There are so many issues with the AI “luddites” as this author calls them. First, it will probably be a while before AGI becomes possible. Second, it absolutely is not a foregone conclusion that they will try to harm us. Third, how is it any different than just having kids? Do we stop having kids because among them…

See my other reply to more or less this same question: http://gizmodo.com/true-i-should-…

True. I should say “eating local” rather than “eating at local restaurants.” But remember that the author was the one that cited the use of local ingredients in the supply chain as the problem.

When I say “dangerous” I mean beyond a reasonable threshold. Walking is dangerous too. Interesting claim that eating local is riskier. Could you throw an article my way on that?

Got it. Oddly, there are days where I crave Taco Bell, as fake and unhealthy as it is.

Exactly how far upstate are you that your only options for “Mexican” are Chipotles and Moe’s?

I think I’m still more of a fan of local sourcing. If it were really such a problem, then eating at any local restaurant would be “dangerous.”

> Edit: Sorry, TLDR: users want no barriers to doing anything, which is exactly what bad guys want. And your barriers are written by bored, shitty, enterprise programmers who are not nearly as clever or motivated as the bad guys.

Sandboxed applications aren’t a bad idea, although they obviously slow down the system. Luckily hardware is relatively cheap these days, so it’s certainly possible.

Okay. There are a few things that are wrong with your position. First, a lack of government does not imply a lack of any systems of interaction, whether local of global. There are plenty of non governmental systems which span across the planet, including various charities, unions, etc.

Okay. Let’s go over this step by step. Money isn’t a zero sum game? Actually it is. Wealth isn’t. But that’s fine. Your argument ignores basic economics. The more people spend on one product, the less they have to spend on another. This is why the law of demand exists. People make choices about what products they buy,…

> The beer monopolies are not responding by making better beer, they are responding by buying up as many craft beer companies they can to reduce their competition.

> It really is that black and white to you isn’t it? Even the smallest positive inclination for any remotely governmental supported activity or organization is anathema to you.

I called you a statist because you are one. It’s clear from your support of the state. You think we need government. You trust government to tell us how to act and how to use our money, even if it’s supposedly with some stupid “eagle eye.” Exactly how good is that eye when it comes to the overseas murder campaigns?

Which corporations? There are plenty of small businesses, non profits, unions, etc which are corporations. Do I trust those local businesses? Sure. Do I trust mega corps? Nope. But mega corps are the product of government support. Don’t believe me? Look at any mega corp and you will find that they rely on government…

> It’s not like NGOs are popping up everywhere to take over ISP duties from the companies that divided us up into their own areas they control.

No. When it comes to NGOs, you can stop giving them money. Get it? No. I guess you don’t. You can’t process that NGOs are voluntary. If you don’t like what they’re doing, you can, at the very least, stop sending them support.

> Regulation is an essential function of government when you have a system as lopsided as our own.

> Now look at all the non sequiturs we have. You fail to address the issue of externalities because you and I both know that a capitalistic society cannot address them without government.

> You brought up thievery, implying the government steals rather than ‘misuses’. Like there’s a real difference, you know that the end result is the same...