Obviously, as can be seen from the word "International" in the name.

(See also: "World League", etc, etc ad nauseam.)

Why would you necessarily need to be "active" in the first place?

If you're obviously invited only as a "seat filler" (and why else would the meeting be boring?), I see nothing wrong with being passive.

Fair point, but then again, what's the difference between intentionally being passive cause the meeting isn't relevant, and actually wanting to pay attention, and finding out that you drift off without noticing, i'm more interested in the second case.

Well, if the technology were even all that good, maybe. (Also, "innovation" just for "innovation's" sake is stupid. Lots of new shit is just that: shit.)

And no, him being gone in two years isn't all that much comfort. The problem is not just him, but the American people that elected him: The first time one could think it was a temporary aberration — 2016 was weird, what Brexit and all; maybe there was something in the water? Solar flares...? — but then they (you?) went and did it again in '24. It's not temporary any more.

I might have bought the stuff about Austria, if it weren't for the tinfoil-hattery about Sweden. The authorities there were investigating Assange not because of any American phone calls, but because some of his Swedish sex partners reported him to the police.

But since that's your level of accuracy on Sweden, it's hard to see any reason to trust you on Austria either.

But that moment is gone.

Ouch - weird metaphor (or simile, whatever) in the very first sentence: "Pam is a product manager driving her team's roadmap."

Huh? You don't drive a map; you use it to guide your driving. You drive a car, and read a map to do it.

Might have worked better if the two key words -- "drive" and "map", in this case -- had nothing at all to do with each other, but as is, they kind of clash with each other.

Oh well, now that I'd started anyway, I guess I'll read a little further.

Yes, logically / mathematically it seems it must be: Those additional people also contribute their 40h/wk, so more work gets done in total. That should be sufficient to support even more more people, not just more people, if they're all also more productive.

Or, IOW, "productivity" is a per-capita measure, so the total number of people doesn't factor in. (Or perhaps rather, gets factored out?) Anyway: People becoming "more productive" means each one producing more per hour — or per 40 hours — than before, so it's weird that they still need to work just as much as before, only to maintain the standard of living they had before.

(Running faster and faster, just to stay where they are... Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.)

Who was arguing that technology is reducing our material "standard of living"?

There's more to life than one's material standard of living. I think people were mostly talking about the other bits.

If you've been getting over $500k/year for years, you are "rich people". So no wonder you're not going to blame yourself for anything.

> Do you think you're conversing with a 14 year old, struggling with abstractions?

Sure sounds like it.