The continued existence of socialism after its complete moral and intellectual demolition in the 20th century is profoundly depressing. Let us not walk on the road to serfdom, please! Remember Hayek! Remember the Khmer Rouge! "Socialism" is the antisemitism of foolish intellectuals.
I am happy to see how much collective negativity there is to this kind of pointless, time wasting, inaccurate, cringey computer generated boilerplate. Maref, whoever you are, please consider actually writing your own words, not outsourcing them to an algorithm that cannot and will not ever be able to create readable prose.
It would be nice if there was a systematic way to stop AI written content from appearing on HN: the writing is excruciating to read, and there is (obviously) no reasoning involved. It is a form of cognitive pollution, and should at least be culturally strongly disincentivized, as writing makes you smarter, makes you think. Oy!
Very conventional, and perhaps good, advice would be to publish useful material adjacent to your problem, educational content that can lead to your solution/app. You might also try working with an LLM to generate less conventional marketing notions. You might also read "Hey Whipple, Squeeze This" to learn a bit about copy.
LLMs surely can help with language learning, but when they write posts like this, the zombie/body snatchers/borg effect is so strong as to be unreadable. Just write it yourself! You can do it! It will be better, please please stop generating bad boilerplate language with these fascinating algorithms, PLEASE!
The problem is that "the problem" is not clearly stated. There is surely climate change, but what it means and what we should do and feel about it is very unclear and contested. What is clearer is that certain intellectuals have used 'climate change' to get power via fear. Whether this power is warranted or not must be debated. Even if warranted, fear is a dirty, but traditional, way for clerics to assume domination.
Anxiety over commodification is very, very old, and tends to miss the upsides of commercial society. Intellectuals, by our nature, focus on problems -- often to the point of creating problems where (perhaps) there were none before. Happily "dopamine fracking" will probably not metamorphose into another menacing sounding anti-commercial phrase. There are enough already.
If you are sympathetic, or even curious, about the advantages of commercial society Deirdre Mccloskey's bourgeoise trilogy is an excellent place to begin.
This is untrue, the book is filled with incidents of motorcycle maintenance. Perhaps you have not read it? The second chapter centers around a complex issue involving a piston seizure:
"“I remove a glove with my teeth, reach down and feel the aluminum side cover of the engine. The temperature is fine. Too warm to leave my hand there, not so hot I get a burn. Nothing wrong there.
On an air-cooled engine like this, extreme overheating can cause a “seizure.” This machine has had one-in fact, three of them. I check it from time to time the same way I would check a patient who has had a heart attack, even though it seems cured.”
This is an inaccurate paragraph which should have been edited better:
"When Europeans began to draw on ancient precedents in the Renaissance, they did so loosely and freely, and each country did so in its own way, such that French, German, Spanish and Italian Renaissance styles are highly distinct from each other. These national renaissance traditions continued in various forms for over three centuries. There was then a brief period of international neoclassicism in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, after which European architects mostly returned to their national idioms. "
1. Renaissance architecture began in Italy, and was copied internationally, with variations, but it still forms a single international style, as did the Gothic and Baroque.
2. This account leaves out the Baroque completely, another international style with high unity and some level of difference.
3. Some damage gets done with these crude reductions; we lose sight of our cultural heritage and replace it with a crude inaccuracy.
The AI writing patterns here are obnoxious on both a sentence by sentence level and at the level of overall meaning and content. Because a machine wrote this, lacks human intelligence, so is not worth reading.
Because the international order is fundamentally anarchic, while domestic orders are (supposed to be at least) nomic, structured by law and rights. Yes, there are attempts at creating international law, but these amount to treaties more than a structured, visible, governing law.