• 0 Posts
  • 46 Comments
Joined 12 days ago
cake
Cake day: April 4th, 2025

help-circle



  • I feel like there are a lot of dimensions to this. I am a huge proponent of manufacturing, but yeah a lot of factory jobs suck. The problem is, they don’t have to. Modern factories are way better than old ones, and could be even better if we as a culture prioritized making jobs less soul crushing rather than access to cheap shit. I also feel like people who haven’t worked in manufacturing don’t really understand what it’s like in a modern facility. I think there’s this idea that it’s working at an assembly line or going out and turning a bunch of valves all the time but nowadays 99% of it is just sitting at a computer watching numbers. I wouldn’t want to be on the floor at my current job but I’ve worked other places where it seems a hell of a lot better than most other jobs available to non college grads.

    Another issue is that modern manufacturing sites are super automated. Very few people actually work at them, at least the ones in America. You can have a plant that makes millions of pounds of plastic a year that employs 60-70 people, which is less than a typical Walmart.



  • Okay so at what point does it get handed off to private industry unless the government is just in business with manufacturers in a much more direct way than it is now? We’d need a completely different economic system for all research to be publicly funded. Consider this- often the way it works now is that a government funded researcher discovers a new molecule that could be useful. Then, private companies figure out how to make it industrially and run trials in pilot plants and design the plant to make it at scale. Should the government be doing all of that? This is extremely expensive, and I don’t know how you’d try to prioritize resources in the current economic system.


  • This would be disastrous for actual manufacturing because a patent is the only thing that makes it worthwhile to spend a bunch of money upfront to develop a new technology. Unlike with software where you don’t have nearly as much up front capital investment to develop something, it costs millions of dollars to get a manufacturing process up and running and in a good enough state to where it can actually work out financially. Without patents, your competitor can just take all of that work and investment and just copy it with the benefit of doing it right the first time, so they’re able to undercut you on cost. The alternative is that everyone is super secretive about what they’re doing and no knowledge is shared, which is even worse. Patents are an awesome solution to this problem because they are public documents that explain how technologies work, but the law allows a monopoly on that technology for a limited amount of time. I also feel that in the current landscape, copyright is probably also good (although I would prefer it to be more limited) because I don’t want people who are actually coming up with new ideas having to compete with thousands of AI slop copycats ruining the market.

    TL;DR- patents are good if you’re actually building things, tech bros are morons who think everything is software.





  • I may legitimately lose my supposedly magical and highly important American manufacturing job because of this shit and these dumbasses think that this is all a genius move that will finally Make America Great Again. Everyone else I know who works in manufacturing is feeling the same way. One of my coworkers is mildly Trumpy and was talking about how he thinks it’s a negotiation tactic and was shocked when I said I think the people in charge are just legit stupid and think tariffs will magically make things better in their own right. He didn’t have anything to offer as a rebuttal he just seemed surprised that anyone would think Trump isn’t a turbo genius who is secretly making 5000 IQ negotiation moves.


  • markovs_gun@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldOops
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I know I was just saying 3000 years and basically nobody alive today understands the language. Even people who devote their whole lives to the languages around at that time are basically just making informed guesses on pronunciation and would probably struggle considerably to understand an actual speaker.


  • A few things here-

    1. The Talmud isn’t the same as Christian Scripture and this isn’t something all Jews will see and say “Yeah that’s what I believe and it’s super cool.”

    2. Jesus’s “crime” here is being a Jewish heretic and leading other Jews astray. It’s not because he’s a different religion. During the time of Jesus, most non-Jews were polytheistic Pagans, and they didn’t really have a problem with other people practicing their religion. The issue the author takes with Jesus is precisely because he was a Jew and not a gentile.



  • markovs_gun@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldOops
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    3000 years is insanely long for language. Consider that the mother fucking alphabet was invented around 1000 BC*, and basically no languages that anyone still speaks existed in their modern forms. Homer hadn’t written the Illiad and the Odyssey yet, and the standard Greek that came to be defined by these works had also yet to develop. If you went back to 1000 BC you’d have no idea what was going on.

    *Although previous alphabets existed, the Phoenician alphabet that became the basis for pretty much all modern writing systems in Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia was invented around 1100 BC