This is exactly what these workers are doing. They're unhappy with their contracts, so they're trying to negotiate better terms.
Normally, you negotiate your contract because your company wants you, and finding someone else that would agree to the contract is a non-trivial amount of effort, so they'll hear you out. In these people's cases, all they'd hear is "lol, no" if they tried to negotiate individually, because they'd have virtually no power. As a result they're trying to find leverage in numbers: We want the freedom to negotiate all our contracts to our advantage, otherwise we're striking.
Allow me to put things differently: There is no law that says that Amazon must accept whatever terms are put forth by these unions. Amazon can, if they wish, outright refuse their terms and tell them that the contract is as-is and will not be altered.
While I'm not saying this is your case, I am puzzled at people who argue against unions with your last line, because it really does cut both ways. "If you are unhappy with a contract, don't sign it". Well, a union is a form of negotiating said contract, and to the companies being proposed those terms: "If you are unhappy with the terms, don't sign it". Makes sense, right?
Law of nature says people have to eat. Amazon warehouse worker is a low-skill, low-education job - how much bargaining leverage do you think an individual has in this situation?
I agree with what you're saying, and I'm very skeptical of the argument you sometimes see that everyone ought to unionize out of solidarity. But some workers don't feel they can get a contract they're happy with on their own, and for people in that situation unionization makes sense.
Imagine a company whose elected board members believed that the company should abandon its current market, should be scaled back or shouldn't even exist, and they enacted policies and made hires in accordance to those beliefs. That's what's happening in the US government.
We know that machines with AGI are possible - humans are such machines.
Maybe you could discuss whether classical computers could achieve AGI, but I think overall the quest is to build machines with AGI, not necessarily in the form of classical computers.
Humans are animals. Part of the paper defends the notion that a lot of human intelligence is tacit based on being embodied in the world as a living organism. The idea that humans are biological robots is only one that came about as metaphor when we created machines and some similarities were noted.
from what I understand being "embodied" doesn't necessarily imply movement, but I am afraid even I do not understand it fully to say a computer isn't and an animal is.
What does "embodied in the world as a living organism" even mean? Being embodied as a machine wouldn't be sufficient? Living organisms are "just" machines. I also don't see any reason why embodyment should be a prerequisite for thinking.
> We know that machines with AGI are possible - humans are such machines.
Are we? How do you know this?
Define "general intelligence". Then prove we have it. Then demonstrate that this definition that includes us doesn't include something commonly accepted to not have the same qualities.
Also, if we don't have "general intelligence", what does that mean?
To claim otherwise is to claim that there is some barrier beyond which scientific inquiry is not allowed to cross or is incapable of crossing. The epistemological status of such a claim is roughly equivalent to explaining something about the Universe by saying "it's because God did it."
No. It is not necessarily a claim that it can't be crossed, it is a claim that we currently lack the knowledge and resources needed to cross it.
We haven't figured out how to travel faster than the speed of light. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done. But we currently lack the knowledge and resources needed to do it.
Machine comes from mechanic and there is doubt, that general artificial intelligence can be achieved with a mechanical base.
But if you define any complex systema machine, then yeah sure, we humans are machines. Therefore GAI can be achieved with machines. Tautological proof.
The funny thing is, by state funding cheaper living in expensive areas, you are just giving state subsidies to rich people. You subsidize services for rich people. Without that, they'd have to pay their service workers higher wages, so that they could afford living nearby or commuting. Or do you think rich people would juslt suck it up and do the cleaning themselves? They'd either pay more for services, or move away, which would lower the rents.
What if the "poor people" become a nuisance? Such articles always frame things in a rosy light, as if the evil rich planners are the only reason people are divided.
What if the poor people are alcoholics, drug dealers, petty thieves, antisocial people? Why should other people be forced to deal with them?
The poor peole (on welfare) are mor likely to be trouble - they are on welfare for a reason.. Rich people pay good money to be shielded from trouble.
Do you have children? Did you get a cheap flat in the poor part of town? Many families pay higher rents, so that their kids have save streets and playgrounds to play in.
In my middle class neighborhood, I am not aware if a rich kid causing trouble. What trouble do you have in mind? Loud parties? Is the rich kid going to steal my kid's iPhones? I am talking about violence, pollution, syringes on playgrounds, stuff like that.
> The poor people (on welfare) are more likely to be trouble - they are on welfare for a reason..
as someone who's family has lived on welfare too, i find that notion insulting.
the reason for people being on welfare most often has nothing to do with people getting in trouble. loosing a job, divorce, natural disasters, illness in the family. there are many reasons someone could need welfare.
i urge you to really meet these people and understand their situation instead of dismissing them like that.
Also, do people just ignore your input, or do they feel they alrrady understood what you are trying to say? When I interrupt people, it is usually because I think I alrrady know what they want to say.
Maybe people in SV are just faster than average? Like the joke in Microserfs where the nerds watched video with subtitles in fast forward.
For ecample I also watch courses on Coursera on double speed, normal speed feels agoizing to me.
So perhaps talking double speed could also help?
I think it is also rude to expect people to listen for too long.
I have no idea why her reporting or not reporting these incidents is relevant. Also not sure why this the protest was 'generic'. Your comment comes off as dismissive without any substance. Please feel free to elaborate.
Because it doesn't make sense to protect anybody who mentions an incident of sexual harassment from being fired. Because then everybody would be protected from being fired, because everybody can tell a story of some incident they read in the news. Presumably the law is supposed to protect people who have been harassed and report it.
So...You shouldn't be able to protest something unless you personally experienced it? Like, if my buddy was sexually harassed, and I wanted to change the culture in my company to reduce the likelihood of this happening again, I shouldn't because I didn't have it happen to me? Your argument seems to be making a lot of assumptions that I don't share.
