When are people going to learn that exports aren't even good. The export market just gets a lot of play in politics because of concentrated interests. Exporters lobby. Politicans present arguments to justify what they are doing for exporters. That becomes political rhetoric. Generations later people actually believe it.
Countries with high exports don't have a great quality of life. Exports don't improve the quality of life people living there. It increases work and lowers real wages as often as not. It just makes exporter's rich. Did British people actually benefit from the opium wars? Do Chinese workers have physical prosperity matching their level of productivity?
Exporters have convinced countries that money is more valuable than goods. Countries print money.
This is why the tariffs don't actually hurt Canada but are just a self-own for the US. It hurts Canadian exporters. But who cares. Now Canadians get to enjoy those products. If a few jobs are lost momentarily, they are replaced by jobs serving the domestic market.
Hilter was initially intolerant to those who were intolerant of the rich. National Socialism was universally unpopular for an entire generation. But it flipped and gained massive universal appeal in the shadow of a bloody communist initiated civil war.
You can't preach tolerance while being intolerant of people who happen to have more money than you, just like you can't claim to be tolerant while being intolerant of those with more melanin than you. It's all relative. No one has zero money and very few have zero melanin. But anyone who has more than me is a bad guy is not a very tolerant position.
Anyone reading this is in the 10 percentile globally. It's like light blacks being racist to dark blacks (which is a real thing).
There is AI detection software. But maybe it would be expensive to run on every post. You could have a popularity threshold for it to run. No AI text can ever get popular, so there is less incentive to try.
But nuisance AI posts could still happen. Let's be real. They will.
Maybe we need some kind of bot that labels bots. Then people can upvote and down vote as they please.
The Fed lowered interest rates. Now your savings pay nothing, and your home is too expensive. Works for boomers though. Their home being too expensive is a good thing. But they won't live to enjoy that wealth. And now we are in a Faustian trap. Make housing affordable (important and right thing to do) and with it we have to see the a ton of normal people go underwater on a leveraged investment.
But if we slowly raise interest rates we could avoid the shock.
Side benefit. AI's hype train depends on being able to operate at a mammoth loss for the foreseeable future. That also depends on artificially low interest rates. Raise them, not only can you make housing affordable, but you also might kill AI.
There would be some job loss. All the AI jobs would go. I'm ok with this.
To offer some fairness to myself regarding the bad grammar... In earlier revisions of the question, I found that a lot of words I wanted to use carried too much weight and baggage. I didn't want to bias the question with them. So I went with the most generic and childish language that could capture the essence.
Words like evil, excellence, error, virtue; They all mean very specific things to different people. Rephrased with more mature verbiage, it's still an interesting question but doesn't seem as broad. What is excellence? Is it driven more by the presence of things that are excellent or the general absence of error? If the first, what does it mean for those things to be excellent?
That is an interesting and nearly identical question. One downside of this question is that not everyone is caught up in trying to be excellent. Many people don't care what is "excellent." But everyone cares what is good and what isn't so good. But maybe that simplified speech is beneath some people.
What is virtue? Is it the absence of evil? These all end up asking a slightly different question, instead of the broadest question.
Arch is one of the most vanilla of Linuxes. Everyone wanted to run an opinionated distro. But what we needed was the opinions of developers and fewer opinions from people who think creating a distro is a sensible way to distribute art.
Arch - every package is just the software the original developer shipped, kept up to date.
"I have art work I want to share. I know. I'll make myself responsible for the reliability of a thousand people's operating systems. I hope my cooky ideas never come into conflict with that." <- Not who you want indirectly changing files on your system when you use the package manager.
Speculating on someone who themselves are speculating that their customer's speculation will be fruitful is exactly what low interest rates encourage. Everyone likes the extra activity that produces on the macros, but it just makes the market less accurate.
Interest rates basically set how permissive the market is with its todo list. The problem is when you let yourself do anything, and then also let yourself get distracted doing something that might help something that you maybe shuldn't be doing anyway. This is not a functional life. It's a busy life, but not functional.
If you want to kill AI, raise the interest rates. It will cause a recession, which sucks. But frankly, humanity will survive a recession and it will be temporary. A higher interest rate market solves real problems that benefit actual people within a near horizon. What we don't need is people working 14 hour days, slaving to keep their heads above water, working for companies engaged in far-off speculative race for world dominance; we wouldn't want them to succeed at anyway. That's 100% what we're all doing, and it is interest rates that modulate that.
Raising interest rates will kill all of those jobs involved in that, and sadly a few more from the shock. But those people weren't doing anything productive for humanity anyway. It's better to have them lose those jobs and then later redirect their labor towards something productive. In the long term they are digging themselves out of having a job with their current path anyway.
It is. And it's wrong. But part of how we got here is it was sold as not being a tax, even though it absolutely is.
The claim was it was a mandatory retirement investment program. Because the wealthy have their own retirements figured out they don't need their payouts to continue to scale with their income, so their payments in shouldn't scale proportionally either, under this flawed premise, since it is "not a tax."
But why it is a tax is, one, most of us will never see a payout because the program is going to collapse before most of us retire, and therefore it is NOT a mandatory retirement program. And second, all payments in and out of government are fungible, so it really is a tax and a separate retirement supplemental program, where we use language around them to pretend they are one program.
Ironically, if we took all the money that was paid into Social Security and invested it in a real portfolio (actual investment), our generation would actually get something, and current generations would be getting significantly more retirement. The issue is that because whether you like government or not, it is a money loser. It's basically designed to be one. That means using the government as an investment vehicle is in pure investment terms really really bad. Plus it also sets up a regressive tax as you pointed out.
When are people going to learn that exports aren't even good. The export market just gets a lot of play in politics because of concentrated interests. Exporters lobby. Politicans present arguments to justify what they are doing for exporters. That becomes political rhetoric. Generations later people actually believe it.
Countries with high exports don't have a great quality of life. Exports don't improve the quality of life people living there. It increases work and lowers real wages as often as not. It just makes exporter's rich. Did British people actually benefit from the opium wars? Do Chinese workers have physical prosperity matching their level of productivity?
Exporters have convinced countries that money is more valuable than goods. Countries print money.
This is why the tariffs don't actually hurt Canada but are just a self-own for the US. It hurts Canadian exporters. But who cares. Now Canadians get to enjoy those products. If a few jobs are lost momentarily, they are replaced by jobs serving the domestic market.
Hilter was initially intolerant to those who were intolerant of the rich. National Socialism was universally unpopular for an entire generation. But it flipped and gained massive universal appeal in the shadow of a bloody communist initiated civil war.
You can't preach tolerance while being intolerant of people who happen to have more money than you, just like you can't claim to be tolerant while being intolerant of those with more melanin than you. It's all relative. No one has zero money and very few have zero melanin. But anyone who has more than me is a bad guy is not a very tolerant position.
Anyone reading this is in the 10 percentile globally. It's like light blacks being racist to dark blacks (which is a real thing).
Just cook your eggs. Chicken also has salmonella. We cook it.
There is AI detection software. But maybe it would be expensive to run on every post. You could have a popularity threshold for it to run. No AI text can ever get popular, so there is less incentive to try.
But nuisance AI posts could still happen. Let's be real. They will.
Maybe we need some kind of bot that labels bots. Then people can upvote and down vote as they please.
The Fed lowered interest rates. Now your savings pay nothing, and your home is too expensive. Works for boomers though. Their home being too expensive is a good thing. But they won't live to enjoy that wealth. And now we are in a Faustian trap. Make housing affordable (important and right thing to do) and with it we have to see the a ton of normal people go underwater on a leveraged investment.
But if we slowly raise interest rates we could avoid the shock.
Side benefit. AI's hype train depends on being able to operate at a mammoth loss for the foreseeable future. That also depends on artificially low interest rates. Raise them, not only can you make housing affordable, but you also might kill AI.
There would be some job loss. All the AI jobs would go. I'm ok with this.
There is not a soul on this planet that read all of that.
gvid.tv has a downvote button. And it actually does something useful.
But red is the absence of other colors besides red.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/543480-dark-history-of-deceptive-sterilization-of-thousands-of/
They are getting you used to taking emergency shots.
To offer some fairness to myself regarding the bad grammar... In earlier revisions of the question, I found that a lot of words I wanted to use carried too much weight and baggage. I didn't want to bias the question with them. So I went with the most generic and childish language that could capture the essence.
Words like evil, excellence, error, virtue; They all mean very specific things to different people. Rephrased with more mature verbiage, it's still an interesting question but doesn't seem as broad. What is excellence? Is it driven more by the presence of things that are excellent or the general absence of error? If the first, what does it mean for those things to be excellent?
That is an interesting and nearly identical question. One downside of this question is that not everyone is caught up in trying to be excellent. Many people don't care what is "excellent." But everyone cares what is good and what isn't so good. But maybe that simplified speech is beneath some people.
What is virtue? Is it the absence of evil? These all end up asking a slightly different question, instead of the broadest question.
If you are using Google AI, then an advertizing company is starting to know you way way too much.
Gemini feels 1000x more personalized from old conversations than any other AI. That isn't going to stay in just that chat window.
/usr is an Ubuntu thing yeah?
Also rip /lib/nvidia-current/xorg/xorg
I know, let's fix cancel culture with more cancel culture.
Because it's targeting politics in general. It's also targeting libertarians. People whose crime is leaving you alone.
Arch is one of the most vanilla of Linuxes. Everyone wanted to run an opinionated distro. But what we needed was the opinions of developers and fewer opinions from people who think creating a distro is a sensible way to distribute art.
Arch - every package is just the software the original developer shipped, kept up to date.
"I have art work I want to share. I know. I'll make myself responsible for the reliability of a thousand people's operating systems. I hope my cooky ideas never come into conflict with that." <- Not who you want indirectly changing files on your system when you use the package manager.
On my forum, youtube links get stripped of any extra url parameters. Every site should have to do that.
Was it a loud environment or was she just a soft talker? I'm pretty sure there is a Seinfeld episode on this. In fact, it's the pirate shirt episode.
Just be glad you didn't say yes.
I blame low interest rates.
Speculating on someone who themselves are speculating that their customer's speculation will be fruitful is exactly what low interest rates encourage. Everyone likes the extra activity that produces on the macros, but it just makes the market less accurate.
Interest rates basically set how permissive the market is with its todo list. The problem is when you let yourself do anything, and then also let yourself get distracted doing something that might help something that you maybe shuldn't be doing anyway. This is not a functional life. It's a busy life, but not functional.
If you want to kill AI, raise the interest rates. It will cause a recession, which sucks. But frankly, humanity will survive a recession and it will be temporary. A higher interest rate market solves real problems that benefit actual people within a near horizon. What we don't need is people working 14 hour days, slaving to keep their heads above water, working for companies engaged in far-off speculative race for world dominance; we wouldn't want them to succeed at anyway. That's 100% what we're all doing, and it is interest rates that modulate that.
Raising interest rates will kill all of those jobs involved in that, and sadly a few more from the shock. But those people weren't doing anything productive for humanity anyway. It's better to have them lose those jobs and then later redirect their labor towards something productive. In the long term they are digging themselves out of having a job with their current path anyway.
It is. And it's wrong. But part of how we got here is it was sold as not being a tax, even though it absolutely is.
The claim was it was a mandatory retirement investment program. Because the wealthy have their own retirements figured out they don't need their payouts to continue to scale with their income, so their payments in shouldn't scale proportionally either, under this flawed premise, since it is "not a tax."
But why it is a tax is, one, most of us will never see a payout because the program is going to collapse before most of us retire, and therefore it is NOT a mandatory retirement program. And second, all payments in and out of government are fungible, so it really is a tax and a separate retirement supplemental program, where we use language around them to pretend they are one program.
Ironically, if we took all the money that was paid into Social Security and invested it in a real portfolio (actual investment), our generation would actually get something, and current generations would be getting significantly more retirement. The issue is that because whether you like government or not, it is a money loser. It's basically designed to be one. That means using the government as an investment vehicle is in pure investment terms really really bad. Plus it also sets up a regressive tax as you pointed out.
It's just that one spot. There's a hint in this thread. https://submatrix.net/c/Economics/BP536RZXit