this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
293 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

69658 readers
2690 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
293
Intel introduces its newest employee, Chip the robotic inspector, just after announcing mass human layoffs (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 2 days ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don’t understand what you’re trying to prove here to be honest. Of course there’s been shitty behavior all along.

This is the first post you haven't been praising the 1950s as a better time for workers. Thats what I was trying to prove. All your prior posts were speaking nostalgically about the "better time" for workers in the 1950s. Besides a small set, it wasn't better, and many times worse. Thats all.

My point is simple: corporations are a made-up concept and one of the main things people are supposed to get in the deal to allow them to exist in the first place is efficient allocation and utilization of human resources.

Efficient for the corporations. Not efficient for an individual.

It seems to me they are admitting that they cannot do that. In which case, the deal should be renegotiated.

Their goal isn't your goal. There can be an argument made whether capitalism should exist, but under the current system they are behaving as capitalists. Workers welfare isn't their primary goal, and in fact, only a goal at all as required by law (OSHA, DoL rules).

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is the first post you haven’t been praising the 1950s as a better time for workers.

Isn't at all, but you're reading whatever you want into my posts. So keep on keeping on. 👍

I get that you recently read some Marx or some shit, but corporations aren't just capitalism. They have charters. They were put into existence via law. It is possible to still be "under capitalism" and restructure the laws. Full on gay space communism isn't required to make any progress on any issue.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is the first post you haven’t been praising the 1950s as a better time for workers.

Isn’t at all, but you’re reading whatever you want into my posts. So keep on keeping on. 👍

Do I need to quote you back to yourself? Okay, these are your words:

"If you look at what many consider to be the golden age of American corporations after the second world war, the notion of a 'company man' was a celebrated one"

"but it’s worse now than it was in the – what I’m now calling the first – gilded age."

I think we've hit the end of productive conversation between the two of us on this subject. I appreciate your conversation up to now. You're welcome to keep going, but I won't be responding on this thread anymore. I hope you have a great day!

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If you look at what many consider to be the golden age

Emphasis mine

I didn't even say I consider it a golden age, because I don't.

but it’s worse now than it was in the – what I’m now calling the first – gilded age.

The gilded age was not in the 1950s. Also, gilded age doesn't mean golden age.

I think we’ve hit the end of productive conversation between the two of us on this subject

Agreed. Maybe next time read and understand some of the responses?