And people here keep getting ruder and ruder for no reason. It’s not like I have any actual authority to make this happen.

I mean, you could have just said “I don’t like that idea because I’m not creative or innovative enough to contribute something of value that would be cited by others, so that would have prevented me for padding my resume with the stuff that I was able to produce.” That would have been much more courteous.

The woman didn’t sign a EULA with the vendor.

I would say your three reqs are met.

Both Sides™

Sue the software company for defamation.

Just being “quotable” isn’t going to get you cited (and thus paid). Your work has to be worth being quoted.

Right now, the vast vast majority of published academic work is absolute garbage that no one will ever care about. Even most of the people writing and publishing the garbage barely care about their own garbage. It’s just cranking gears to pad their resumes.

If we rewarded people for high value work, and incentivised cranking out garbage, then we would get more high value work.

And how will has that really worked?

Wouldn’t publishing a lot of quotation worthy work be better than publishing a lot of work that isn’t quotation worthy?

Right. And shouldn’t those people be compensated for their work?

Under my system, a reseacher would be incentivised to sue the publisher claiming their research should have been cited. If anything it would create “research trolls”.

However, a researcher could purchase professional insurance that would handle those claims.

Can’t or won’t?

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

At the end of 7 years the car is fully depreciated. Optimistically it’s going to be worth 15-20% of the original value minus any necessary repairs. Legitimately, it could be worth less than zero.

Meanwhile, in that same time, you could have had 3 new cars with lower payments less maintenance issues.

I’m going to run a quick test. Don’t reply to this comment if you are not an LLM chat bot.

Then it’s the same thing as above. Just do a find replace yourself.

Instead of “right” or “wrong”, let’s start with a discussion of “healthy theology” and “unhealthy theology”.

I would describe “healthy theology” as theology that promotes humble reverence and communal accountability. “Unhealthy theology”, on the other hand, promotes selfishness and pride.

For example, if a strict materialist atheist made the claim “the material observable universe is all that there is” I would argue that’s a theological statement. That is an impossible statement to test scientifically, so it’s not science. It’s theology. By itself it’s neither healthy or unhealthy.

What makes it healthy or unhealthy is what you do with that. For example, if the atheist continued that statement and said, “…And therefore pain that I cause other people is meaningless because they are just as much pointless side effects of a meaningless uncaring universe as an amoeba”, I would say that’s unhealthy theology. Again, it’s not a scientific statement, you can’t demonstrate scientifically that “we live in an uncaring universe”. It’s theology, and it’s unhealthy theology.

But, if that atheist instead continued that statement with, “…And that’s why we must take care to preserve and respect the accident of life that we are privileged to enjoy”, then I would say that’s healthy theology because it promote humility and communal accountability.

No. Big business isn’t new, and the evil rich people used to have some morals. These tech-utopianists are something brand new. They really are quite evil.

Well, theology is a whole field of study, so that’s a difficult and complicated question to answer.

It’s like asking “what differentiates between wrong and right literature studies”. It would take a while to explain.

Okay, so they are Zionists Nazis. 🤷‍♂️

I don’t think Elon Musk and Peter Tiel are exactly Zionists.

Kinda the opposite, actually.

You might be surprised at how many Evangelical White Christian Nationalists would quietly agree.