http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turn...

The problem with having a user reporting based plan for acting against fake accounts in an environment where the psychological motivations of using the service, if not to disseminate news, or maintain a closet standup comedian habit, is affirmation. In almost every motivation for using the service, the user has an incentive to keep their numbers up, whether they are real or not. A huge part of the game is the number of followers.

Personally I'm just surprised that they've moved from advertising cam sites (which could conceivably act as a secondary, almost passive income) to quoting star wars novels while inflating numbers for people who pay for followers. That's the aspect that confuses me, and makes me feel vulnerable.

And then a cock fight... Like a real one.

As someone with a job, with friends and acquaintances who all have jobs, and parents who have jobs, I feel like I can safely speak for all of them when I tell you right now: We do not want jobs. We want access to a fair share of the available resources.

Maybe I'm the only person who reads this stuff who has actually done construction work, landscaping, painted houses, washed dishes, etc. while what they really wanted to do was to be studying mathematics and computer science, but as such a person, I find the "let's try to find a way around universal income in light of the coming 'automated utopia'" conversation to be extremely offensive. You say (and I'm paraphrasing for dramatic effect) that 'these poor people love to work, without work they wouldn't even be whole people' Not quite as offensive as "Let's liquidate the lower-class when we no longer need them to perform rote tasks to further our objectives." but close.

Aside from the context of space travel beyond where collecting this underutilized resource, "Light From Stars" is viable, why is this even a conversation?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and...

It seems that you view these services, which are luxuries, as options for the people that have to provide these services in order to survive in the modern American urban environment. They generally can't afford these luxuries. Nobodies blaming, or complaining about tech companies providing services. People are blaming tech companies and complaining about the effects of tech companies arbitraging value from economic systems that already existed, further increasing the concentration of wealth (which is ostensibly access to resources) among those who can already afford to invest in building the mechanisms to arbitrage said value. And, quite frankly, some of us are getting annoyed with people who defend companies that actually influence legislature on local and national levels to enable this arbitrage to the detriment of the citizenship of these regions, while shoving advertising, and news stories in our faces, labeling this arbitrage as the quintessential if not sole definition of human progress.

Also, this article was comedy, and hilarious.

I had been working on a pitch for Uber for Wet Nurses but didn't realize my target demographic was actually 20's to 30's white males. Maybe I should crunch the numbers again.

Now to counteract the 'Seamless effect', we should build an Uber for Companionship & Human Contact, you know.. like an Uber for 'Dating'. We can reap a percentage of the income the companion makes from the date...