Confiscating 100% of all billionaire wealth (~$8.4T)
covers
- ~1.1 years of federal spending (~$7.4T)
- ~4.4 years of deficits (~$1.9T)
- ~23% of debt (~$36T):
and pretty much kills US ability to rely on private sector
(and I dont think we have a way to rely on public sector)
The sooner we all start focusing on things that actually matter -- like improving democracy, quality of education (btw spending more may not solve it) etc -- the faster we will improve situation.
Cities like NYC pretty much can afford UBI (look at per capita spending on homelessness, public schools etc).
Taxing more may not be the answer.
*it should be studied what motivates people to repeat it
I think there is probably a research paper hiding inside this game.
I couldn't guess Dice because, as an ESL person, I couldn't make the D-i combo sound like /d/+ /aɪ/ in my head (it sounded as /d/ + /ɪ/), so a part of my neural circuitry didn't fire, and I couldn't complete it with `ce.`
In other words I, personally, in this pattern recognition game rely on the way words sounds in my head to find familiar combinations and continue the sequence.
It is a fascinating take. I am curious to understand what model you think would work.
The U.S. effectively has a dysfunctional system with wild mix of "no regulation" and heavy state participation. I am not sure there is any country with a deregulated system where people can enjoy good healthcare. You could theoretically say that Switzerland does this, but the government there requires everyone to have insurance, even though hospitals are 100% private.
> we won’t work on product marketing for AI stuff, from a moral standpoint, but the vast majority of enquiries have been for exactly that. Our reputation is everything, so being associated with that technology as it increasingly shows us what it really is, would be a terrible move for the long term.
It is such an “interesting” statement in on many levels.
Market has changed -> we disagree -> we still disagree -> business is bad.
It is indeed hard to swim against the current.
People have different principles and I respect that, I just rarely
- have so much difficulty understanding them
- see such clear impact on the bottom line
They spoke with respect and pointed out that, from the point of career growth, they may need to talk to someone.
They pointed out that there might be more effective ways of dealing with what the blog post author is going through.
This comment didn't make me sad at all, if anything I appreciated it.
interesting
out of all "thinking models," I struggle with Gemini the most for coding. Just can't make it perform. I feel like they silently nerfed it over the last months.
It is an important point. Our understanding of what is “disease”/“malfunction” and how to address diseases has been changing.
I can see how if we, as society,
- gain such immense wealth that taking care of/ providing support to/ humans with DS becomes so easy
- arrive to the conclusion that there is no downside in emotional health/wellbeing
- change definition of what “living full/happy life”
Then parents stop perceiving DS as a concern
I think it is worth a separate research that modern definition of progressive thought considers eliminating/treating a genetic malfunction "unethical".
Yesbut… is it true? MSFT is very successful long-term.
You’re making an assumption that teams having control over their work will lead to better quality of product (which i agree) and then (I assume you predict), in return, will result in better financial performance.
But is that true? I am not so sure. I worked in some banks and it is very easy to come up with better products for consumers… that will make less revenue to the banks. I also worked in big tech, and so how prioritizing UX over paying customer requests is virtually impossible.
Oh… i also observed teams ACTIVELY not wanting to take steps to improve products because it would lead to taking risks, and most corporations incentivize you to he risk-averse.
This is a very interesting topic, with few clear answers beyond “culture has to be very good to build good products”
Because my cynical mind tells me that the only thing it will result in is 1. Extremely low productivity 2. Hiring outside of unions.
Union will push for “union only jobs” and that’s going to result in even less productivity OR robotization of agriculture and construction.