words
A channel for writers on the internet. Share your work, respond to prompts, talk about writing & find cool stuff to read.
4 replies
0 recast
7 reactions
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
3 replies
2 recasts
9 reactions
This is how I see things playing out over the next 10-20 years:
the path to wealth prior to computers was basically through scaling labour that worked under you + machines (industrial revolution)
once computers came around, labour + software was the biggest opportunity
once robotics become mainstream, the path to wealth will be through digital robots (AI) and physical robots, with humans having only a minor component.
a robot is the equivalent of a human with near 100% uptime, no drops in productivity, and near zero training requirement for new tasks, and significantly cheaper to run.
robots are also infinitely scalable, you can buy as many as you want already trained from the open market, or training can be transferred instantly through code.
your ability to own robots will have an exponential effect on your ability to acquire wealth, as each additional robot you acquire is an exponential growth curve in terms of your own productivity and income.
most people though won't have the capital, skills or infrastructure to manage a team of robots tho, so the upside of robots will monopolise with a small % at the top.
but also, when humans work, the money they make (salary) goes back into the economy.
when robots replace humans, the income they make goes directly to business owners.
business owner pays robot company for robots. robots makes company money. profit goes to buy more robots.
with the removal of human labour and income that would've previously distributed fairly into the economy, the only solution is to impose high taxes on corporations to avoid excessive wealth centralisation.
and this leads into the next point, of how robotics will lead to social democracy (soft socialism):
nordic countries are in many ways socialist with how they go about things:
- free or heavily subsidised healthcare
- good unemployment benefits
- decent minimum standard of living so theres no SUPER poor people
- high income tax (50-60%)
- state owned industries (eg in stockholm the state owns Systembolaget, the only retail chain that can sell 3.5%+ alcohol)
for them it works because they've been a very high trust society, flexxing is not a thing there (excessive wealth isn't looked up at), etc
America is imo going to have to adopt some of these policies over the next 10-20 years due to the centralisation of capital caused by robots replacing human jobs
robots massively reduce the cost of food, healthcare, and other basic survival necessities.
thus, there will be a higher minimum standard of living
robots will replace human jobs, hollowing out the middle class, leading to increased wealth inequality
this divide of rich and poor will lead to revolts which result in a universal basic income becoming the standard for a large % of the population.
the only way to pay for UBI is to increase taxes
but by no means does this mean america will become a 'socialist' country
I think the path forward is very simple:
America will become a bipolar economy:
1. Capitalism will create the wealth
2. Socialist-style policies will redistribute it to ensure equality
There is simply to much leverage and monopolisation that'll occur from ai/robotics that they will be forced to implement socialist policies
- Daniel McEvoy (TG) 0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
11 replies
6 recasts
52 reactions
8 replies
0 recast
23 reactions
1 reply
1 recast
4 reactions
input:
decompose and categorize all instances of each type of ambiguity in this charles bukowski poem
use the literary criticism approach of William Empson:
Seven types
The first type of ambiguity is the metaphor, that is, when two things are said to be alike which have different properties. This concept is similar to that of metaphysical conceit.
Two or more meanings are resolved into one. Empson characterizes this as using two different metaphors at once.
Two ideas that are connected through context can be given in one word simultaneously.
Two or more meanings that do not agree but combine to make clear a complicated state of mind in the author.
When the "author is discovering his idea in the act of writing..." Empson describes a simile that lies halfway between two statements made by the author.
When a statement says nothing and the readers are forced to invent a statement of their own, most likely in conflict with that of the author.
Two words that within context are opposites that expose a fundamental division in the author's mind.
output:
Looking at Bukowski's "These Things" through Empson's framework of ambiguity, here's a detailed analysis:
Type 1 (Metaphor/Different Properties)
"our circle and our candle of light" - The metaphor conflates social/intellectual sphere ("circle") with illumination ("candle"), suggesting both community and enlightenment are equally small and fragile
Type 2 (Multiple Meanings Resolved into One)
"cracked intelligence" - Simultaneously means damaged/broken intelligence and intelligence that has been forced open (like cracking a code), resolving into a single image of compromised but perhaps penetrating thought
"ghost towns" - Both literally abandoned towns and metaphorically the spiritual emptiness of places we inhabit
Type 3 (Connected Ideas in One Word)
"support" - Contains both the financial meaning (economic support) and emotional/psychological meaning (what sustains us), connected through the poem's context of alienated labor
"Center" - Simultaneously the psychological center of self, the social center of belonging, and perhaps a commercial/urban center
Type 4 (Conflicting Meanings Revealing Complex Mental State)
"we heave out with Idea / and lose the Center" - The word "heave" suggests both violent expulsion (vomiting/throwing) and effortful lifting (heaving upward), revealing the speaker's conflicted relationship with intellectual ambition
"all wax without the wick" - Suggests both pure material without purpose and accumulated substance without the ability to burn/illuminate
Type 5 (Author Discovering Meaning While Writing)
"so small we cannot bear it" - The causality here wavers between two ideas: we cannot bear it because it is small (insufficiency) and we cannot bear/carry it despite its smallness (unbearable lightness)
Type 6 (Statement Requiring Reader Invention)
"These things that we support most well / have nothing to do with us" - This paradox says essentially nothing logical, forcing readers to construct their own meaning about alienation and false consciousness
"only the graves are real" - A seemingly empty nihilistic statement that requires the reader to fill in what constitutes "reality"
Type 7 (Opposites Revealing Fundamental Division)
"wisdom" / "ghost towns" - These are presented as equivalent destinations ("names that once meant wisdom" become "ghost towns"), revealing a fundamental division between the pursuit of meaning and its ultimate emptiness
"signs" / "graves" - The juxtaposition suggests signs (symbols of meaning/direction) lead only to graves (death/ending), exposing the divided consciousness between seeking and nihilism
The poem's central ambiguity operates at multiple levels simultaneously, with the title "These Things" itself being fundamentally ambiguous - never clearly defining what "things" are being discussed, allowing them to float between jobs, beliefs, social structures, and existential choices. 0 reply
1 recast
6 reactions
1 reply
1 recast
4 reactions
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Why LinkedIn Rewards Mediocrity
I, like many people, find LinkedIn particularly annoying. I like the premise of it, donât get me wrong, a resume you donât need to update all that often seems cool. Unfortunately though, its turned into the worst possible version of itself. Itâs a place where people post half baked nonsense all for the sake of building a personal brand that nobody really cares about.
I log in and see constant posting that I can only describe as toxic mediocrity. A seemingly endless stream of posts that are over fluffed, over produced and ultimately say nothing.
(I considered posting a screenshot here but will save the folks in my 'network' from potential doxxing. The LinkedIn Lunatics subreddit has no shortage of curated examples.)
I like writing on the internet, probably more than most. That doesnât mean that I think its useful to post vapid nonsense on a regular schedule just for the sake of posting.
Youâve probably seen the posts, both the reality and the memes. Generic advice disguised as a story. What my divorce taught me about B2B sales kind of stuff. It seems to be encouraged in much the same way that SEO content is encouraged. Yeah, it probably increases some metric around views or whatever but honestly, what for?
The vast majority of it falls into Toxic Mediocrity. Itâs soft, warm and hard to publicly call out but if youâre not deep in the bubble it reads like nonsense. Unlike itâs cousins âToxic Positivityâ and âToxic Masculinityâ it isnât as immediately obvious. Itâs content that spins itself as meaningful and insightful while providing very little of either. Underneath the one hundred and fifty words is, well, nothing. Itâs a post that lets you know that sunny days are warm or its better not to be a total psychopath. What is anyone supposed to learn from that.
What frustrates me the most about it is that the underlying premise of LinkedIn is still good. Thereâs some decent stuff on there in amongst all the noise. But, for whatever reason, that good stuff gets lost amongst a million posts of washed out nonsense.
Worse still is that those same lessons about âhow to grow on LinkedInâ encourage users to engage with this kind of content. Leave a pointless congratulatory comment and both you an the author will earn more professional network points.
As a result, the mysterious algorithm sees that same content as content that boosts time on site and the cycle continues. LinkedIn wants you on LinkedIn. Comments, likes and other engagement is a sign that youâre still online. It likely correlated well with clicks on ads and conversion to premium.
It annoys me in particular because I think people post this kind of stuff from a genuine place. They care about their careers and want to do better. I donât want to shut that down. What is frustrating though is that unless youâre being hired by someone else who posts this way I am strongly convinced this behavior doesnât work in your favor.
So what should someone do? Honestly, the best approach is to remember that LinkedIn is a website owned by Microsoft, trying to make money for Microsoft, based on time spent on the site. Nothing you post there is going to change your career. Doing work that matters might. Drawing attention to that might. Go for depth over frequency.
If writing online matters to you, youâre probably better off starting a blog and building things there. Youâll get less views and less engagement but thereâs less temptation to post nonsense just for likes. Youâre going to have a harder time getting people to stick around and read what youâre writing but that additional pressure raises the bar. Yeah, there are plenty of blogs that mostly go unread but even knowing that people will click away when they get bored should help distill your posts into content that matters.
Lots of people who write good content donât live on LinkedIn, they might repurpose things for the platform but they exist elsewhere. If youâre more of a consumer than a producer and you want to help make things better the best thing you can do is reward the real stuff. Find those people who arenât playing the game and promote that instead.
Or, failing all that, as with most nonsense on the internet, you can always close your laptop for the day and go outside.
https://www.elliotcsmith.com/linkedin-toxic-mediocrity/ 0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
10 reactions
