Honestly, that has been the most important thing that has happened, the marketing coup on the concept of 'AI' not being what is now being called a 'AGI', which is a horrendous twisting of the historical concept.
Where do you think places like the Deprogram are cribbing their ideas, and why do you have an inherent trust that a bunch of podcasting yucks (though good for podcasting yucks) will present those ideas well and correctly?
Whenever I am forced to talk politics with people and they bring up 'oh I'm in the middle', I just ask them 'in the middle of what' and force them to try to explain either the political compass or line graph they are visualizing and picking apart the metaphor through Socratic dialogue. It irritates the absolute shit out of people but it usually gets them to either stop talking to me about it, or stop thinking about politics in those terms because it is easily demonstrated to be nonsense.
I was wondering why they were doing the 'we pay and average of $23 an hour (don't ask about our quartile averages)!' push. It's because they are not talking about how many less people they are paying lol.
Or maybe, and hear me out, someone who is too incredulous to even figure out what a totenkopf is without it being beaten over their head (and having to wrench out the apology for it while hearing excuse after excuse for his ignorance) shouldn't be in a representative position of a small faction of an opposition party.
It's 'nerd-shit' turning from what was usually an interplay between the hobbyist, who played and created for fun and community, and the professional, a hobbyist who had somehow parlayed creation into a living, to the interplay between the company, who is only interested in turning a profit and will actively harm a community by exclusively targeting the desires of it's wealthy members, if it means generating more profit, and the consumer, who does not create but simply consumes and collects for their own individual satisfaction whatever that may entail.
Streamers and critics, are, btw, not hobbyists, they are professional consumers, those who are paid to consume product, the most toxic aspect of the dialectic, as they simultaneously have the loudest and most present voice in the industry, but represent the least amount and most privileged of people. Critics can be useful, but a critic should ideally also be actively engaged in the art of creation to some degree, or at least done so in the past. That doesn't mean what they created has to be good or groundbreaking, it just means that they themselves understand what it means to create and not simply consume. An excellent critic can often elevate the criticism itself into a form of creation, but that is a rare talent indeed.
I would bet that you would have something equivalent to a phantom limb syndrome but for the diaphragm. I can't imagine something so hardwired and subconscious goes away just because the basic chemical need is satisfied.
The closest one who came to a critique that could resemble something a Marxist would say is Diogenes and pretty much everything said about him is apocrypha. To say that there was a coherent accounting of labor and slavery in Greek Philosophy is to infer things that were not present within it.
It is because Gen Z, in particular NY Gen Z believe in making money over anything else. Your expectation is to 'secure the bag' and if some old creep is willing to pay you to say some bullshit on camera, who are you to turn it down?
That said, this influencer in particular is just a ghoul.
I reiterate, the point of places like the NYT is to convince it's subscribers that they have the same opinions as the owners and the editors. It isn't to convince us, it is to convince them that it is what smart sensible people think, as smart sensible people subscribe to the NYT, which would never mislead it's subscriber base, after all that would be against market principles, which are very real.
Yeah, but unlike the Chinese we burn millions of dollars AND just copy from their homework.