• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2023

help-circle






  • The point is that GMT isn’t changing, the region is switching to an entirely different time zone, BST (British Summer Time). If your time is based on GMT, it won’t change due to British daylight saving time because GMT never changes.

    For a similar example, in the part of the US that uses Mountain Time, states observe MST (Mountain Standard Time) in the winter, and most switch to MDT (Mountain Daylight Time) in the summer. However, Arizona doesn’t observe daylight saving time, so they remain on MST. MST always stays the same (GMT-7), the time is only changing because the states are observing a different time zone. The same happens with GMT and BST, it’s just harder to see because you can’t pick out areas that remain on GMT all year.




  • There’s lots of stuff that could be considered innovation that is intentionally stifled due to competition laws or security concerns.

    I agree that some innovation can be harmful. I guess what I meant was “we should avoid disincentivizing innovation unless necessary.” The way I see it, though, job lots from automation is both inevitable and fairly easy to fix (as you said, UBI), so there’s no reason to try to stop it from happening.

    Really, I think automation should be encouraged. It frees people from usually-undesirable jobs and allows them time to pursue different careers or other interests. As long as we have ways to deal with the unemployment I think it’s a huge positive for people.

    they should have to continue paying taxes for those roles because the newly unemployed will need government support.

    I fully agree that there will need to be a tax increase to cover support for the newly-unemployed, but why not make that a general increase on businesses and wealthy individuals? If anything, this would be and incentive for automation as a way to decrease rising business costs.

    Innovation has removed jobs before, and we dealt with it. I don’t see businesses being taxed for using computers instead of human calculators. I don’t see why this innovation is different.







  • I think you’re misunderstanding. I’ve always heard this in the context of a UBI, never that an employer should pay an ex-employee for the work that a robot does.

    With this setup, nobody is forced to do menial labor. Those that are willing and able can pursue higher education and pick up more skilled jobs, increasing potential for technological advancement. Those that can’t or don’t want to can pursue their own interests and hopefully create some cultural significance. Essentially, the automation will allow people to leave their shitty jobs and pursue something more fulfilling without worrying about going bankrupt, all while society still has its basic needs met.

    I’ve always thought this was an ideal scenario. Whenever I hear people talking about how automation is taking jobs and needs to be stopped, I think about how automation should really be encouraged to allow people to contribute more meaningfully, but this can only be done after we’ve established a UBI and other social programs to ensure that these people can get by without the income they get from their current jobs.