Yes, computers these days can perform very sophisticated statistical calculation to simulate the appearance of intelligence. Very similar to some people that comment on HN. I'm not as smart as you so I often have a hard time telling the difference. Thanks again for your very informed viewpoint. I have learned a lot from these engagements.
It's not my article but thanks for clarifying. In the future you can just say you disagree with the expressed viewpoint without reducing people to drug addicts to make some point about being a cog in an economic machine.
Yes, thank you. Only a smart person like you could notice that. Once again, I can't thank you enough. Please keep up your efforts of informing people about what you think is useless drivel so that brains won't be harmed in the future.
Which is why I said it's not sustainable. Sustaining democracies requires a citizenry who are more than just puppets controlled by the powerful. An obvious example is Twitter and social media in general. It's downright depressing to see so many people addicted to applications that have turned human interactions into engagement games just so the companies operating those interaction sandboxes can present ads for commercial activities to as many people as possible. The whole setup is outright anti-democratic and it wouldn't have happened if more people understood how computers worked and how they could utilize them to express themselves in less restricted ways.
Understanding code is a necessity in a technocratic society because as more and more things are automated understanding code becomes a necessity just like literacy. It's gotten to the point now that most people carry supercomputers in their pockets but instead of utilizing those computers to augment their intelligence for navigating the world people are absorbed in mindless consumption of algorithmic entertainment. This is not a sustainable state of affairs.
It's already publicly funded. Most research is funded by government subsidies and grants which are paid for by the general public through tax collection. If you want more open access journals then figure out why so much publicly funded research is locked up behind paywalls when it was already paid for by tax dollars.
There isn't one. Americans don't know how to reconcile their history of institutional racism with the current liberal understanding of what it means to live in a meritocratic society. This is mostly because Americans refuse to reify and deal with socioeconomic class structures that give certain groups in certain classes various advantages. Race is a red herring, the real distinctions are of socioeconomic class and legacy generational wealth inherited from racist policies.
As long as race is used as a stand-in for socioeconomic class nothing will change. The people that benefited from racist policies in the past continue to pass on those advantages to their descendants. This is particularly visible in educational institutions with legacy admissions. Groups that were disadvantaged continue to be disadvantaged because generational wealth is not something that can be "fixed" by re-balancing admissions across racial boundaries. The real problem isn't one's race but which bracket of the socioeconomic ladder one was born into.
This article overall is also kind sophomoric since it doesn't address any of the root causes of inequality and assumes race is the real issue.
When art is reduced to something that can be bought and sold then nothing stops someone with a lot of money and no cultural understanding from doing this. This is what capitalism gets you, a bunch of people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.