No, even the worse estimates still show that it will take a 50 years for us to get to what would be considered a normal global average for human history.
Sweden better hurry then.
And as usual, we're missing the cost/benefits analysis here.
Your dystopic scene is in regards to the content production, whereas the common carrier comment was in reference to the distribution infrastructure.
I don't know why you think that's relevant since my scenario covers distribution infrastructure as well.
However, going back to food, the fact that the government maintains the roads which are used to deliver food has not, personally, been a problem for me.
It has resulted in governments deliberately hamstringing some transportation infrastructure in favor of other transportation infrastructure. Roads in particular are notoriously impaired via tolls, restricted construction, etc in favor of mass transit.
Variety and choice tend to be good things -- but whatever we're doing now isn't working perfectly, as not everyone has access to fast internet.
Not seeing how government will make it more perfect or why it matters that not everyone has access to fast internet.
Common Carrier all fiber, cable, cellular networks, everyone runs over the common carrier, no more fragmentation, no more limitations as all companies pay the same rate to run over the same equipment....
And no more incentive to maintain, improve, or differentiate that infrastructure. It's like arguing that we should consolidate the food production industry so we can have a consistent, efficiently manufactured Soylent food product everywhere in the EU to fulfill your nutritional needs. One size fits all tends to be pretty ugly. I hear they're coming out with Soylent Green in a few months. Yum!
Because meddling is ok when it assuages your insecurities.
I apologize for the accusatory tone. As you say, you're just being devil's advocate here. But so much bad law, regulation, and lawsuits are due to hysteria over stupid people. A stupid person spills coffee on their lap, suddenly we have a need to ban coffee above a certain temperature. A stupid person flies a drone in a dangerous spot and suddenly drone flying is heavily regulated for everyone. A stupid person screws up their home's electrical system in Australia and then there is a protection racket for the local electrician mob.
Not from Oz, but to play devil's advocate, it's because "we" can get affected by your dumbass actions.
So why is interfering with peoples' ability to do basic electrical work not considered worse than the imagined harm of dumbasses? Because meddling is ok when it assuages your insecurities.
What does drive me to going to a different competitor are advertising / marketing methods I find any of the following: invasive, absurd, immature, over the top, lacking in class, offensive, over budgeted, unethical, and others. I vote my pocketbook against vendors I dislike rather than for a particular or special one.
Damn, take this down! He's just giving out these amazing ideas for free!
Here in Oz you will get in trouble if you do unlicensed electrical work on your own home. The big box hardware stores all have big signs in the electrical department clearly saying "no DIY" and warning people not to do the work if they dont have the license.
Add me to the chorus of the people who say that's crazy. I get that's a bunch of dumb people out there who will screw this up, But why should we not be able to do fun stuff because there's dumb people in the world?
No college would ignore threats like this.
FBI isn't a college.
The threats are credible.
And I think the FBI determined that contrary to your assertions, the threats weren't credible.
They demonstrate means, motivation and planning (from the FBI report):
They don't demonstration sincerity. Fake threats (for example, created by the very party threatened) look just like real ones.
Apalling: I challenge anyone who thinks that can endure that sort of abuse and remain unaffected by it.
I could. The first step I'd do, which come to think of I already did, is not read it. It's amazing how easy it is to remain unaffected by even the most puerile stuff, if you don't bother to read it.
I don't see why not. Everything scales up more or less with population size and, at least in Europe, there seems to be very little difference in general between the social and economic system systems between small and large countries. There are some difference between northern and southern and western and eastern countries in general, but they have to do with culture, history and the relative economic strength, not with size.
Evidence would be nice to have in this situation.
Moreover, on whom exactly are Finland, Sweden, Switzerland. Austria, Ireland and other non-NATO members supposedly relying? Good relations with neighbours and not starting or getting involved in far away wars over natural resources and which dictator or which terrorist group is the 'better' goes along way towards not needing an overly large military.
NATO and the EU for starters. Not every country is as hard to invade as Switzerland is. And good relations with neighbors are greatly expedited by having multiple neighbors to counter the military threat from other neighbors.
I demonstrated that there can be economic value in FFBRs. Even economic value that is in FFBRs that won't be in AI (namely, they could be tasty). It is you who is arguing from ignorance (e.g you can't imagine FFBRs having economic value, I just need to imagine a way in which they do have a use, and I did)
There's a huge difference between "can be" and "is". I pointed to present day huge industries that can use right now the power advanced AI brings. Meanwhile FFPRs could be tasty. Uh-huh.
The closest to perfection a person ever comes is when he fills out a job application form. -- Stanley J. Randall