It’s not that gotcha that you think it is. I worked a lot of hard jobs, for 10 years I did very hard and complicated work in very unpleasant environments for very very little money only because I loved what we did and the results of our labour, and I was good at it. I would be doing that still if I didn’t need money to feed my family. In my years I’ve met a lot of people who were enjoying, properly enjoying jobs that other people will call hell. My job at the time, and to a big extend my job now, is something other people will never want to do for any amount of money.

Doctors make good money and we don’t have enough of them

And your conclusion isn’t that the system of people working for money and only for money is a broken system that demonstrably doesn’t work, but that we need to conserve it as long as we can because it was always done like that?
Yes, getting rid of money will absolutely help. Many people want to be doctors but can’t afford the time or resources to either become one, or to actually put their existing education to use.
And as an example I’ve personally witnessed, being a doctor in Russia in the 90s was about the worst job you can get, you don’t get any money, and I mean none, they were going multiple consecutive months without any salary. The shortage was about on par with the doctor’s shortage in US right now. Trapping people in jobs they don’t want to do is not something that helps humanity in any way.

Do kids need to go to school? Five days a week?

I struggle to understand how this is relevant to the conversation.

When you do your scaling you need to scale everything. The adult population of the US is estimated as 266 million people as of now. Half a million is roughly 1 adult in 530 people. Let’s quadruple it up so they have nice relaxed works schedule. Let’s say now you need 4 people per 530. If you think you can’t find 10 out of 1000 people who would do some sanitation work, with no stress and without having to think where their next meal comes from, you just never met people.
And this is the most important part that you seem to ignore - when people’s basic means are met, they want to fulfill higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. For some that means doing arts or doing some engineering or running a company. For some, and there are s many of those some, that means “it’s not much but it’s honest work”. Doing small visible changes that make the world the better place one picked up piece of rubbish at a time, is exactly, precisely what significant portion of humanity will be doing.
This also works in another direction: billions of people who would be doing something grand and moving humanity further, are stuck in mundane repetitive broken jobs they hate, because they’re stuck in this cycle of needing to grind to survive, without having a moment to breath, which slowly kills every bit of light they once had a potential to have.

That’s absolutely not what bystander effect is, not even close. It has also nothing to do with the issue at hand. Bystander effect caused not by not willing to put an effort, it’s incredibly complicated, layered, and not exactly explained, but probably the only thing we know about it for sure is that it’s not because people are lazy

“Who’s gonna do mindbraking soulcrushing jobs for days without a break?” Nobody, that’s not a job that has to be done this way. “But if we stop orphan crushing machine, what will crush all the orphans?”
When you’re imagining the worst parts of the worst jobs, remember that the reason those jobs have worst parts is because the main incentive of every job is to have the profit of a job as high as possible, and to exploit the workers. Yeah, some jobs are hard, some are complicated, some are dirty, some are all three. But all that is something people can and regularly enjoy. People don’t enjoy when it’s degrading, when it’s soulcrushing for no reason, when there is obvious injustice. And it has nothing to do with jobs

because most people you affect in a city are not personally known to you, and there will be no opportunity for the social mechanisms we evolved to pressure us into doing the right thing

That’s a demonstrable bullshit. Believing that the only motivation people can have is the fear of repercussions is the same level of that christian psychotic “if it wasn’t for the fear of god everyone would be raping and killing all the time” that says more about you than about supposed issue you’re afraid of.

Because, I don’t know if you’re noticed, having a paying job is exhausting. The world setup in such a way that for a normal person, getting money means someone will suck every bit of life of you.
That’s, pardon the not nice metaphor, the difference between night of passionate sex and selling your ass so your pimp doesn’t beat you up. Both activities can be reduced to physical aspects, but not a lot of people will ask why one is desirable and the other is less so.

The reasons those jobs are such shit is also money. A lot of people enjoy cleaning, nobody enjoys being overworked. Normal functioning societies don’t leave heaps of stinking trash around, they neatly pack it and the work of a janitor of garbage collector becomes actually enjoyable if you’re a proper type of personality.
Hell, my uncle right now works as a part time street sweeper basically for free. He has his basic needs met by other means, and his “job” pays him enough to get a cup of coffee before the shift and a sandwich after. He just enjoys making the world cleaner, chatting with locals, taking care of stray cats, and having a routine. All of that is possible in a world that doesn’t revolves around squeesing every bit of labour from people so some pedos can buy themselves another island and fill it with sex slaves

If you think the concept of saving money on shoddy parts was invented this decade you just never paid attention. “Metal” isn’t some kind of magic substance that just works forever, cheap cast bullshit iron can shatter quicker than you can say “structural integrity”.
The reason everyone is glazing up this old appliances is because of survivorship bias, everyone sees one on the million devices and doesn’t see millions of old bullshits that disintegrated into nothingness over years.

I mean, a nazi-pedophile is the king of US, obviously my attitude is in minority. Doesn’t change the fact that you’re offended at your own misunderstanding of the whole issue.

And I am once again saying that this argument doesn’t do that. You just conditioned to jump to this misinterpretation as a defense, and people who conditioned you to do so did that for not amazing purposes.

He’s so unpopular, he can start a war on twatter while shitting, and the whole country happily does what he wants no question asked.

Parents have nothing to do with a company that designed and implemented a gambling machine into your kid’s favourite game about killing people.

Depends on the area 3% of GDP can do a lot of good, of course (or a lot of nothing I suppose). Yet, it’s by definition isn’t “a lot”.

Yeah, I don’t actually believe all of that jokes are literally psyop. It wasn’t entirely serious comment.
It wasn’t entirely unserious either.

Most of psyops are done via memes nowadays

This is psyop, they run windows up there, their outlook doesn’t work, and everyone kinda accepted that.

Yes, pay more to Steam to get people buying it and also enjoy other Steam perks. Or, pay (presumably) less and receive nothing and not get your money back.

Shit like that could work 10 years ago, not anymore. Not that it worked reliably 10 years ago. You essentially want people to spend all the money and time making a game, and then gamble on the algorythm and that Zukerberg will allow anyone to see your shit. And if you lose the gamble, enjoy your 7 buyers and no shot to get anything in the future.
No wonder nobody actually does that, and people publish on Steam where there are oodles of mechanisms to connect people with money who want a game and people with a game who want money.

It was good optics indeed. It was also 13 billion over 3 years divided by 17 countries.

The Marshall Plan’s accounting reflects that aid accounted for about 3% of the combined national income of the recipient countries between 1948 and 1951, which means an increase in GDP growth of less than half a percent.

Not zero, for sure. But far cry from “lots”

Really?