walkercricket

@walkercricket@sh.itjust.works

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨There's a steep decline in pay compared to the value workers add to the economy, closely tracking the fall in union membership.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m all for removing all current welfare payouts and simply handing people equivalent cash instead

  If you do that, you’re gonna make people even poorer than they are, making everything more expensive for everybody. Have you ever wondered why health is hell of a lot cheaper in Europe than in places like the USA? It’s precisely because we have welfare payouts to let the government take care of the price and regulate abuse by pressurizing the different industries, while in the USA, you have basically nothing, so it’s the customer vs the entire industry and guess who wins? Not the people. So you have to pay your meds or consultations 10 times the price you would in Europe. Money you give to the state through welfare is money you give to yourself…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨There's a steep decline in pay compared to the value workers add to the economy, closely tracking the fall in union membership.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  There are evidence. A lot of evidence. Any country where the minimum wage was raised significantly, even if most of the time, it’s the private enterprises which end up paying those workers, we can see a boost of the GDP, which is the metric usually used to measure the consumption (and therefore production) of a country, considering something like 70% of the GDP is direct consumption (don’t remember the exact stat). The simple reason behind it is that if you give people money, they will spend it, paying the companies and people making the stuff so they can make more stuff. How can you except products to be sold if nobody has the money to buy it? And considering a lot of people talk about the price rise and hot having the money to pay this or that, it becomes basic logic, at this point.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Religion and science are orthogonal. Science seeks to answer the question of “how?”, while religion seeks to answer “why?”

  Religion doesn’t try to answer anything: it’s just blind faith. You’re not gonna try to tell me religious people are “looking for” anything. The definition of religion is “belief in a deity”. It doesn’t try to explain or find out anything.

  It’s dependent on ignorance of basic philosophy, and attempts to derive any kind of morality based solely on science results

  Since when atheism prevents philosophy? Haven’t you heard of atheist philosophers? They exist, they’re not fairies, you know. About morality, it’s still a subject and a lot of philosophers have different opinion, with the subjective or objective moral, relativistic moral, etc… And whatever you mean by “derive any kind of morality based solely on science results”, it’s still better than arbitrarily define a moral based on a book written by some people a long time ago to then enforce it for centuries, with violence if needed, and then when the bad atheists come to clean all the mess by making moral laws to have everybody end up agreeing on after few decades, claim it was just a misinterpretation of the texts or whatever, which is the dumbest excuse I’ve ever heard of.

  Atheism isn’t a religion either: atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of an unproven (and certainly unprovable) entity. So a lack of belief certainly didn’t kill anybody.

  And atheism was never the reason or the foundation of the sentence “the end justify the means”, it existed long before atheism was even a concept.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨There's a steep decline in pay compared to the value workers add to the economy, closely tracking the fall in union membership.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  (to complete the comment above) … and that you assume the technology is also mostly stagnant in the last 2 decades, which it certainly wasn’t, especially in the computer science world. Though it could’ve got much much faster if people were paid more relative to what they produce.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Man I really love Lemmy for that kind of shit. I’ll change the link right away

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Stating mathematics is a tool doesn’t answer if mathematics are real or not. But I would say, from my humble experience, that mathematics is both unreal and perfectly tangible. Mathematics is totally a real thing as it obeys strict rule in logic that are true in our real world, axioms, on which everything else is based so that it can’t be used to state things as being true out of the blue, without any justification before using those axioms, which you can translate into our real world. But math also has its limits and has been used to demonstrate that it itself is incomplete, undecidable and inconsistant (mathematically, of course, it’s not our common definition here). Meaning, as mathematics are imperfect, it can’t describe our world perfectly and therefore isn’t real.

  There is an excellent video from Veritasium on the subject of the limits of math: youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  And it’s great. Though, as a religious person, thinking this way is no more than shooting yourself in the foot, which is quite sad because religion has only two choice: either cultivating the ignorance but going against science, which is wrong, or cultivating knowledge but overtime, disappearing as a religion. Either way, nowadays it’s doomed.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Math is a tool of the mind to describe our world, imaginary numbers is only a extension of that tool to allow us to go beyond what mathematical logic prevents us to do, while still getting in the end a real number. Math, despite being powerful, is a flawed tool, so getting around its flaws by creating things like imaginary numbers isn’t absurd and doesn’t make the result any less real at the end.

  On the other hand, I don’t think calling everything we don’t understand “magic” or the new trending words “supernatural” and “a miracle” and give god or anything else (like karma) credit for it would be more clever. Back then, we didn’t understood the concept of thunder and interpreted it as god’s wrath. Now, we understand it’s a transmission of electricity from the negatively charged clouds to the neutral ground through ionized particles in the air. I don’t think that scientists now, despite referring to the same phenomena, are talking about the same thing as we did a long time ago.

  So no, no scientist will discover the afterlife “but we’ll just call them “Post-Human Conciousness Wells” or something, and insist it totally isn’t the same thing as that ancient superstition.” as it won’t be.