> If you are trying to take on the hyperscalers why not push for UBI vs trying to stop the buildout? Is the former really that much more difficult than the latter?

I'm really not trying to be rude, but have you followed US politics or history at all? Is this a serious question? Yes, it is incomprehensibly harder to fundamentally change the fabric and structure of society, especially in a way that involves giving "free" money to people, than it is to prevent something from being built.

▲

godwinson__4-8 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm really not trying to be rude, but have you followed US politics or history at all? Is this a serious question?

Trying to control something by merely protecting your own backyard never works. America has reinvented its own social contract many times, it's why we are still here 250 years later. What side would you have been on in the lead up to the civil war? The nothing ever happens side? Or civil rights? Or the New Deal? The world wars?

America has changed profoundly since the founding. Yes change is hard. So is a nation surviving for 250 years. The point is why politically agitate for a mid outcome. American politics is frequently defined by its aspirational nature. Have you read the founding documents? I mean I don't mean to be rude.

▲

xp84 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Okay, Jeb Bartlett, that's a nice speech, but you're suggesting that real people need to all get on board a platform which doesn't even have enough appeal to get a plurality of everyday voters supporting it[1], and should maybe even be prepared to fight a literal civil war(?) in the hopes that minority will prevail.

> American politics is frequently defined by its aspirational nature.

That part I agree with, though I would say maybe 'fantasy-based' may be better descriptor than 'aspirational' at present. Democrats for example think making a few billionaire sell their yachts would pay for universal healthcare forever (when current Medicare just for old people alone costs 1,118,000,000,000 a year), and Republicans think we can ban abortion and then no one will have anymore abortions.

[1] 45% support for a measly $1000 UBI in 2020 - a time that arguably was the best shot at people considering it! https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/19/more-amer...

	▲	godwinson__4-8 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Relying on polls is a lame argument. Kamala Harris should be president I guess. The people yearn for Liz Cheney and economic opportunity zones. Maybe a Democrat President who actually pitched UBI with the same gusto as the current president talked about "they're eating the cats and dogs" would do well. Polls are really useless when it comes to predictive power. If the last 10 years haven't taught you that I guess nothing ever well.

▲

watwut 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> it's why we are still here 250 years later

Like dude, 250 years is not exactly impressive amount of time.

Also AI side is not civil rights side. Nor new deal side. And it is dubious which side it would take in WWII. (We know grok side - nazi, but others)

	▲	godwinson__4-8 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		On what scale? On the scale of a nation-state it certainly is. Most of ones you will likely name that have been around longer under the surface had far more discontinuities than it would appear. Take France, it's on its Fifth Republic I think, to say nothing of its medieval nature. The United States is actually quite remarkable for 250 years of government under the same constitution. Please give some counter examples I'll wait.