Having flown in and out a lot of the last decade, it is a stupendously run airport.

What jobs aren’t requiring usage of these tools by now?

I think the broader point I am trying to push is every critique of these technologies is not necessarily demanding their complete destruction and non-proliferation.

And the lesson of the Amish is that, in capitalist democracy, certain technologies are inevitable once the capital class demands them, and the only alternative to their proliferation and societal impact is complete isolation from the greater culture. That is a tough reality.

In the context of Luddite societies or communities of faith, the Amish have been able to continue to persist for roughly three centuries with Luddite-like way of life as their foundation. In fact, they are not strictly Luddite in the technical sense, but intentional about what technologies are adopted with a community-focused mindset driving all decisions. This is what I meant be "fine" - as in, culture is not always a winner-take-all market. The amish have persisted, and I don't doubt they will continue to persist - and I envision a great eye will be turned to their ways as they continue protected from some of the anti-human technologies we are wrestling with in greater society.

All of this is to say, we have concrete anthropological examples we can study. I do not doubt that in the coming years and decades we will see a surge of neo-Luddite religious movements (and their techno-accelerationist counterparts) that, perhaps three centuries from now, will be looked back upon in the same context as we do the Amish today.

As an aside, if we place pro-technological development philosophy under the religious umbrella of Capitalism, I think your same critiques apply for many of the prior centuries as well. Specifically with regards to the primary benefactors being cis white men. Additionally, I do not think the racial angle is a fair critique of the Amish, which is a religious ethno-racial group in a similar vein of the Jewish community.

Procreation and progeny is our only true purpose — and one could make the argument AI would make better parents and teachers. Should we all capitulate our sole purpose in the name of efficiency?

Love seeing the details behind this intentional community building (:

Equally curious which the non-working property owners fall into as well?

Peer feedback is valuable, it is important, and it is expected of senior team members. I guess it is a fun game if you have a poor manager, but the whole argument around the strategy isn't even internally logical, and if you play it out it is a poor outcome:

1. Company expects Senior Engineers to provide input on their teammates. 2. Senior Engineer has a Bad Manager, and decides to intentionally withhold feedback because "that is their manager's job, and up the chain" 3. Senior Manager (skip-level of Senior Engineer) determines that their Manager is a Bad Manager, and replaces them. 4. Good Manager joins, determines who is performing, and asks "Why did none of the Senior Engineers identify this earlier?" 5. The supposedly competent, but intentionally malicious Senior Engineer in this hypothetical is (correctly) deemed either incompetent or not believable by the New Good Manager. 6. Good Manager finds a component Senior Engineer with any sense of character to replace them.

This post is such hogwash, it is so fully of toxicity, and it is a dumb strategy. When things "hit the fan" this person is being tossed out in the regime change as well.

I would truly hate my life if I worked with people even a fraction as toxic as this.

GP is just stating that fact. The citizens’ opinion on the matter are irrelevant - the pentagon is not a democratic institution.