Perhaps the main use for technology is increasing the amount of inequality society can tolerate without collapse. I can’t fix inequality – that just seems to be what the humans want.
However by investing in surveillance technology, computer vision, and AI I could perhaps help our society to bear unbounded amounts of inequality indefinitely, without collapse. Social collapse is a less-than-zero-sum game, whereas an unequal society is still generally more-than-zero-sum. So I posit that the latter is objectively better.
… Are you suggesting that we increase inequality to make the world better? Like we need an overlord, be it robot or human, and the rest of the population needs to be placated, worked to the bone, and easily replaced?
I gotta assume I am just vastly misunderstanding something in this argument, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what it is. Is it just sarcastic?
I hate the idea of hints. Because A. You then have to make the person your interested in make their own way towards you, and B. Then they have to notice it and then take a risk. I think it’s FAR better, to give your crush an opening, serve them a line on a silver platter.
For example:
My wife was interested in me and she opened with:
“Am I too close?” To which I could’ve replied “nah you’re good” or “yes, a bit” without any fuss. but, since I was also interested, I replied.
“Oh nonsense, if anything you’re not close enough” which, can easily be dismissed as me being silly, but nope, she’s interested. So she responds
'OH really? So how close can I get?"
Like, set up a romantic line. If there’s a romantic line to be had. If they’re interested, they’ll take it.