• Gsus4@mander.xyzEnglish
      0·
      20 days ago

      Sounds like it, they seem to think that the hate that motivates people to work harder for no extra pay out of revenge against the current boogeyman is a good way to extract more from “the cattle”.

    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      20 days ago

      It’s been commonly held for a long time that the deficit spending and industrial gear up for World War 2 are what finally shook the US out of the Great Depression, which has created a deeply-seated association between war and economic stimulation. It’s worth revisiting that question for today’s extremely different conflicts and economy. It may not be true anymore, and if not, that seems worth knowing.

      Similarly, there’s a long history of warfare driving technological innovation. I think this one is even less controversial. It’s just a fact. But pointing that out doesn’t mean I’m recommending we go to war for the sake of innovation.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    20 days ago

    We’re all just a number on a spreadsheet to them. A unit of input labor, a liability, etc. You shove this number of laborers in one side, and you get this amount of profit out the other side.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    20 days ago

    This is why my Dad thinks climate change is hysteria. WSJ ran an article (basically) positing that geoengineering will fix it anyway, and it’s best to pump the economy (with oil) to get there.

    …Which I was particularly hurt by.

    I’ve been reading geoengineering papers for a decade+, and the most practical theoretical ones boil down to desperate plans like “bathe the South Pole in sulfuric acid rain” that are still so heinously expensive it’s basically sci fi. And that’s assuming “tipping points” don’t materialize. Gah.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      20 days ago

      There’s also the, cause massive algae blooms in-between shipping lanes to try to soak up lots of carbon.

      The method is by dumping millions of tons of iron ore dust into the open ocean.

      One guy tested it, and it did cause an algae bloom. He didn’t do smaller scale tests, just dumped a ton or so of iron ore dust into the ocean.

  • DougPiranha42@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    20 days ago

    I don’t think OP knows what literally means. The wsj did not ask the question in the title. It asked a different question.

    • stoly@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      19 days ago

      In English, the plural “there are” is collapsing into the singular “there’s” such as “there’s five cars over there”. A lot of language changes happen this way. It annoys people who think about language.

      • 0ops@piefed.zipEnglish
        0·
        19 days ago

        “There’s” is at least easier to say and is only a grammar issue, English has always been really flexible about grammar. The “literally” thing is lexical, they just straight-up turned a useful word into a decorative but meaningless one. Now I always have to ask people if they mean “literally” literally, only I can’t know if they’ll answer me correctly because if they’re misusing “literally” then they probably don’t know the literal definition of “literally”. It’s insidious!

    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      20 days ago

      Oh I’m with you, but I stopped fighting for the word “literally” when the damn dictionaries gave up and added shit like this:

      2 informal : in effect : VIRTUALLY  —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible

      I literally died of embarrassment.

      … will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or inju

      • jve@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        19 days ago

        I stopped fighting for the word “literally” when the damn dictionaries gave up and added shit like this:

        That other guys link says they did that over a hundred years ago.

        But I guess that was just for the unabridged dictionary.

      • DougPiranha42@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        19 days ago

        I still think there are different standards for filler words during conversations and titles in writing. In this case, the post title is simply a lie. For example:

        Title: Florida Man Actually has Three Legs.
        Content: guy’s got such a big dick, he’s practically a tripod.

        In this case, that’s a misleading title.

        Edit: I also wanted to add that a title is parsed on its own, without context. Of course, “literally” can mean “not literally”, but one needs context to figure that out. In this title, such context is not there.