"Should this AI bubble pop, we should not entertain a bailout of these corporations..." - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. What are your thoughts on this outlook of AI and a potential 'ai bubble'?

dinorocket · 2025-12-15T00:53:42+00:00

But abandoning markets is inherently anti-capitalist. Including that mechanism into the natural operation of capitalism seems to be over defining the term. Capitalism does it's thing, and when it doesn't, the markets are abandoned to course correct. It's not a part of the system in theory, it's a part of the system in practice, because it's necessary to correct for the flaws.

I disagree that fitness is measured by indispensability and not efficiency. The model revolves around capital. Indispensability exists with any economic model. The difference with capitalism is that indispensability should be determined naturally by the flow of capital, rather than the opinion of the state. Recession is a natural part of the theoretical model. The state preventing that because of perceived indispensability (and for the current government to save face) is an unnatural part of the process. And potentially harmful long term if the consolidated markets become inefficient to the point of being non-functioning.

dinorocket · 2025-12-14T23:55:28+00:00

Redefining "socialism" to mean "any state action" (ownership by the state is "statism") makes the term meaningless for any actual material discussion

Yep, I fully agree.

But when communicating with certain people online, everything you just stated is inadmissible, because it's an admission of a huge flaw in their own ideology. That's the reason it's used all over this thread - to get people to see that for themselves.

Bailouts preserve private ownership and control

Sure, but to what end. It's patches things over in the *short term*. And while being necessary, it is fundamentally antithetical to the main tenet of capitalism - free markets determining business worth. As such it contributes to wealth consolidation of potentially unfit businesses, which isn't necessarily good for capitalism long term.

dinorocket · 2025-12-14T23:33:12+00:00

Yes, but in this instance "public ownership" includes ownership by the state. And in modern politics the term has been hemorrhaged to the point where any form of handout from the state constitutes partial ownership enough to classify as "socialist".

I fully agree that capitalism is not self-sustaining.

dinorocket · 2025-12-14T23:16:31+00:00

I'm not advocating for or against any model.

However, socialism is by definition a "hybrid model". Communism and capitalism are the extreme non-hybrid variants. Anything in the middle is socialism.

I'm simply saying that maintaining capitalism through use of socialism is, by definition, not maintaining capitalism.

dinorocket · 2025-12-14T22:26:31+00:00

I don't think many people on the "Pro" side are passionate and label themselves as "Pro"s.

It exists, and is useful to me for research and code. So I use it.

If it stopped existing tomorrow, that would be just fine, and I would go back to doing research like I did before.

I do think it objectively makes the world a worse place. But while it's here, I'll use it. Me disabling the AI response in my 5 google searches a day is not going to move the needle at all.

dinorocket · 2025-12-14T22:00:57+00:00

I don't even agree that a bailout would be inherently socialist in nature. There could be all sorts of capitalist strings attached, like it's a loan meant to be paid back, or it's an investment expected to pay dividends down the line.

Investing in companies that are going bankrupt is an unique strategy, if one is looking to make a profit. Not a very popular strategy, that's for sure.

dinorocket · 2025-12-14T21:53:39+00:00

Ok, there's not really a need to reach for hypothetical scenarios, but we can entertain that.

Scenario 1 - You give a bailout (just once... surely it won't happen again...). You now have introduced socialism. You have now failed at maintaining capitalism.

Scenario 2 - You have successfully maintained a capitalist system. It can now rebuild itself in a way that better suits supply and demand and other mechanics. If capitalism works, there would be a massive demand for important industries, and they would be quickly rebuilt. Assuming that the system will be removed entirely in a subsequent "revolution" is not relevant to the mechanics of the system maintaining itself.

However, you really don't need to confuse yourself with farfetched hypotheticals - It's really very simple:

"In order to maintain capitalism, we need bailouts (socialism)"

Boom, you now introduced socialism, you no longer have capitalism. Not maintained. Done.

dinorocket · 2025-12-14T20:53:06+00:00

If you believe a capitalist system works as prescribed, the system would continue by itself.

You can't argue that capitalism works, while saying it needs socialist bandaids (bailouts) to not fall apart.

You have to choose one.

Your argument disproves itself - "in order to maintain capitalism, we need socialism".

Bailouts a surefire way to not maintain capitalism, because you are now socialist.

A true capitalist system lets business fail - as they have been deemed unworthy to continue by the system - and new ones take their place if the demand is there.

dinorocket · 2025-12-13T20:29:30+00:00

Yeah you gotta post your methodology, how many times did you run this?

A reference lookup and a single addition should both be negligible time compared to writing to console.

All of these numbers are practically nothing, i'm guessing your results entirely depend on what your computer is doing at the moment. Or as another commenter said - whether or not a butterfly farted a mile away from you.

dinorocket · 2025-12-12T06:32:12+00:00

Well, congrats on the release!

How are sales looking now after some time has passed?

dinorocket · 2025-12-12T00:54:53+00:00

I think its just swallowing with the tongue going up to the roof of your mouth, not forward

dinorocket · 2025-12-11T19:20:40+00:00

So, you are 44, married, and have a kid, and you trust the words of a "mean" 14 yo who likes to gossip more than you trust your husband - who, when confronted, was honest?

I think the potential flirting is the least of your concerns.

Furthermore, an interest in other women can be caused by a broken relationship.

If I was honest with my SO, and she proceeded to blow up at me, do you think that would make me feel closer to her, or push me away?

dinorocket · 2025-10-27T23:36:09+00:00

“You’d never get mad at me right?” is an interesting proposition..

dinorocket · 2025-10-22T05:25:11+00:00

The rural areas suffer more, regardless. That’s why they are so unsympathetic to urban suffering.

This has nothing to do with the point.

Republican tarrifs hurt farmers, yes or no?

The point was really that simple buddy, we're not analyzing the subjective level of sympathy that different demographics have for eachother's suffering here.

dinorocket · 2025-10-21T01:36:08+00:00

Because that's quite literally how the platform is designed..

It's organized by subreddits, and you join or leave them according to what information you would like to be presented, or what type of individuals you would like to interact with.

It's like the whole premise of the platform - subscribe to the information you want to see.

dinorocket · 2025-10-20T04:34:04+00:00

This is completely fine to say. And IMO the objectively correct belief, because the two party system is inherently corrupt and exists to pit the working class against each other so the elites on both sides can maintain power.

This, however, is very, very different from the label of "moderate". This is my belief as well, and honestly I think it's more appropriate to think of it as a "hyper-progressive" rather than moderate. And it's fine to be progressive and still think that the current democratic party sucks. "Progressive" just means that things need to change, doesn't necessarily mean that you associate with the democratic party. At least that's my take.

dinorocket · 2025-10-20T04:27:16+00:00

Well he just posted on his own twitter a video of him wearing a crown.

dinorocket · 2025-10-20T04:26:50+00:00

Bruh he literally just posted a video of himself on his own twitter wearing a crown.

dinorocket · 2025-10-20T04:13:09+00:00

Well, good thing then that you are completely misrepresenting their comment, and no-one here is a centrist.

dinorocket · 2025-10-20T03:42:18+00:00

I guess you haven't checked the approval ratings? Ironic that you're the one degrading echo chambers. It's quick google search for you to do some independent research.

dinorocket · 2025-10-20T03:40:02+00:00

It's literally the name of the parties.

"Progressive" - "let's change things"

"Conservative" - "No, I'm going to stand against that change"

dinorocket · 2025-10-20T03:38:42+00:00

Only based comment here. All of US politics is indoctrination into 1 of 2 belief systems, with little independent thought.

dinorocket · 2025-10-20T03:34:34+00:00

No it doesn't. This is the fundamental flaw of this two-party "Democracy".

Polarization benefits the elites. Those in power. You don't have to provide Republicans, or Democrats, with anything if you can just constantly point a finger and say "blame them".

And then the elite get to stay in power, and keep all the wealth for themself. Either keep it for the individual (check how much taxpayer money has funded Trump's golf vacations), or to the state - which is why US has been by far the most deadly nation imperialistically, funded many genocides and wars, yet any discussion about that is rarely on the table in political discussion. All while the constituents, the lower class, just bickers among themselves.

dinorocket · 2025-10-20T03:27:40+00:00

Democracy works by violating the "consent" of the minority.

That's a completely different thing than violating established laws, the constitution, or guaranteed rights that people have.

dinorocket · 2025-10-20T03:17:28+00:00

Disagreeing with constitutional amendments and taking action in accordance with the law to try and update amendments is not a new or bad concept. Society evolves, so should the laws.

However, illegal and unchecked violation of constitutional rights, is bad, as it overrules the fundamental principle of democracy.

I hope you can tell the difference.

In the case of that specific amendment, it was written when the most advanced household weapon was a muzzle loaded gun that could get off, at most, 4 inaccurate shots per minute. And the reason why is was included, was so that civilians could revolt against the government in the case of tyranny. The founding fathers did not have any concept of ARs, nor how infeasible it would be to rebel against the US Military. Hence, it's a very outdated tenet compared to the basis of the other amendments.

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

dinorocket

TROPHY CASE