he controls the DOJ, he is just acting like it isn’t illegal, because effectively it isn’t.

Trump was invited on a news program many years ago to be the pro corruption side of a debate. And did not disappoint. He doesn’t hide who he is I suppose.

Well, zuck wasting the money though wasn’t enshitification. He really believed it was the future. And he wanted in early. Honestly, that kind of leadership is what we need more of. Innovation. He just also enshitifies the rest of the company’s products to pay for it. So we need, the inovative part of zuck, and not the rest.

And on my contract, you are right, it “might” not hold up in court. But they know I won’t have the means to challenge it. I know know one guy who did challenge a big company on an employment issue. He had a lot of money, no kids, and was well past the point when he could have retired. He spent about 10 years, a ton of money, and a ton of his time. He was traveling to various places to attempt to meet with government officials that would take his calls and such. He practically got a law degree for the amount of time he studied law. In the end, he had to take a settlement of some sort. His goal had always been to hold them accountable for ehat they did, not to get money. But it became obvious no matter how much proof he had of age discrimination, he was never going to win the cause. Their pockets were just too deep. And the system itself was made with roadblocks like needing some federal labor board type things review, yet the board didn’t have enough people appointed for quroum becuase they had to be approved by congress. So it litteraly could not do the review or whatever. In the end I think he just got too old to fight anymore, and money was running low.