The writer of that article seems over the top angry about NDT’s tweets. Enough so that he titles the article “Neil Degrasse Tyson Shut The Fuck Up”.

Maybe its justified though, let’s look at some examples:

-NDT tweeted that “Marriage Story” should’ve been called “Divorce Story”.

-NDT tweeted chunks of asteroid in the movie Armageddon conveniently hit all the major cities of earth.

-NDT tweeted that the aliens in the movie Arrival would’ve had to write backwards to communicate.

…Seriously this doesn’t explain the hate for him. It just makes the writer seem like he has a chip on his shoulder.

I don’t get why it’s so popular to hate on him.

Godspeed.

So Communism is:

concept

classless

moneyless

stateless

achieved by Socialist states

takes a long time

never been achieved before

I wonder why it hasn’t been achieved before.

Yes, I am talking about why you think Communism is the solution to inequality but it just hasn’t achieved it yet after centuries of existing.

Then you moved the goalpost to claim that communism has never been achieved.

So let’s talk about that now.

Why do you think Communism has never been achieved but at the same time think it is capable of solving inequality?

Just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it is guaranteed to happen in the future.

I didn’t think that I needed to explain that to you. I was wrong. Sorry.

I am not saying things can’t happen if they haven’t happened yet.

I am saying if Socialism and Communism have existed for centuries and that whole time they have had disparity. What reason is there to believe that disparity cannot exist in socialist or communist economies?

If it just needs to be “based in logical progression of real systems” to achieve the goal, then why has it not succeeded yet after centuries of existence?

If I can take your exact same argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France

My argument that disparity is caused by people pursuing power and not economic systems?

Please explain how your example of France proves my argument wrong.

Goals are nice. But we are talking about how to achieve an economic system that actually achieves this. Not just sets goals to.

You are claiming Communism and Socialism can do it but when I ask for an example you say they just haven’t done it yet.

If they have existed for centuries but haven’t achieved their goals yet what makes you think they can?

There are still hierarchies in socialist economies. Thats why there is still disparity in socialist economies.

Do you have an example of one of these socialist societies where everyone has equal power?

You can account for bad actors and power-seekers woth egalitarian distribution of power and a prevention against gaining in power.

How? Without stating how this is accomplished, you’re response is only really saying,

‘you can account for bad actors and power-seekers by living in a perfect world where bad people don’t exist’

If there were an economic system that achieved that it would be a utopia. I don’t know of any utopias on earth.

Not every economic system, economic systems that place significant barriers against ballooning of individual wealth off exploitation see less disparity, and thus less of an impact of money on politics.

You say not every economic system, but then you say less disparity, less impact.

Less disparity means there is still disparity. Less impact means there is still impact.

Because like I said, as long as there are human beings who want more power, there will be a struggle in any economic systems to prevent disparity.

That is because it isn’t the economic system that deregulates or undermines protections.

It is those who seek more power who deregulate and undermine protections.

And those people exist in all types of economic systems.

Even capitalist America had a point in history where disparity was low and the middle class and lower class thrived.

That is no longer the case because of those who removed regulations and changed the laws to suite themselves. And again, those people exist in every type of economy.

Not from “the west” from “the rich”. There are rich people in every type of economy that use their money to gain more power. One of the many ways that is done is with propaganda to convince those with less that the rich in power are not the problem.

Just look at the oligarchs in Russia.

2/3rds of Americans don’t know what AI is or the limitations of LLMs.

Agreed, almost every profession has advanced to the point where they require specialization. Everything has become so complex that being a jack of all trades means you fail at them all. Even trade skills have specialization: carpenters specialize in framing or cabinetry or furniture, mechanics specialize in specific machines or sub-systems like engines or transmissions, etc.

But it seems most of the people responsible for filling these positions haven’t realized this yet or don’t know enough about the jobs they are hiring for.

lol, you got me

The only perspective was a wishlist of responsibilities for a software developer.

It seems delusional to pretend one developer “should” do the job of a whole team.

What is this trash? It reads like an AI hallucination.

It’s not some crazy conspiracy to say this doesn’t look like an accident

“Apple didn’t know De Niro hadn’t signed off on that one as the final version”

Then they are at fault for not verifying they are putting the right words on the teleprompter

“If you’re going to attribute an action to a company as a whole, then it at least needs to be a decision made by a high-level employee and not some peon.”

I’ve had many experiences with companies that fire “peons” for bad PR or misrepresenting the views of the company or however HR wants to word it to avoid legal problems.

It is very easy for CEOs or upper management or middle management to pass down orders that are worded in a way that imply what they want workers to do without saying it in a legally binding way.

“The idea that Apple decided to just unilaterally delete portions of his speech at the last minute, without his consent, is among the least plausible scenarios.”

Then why is it the first conclusion that De Niro and many others came to?

“Anybody with any actual authority at the company is smart enough to know how stupid that would be.”

Because it looks like they are censoring his speech.