depends if there is a satiarion point or not. If there is a satiation point then the machine is absorbing being called a wanker in lieau of a person being called a wanker, which is a win. I kinda suspect this is the case because we already saw this happen with the availability of porno going up and rapes going down instead of the predicted up.
depends how you define civilization level life.if you mean we cant be bumped back to hunter gatherers without wiping out almost all of us, you are probably correct. If you mean we will always have computers and the ability to split the atom, i dont agree. Knowledge and industry is way more fragile and we have loat working knowledge of simpler processes in favor of more advanced ones so it wont be that easy rebuilding through the lower rungs of the tech tree.
The problem is public is also terrible. What makes the difference is the ecosystem of policy and enforcement. Without that it will always>just find unique ways to be terrible. Look at my home coubtry of Canada. Also terrible just in completely different ways.
Why should the default be for me to guess in a search engine more expertly when someone is referencing a program as a suggestion instead of for them to be more explicit? I get it for things that dont live on the web but if you are going to say you replaced some program with another program the default should really be to link it especially when the name is two common characters in a common order or it is opensource imo...
I would expect fortune to be able to understand basic economics, but I guess not. I can't verify because it is a paywalled article, but if this article isn't about oligopolies abusing labor market power, then it is intensely wrong headed. Paying workers less is a good thing to a point, it means less dead weight loss to the economy from labor abusing market power (which is basically the worst thing you can do in economics). If it's about abuse of monopsony power in the labour market by oligopolies then I apologize, that's the one case where paying people less is bad, but it's also kind of rare these days.
I think it's those small writes that was making garagefs perform so badly and rustfs perform a lot better. My setup sounds like a different scale than yours though. It's my home lab running on questionable hardware. As truenas apps for rustfs/garagefs. I use cephfs on my proxmox cluster and it's honestly not that great if you have a lot of small files either (which I do because of things like screenshots in jellyfin/music players/etc). My rustfs setup is not clustered either. It's just single node
An economist would say that making another company less valuable is good in most cases because it usually means you are outcompeting them because y(u found another way to supply that need more efficiently.
the real reason this is not good is because it doesnt and cant easily capture what value flows to the customers and if the market is competitive all the value will eventually flow to the customer since pricing aboce marginal cost will get competed away and moat innovation is essentially making marginal cost lower
Did you get garagefs to work well? I ended up moving to rustfs for my plakar and restic backup station because the performance was abysmal on garage.
i also dont really get the point of zerofs. Seems like you are building a posix fs on top of s3 that is built on top of a posix fs... seems like a lot of extra steps that probably degrade performance vs just backing up that first posix fs semi regular.
I'm saying by the very definition of taxation regime they are both taxation regimes. You choose a variable and you vary the tax rate along the possible values for the variable. I'm also saying, yes, obviously it's a penalty for choosing a way of life, that's what all taxation regimes are that aren't a flat tax or a use tax. Choosing to work hard and succeed so you have higher income and pay a higher tax rate is also a life choice. It's not a worthy argument for or against anything.
>Except, for most people (possibly all people), that's not a choice they made.
Yes, since you are clearly pretty left wing you would believe that, despite it being so simple as to be untrue. The complex version is there is friction in moving between success levels that modulates the outcome of your personal choices. It's a separate issue to what we are talking about here that I am amenable to addressing (Go look at my previous posts, I'm a huge fan of actually using antitrust law again and breaking up most of the fortune 500 and many private companies). Your personal choices still move you into higher tax brackets, The friction is not so bad that your personal choices don't affect what tax bracket you are in each year and, even if it was, it's a separate problem to be addressed, not an argument that is valid here.
>Or maybe it's because democratic states would never consider it??
That is one unsupported hypothesis about what is going on. I can make those too: Or maybe democratic states held onto more religion longer, and had a better economic starting point in freer markets so they are running into this below replacement birthrate fiasco later on?
>No, you can have a society exclusively maintained by immigration from other societies. Might be a bad society, but still a society.
That is historically untrue, at least on civilization timescales. it can works for decades, not permanently. That ends in weakness and losing the country to invasion or takeover from within because the people that immigrated didn't assimilate and instead grew to be a big enough population that they took over from within. It's not a situation you want to end up in.
> this is one more reason to not contribute to the society one hates being part of
And that's another reason to implement the tax regime I suggested. Do your job or pay someone else to do your job. Either way, the job needs to be done.
What is and isn't a taxation regime isn't up to you, it depends on whether your tax rate is modulated by some choice, which is clearly the case here. Lets flip to the counter example. I can just as easily say "Choosing not be a useless turd and therefore paying more taxes per dollar earned is not a taxation regime, it's a penalty for choosing a way of life." It's literally the exact same statement swapped for what is being taxed and it is just as untrue as your statement.
>I already demonstrated...
Saying totalitarian states are the only people to have tried this is actual what aboutism.There's no valid reason to expect outcomes to be the same when all the other parts of society and economy are so radically different. This is not justification of anything.
>Not my job.
Incorrect. Having a birth rate at or above replacement is one of the foundational requirements of having a society. If you are in the society it is definitely your responsibility, it has just never been an issue before because we previously did not have birth control or many women out of the home. No, I don't think that. If I thought that, I wouldn't need a taxation regime to get this outcome, I could just stop educating women and keep them in the home, it would be far simpler and far worse than taxing people who don't do their job and maintain the future society.
>Sorry? Should that be the other way around to be comparable?...
Yes maybe, if we ever get back to the situation where the average women is having 5+ kids. That's not the situation we are in and even if we get there it will take along time to be an actual problem, so there's not really a point in fleshing that out at all.
>The rich have more disposable income. They won't feel 10%...
Yes they will because it's a much larger amount of money and rich people tend to be pretty rational. There is also a complex basket of goals and desires going into the children choice so you don't need to force the entire decision, just tip the balance towards popping out that extra kid or two. If everyone below rich person isn't contributing enough to pay for the government/services that's a bigger discussion than this that requires different policies and likely massive cuts in spending unless the rich guys footing the bill are actually happy with what the money is being spent on.
>Oh, so they're exempt from childless tax too? That's moving goalposts.
No,that's presenting an idea on hacker news instead of through a research paper. I didn't rigorously lay out the argument over 30 pages with 100 citations and I'm not going to.
sigh Very much true and very much not whataboutism because it is valid to compare taxation regimes. If you like progressive taxation then the onus is on you to justify your claims that applying the exact same regime to another characteristic (doing your job at keeping the birthrate above replacement) Is totalitarian while applying it based on income is not (you've failed to do this btw because you can't because they are either both totalitarian or both not because they are the exact same premise).
Also, you fail to appreciate what tax penalties look like. This will incent the rich to have more kids because a 10 % penalty when you are making a million dollars a year is 100k but it's a rounding error if you are in poverty because the first almost 32k of household income is tax free if you joint file. It was said partially in jest, but it is actually a good policy if you can price it low enough that it doesn't cause migration but high enough that it does cause more kids.
I don't really agree with the specifics but I can identify with the emotion. To me the problem with AI isn't AI, it's that investors are idiots and put hundreds of billions of dollars into AI companies that have near zero chance of being profitable enough to pay them back and those companies took that money and blew up computer parts supply chains that are vital to the rest of human existence. If we didn't have this massive build out that has no chance of repaying itself and instead had a build out that only doubled ram/gpu/nvme prices we would be far better off. As it stands, we're going to have a ton of gear that will be of questionable utility once any of the disruptors get their 100X+ per watt improved/different hardware going and to get that hardware we broke everything else. This ai stuff will also likely plateau and have the openweights models and opensource tooling catch up and at that point the companies are basically GPU REITS with diminishing demand as the stuff ages out and the disruptor's gear gets built for much better performance per watt. They've made it really ugly for us now and it will get really ugly for them in the midterm future imo. Not a good outcome for anyone.
If the government can charge me a higher rate of tax because I am not a useless turd with no marketable skills then charging people more for failing to keep population at or above replacement is also not an infringement of freedom. While we are talking about freedom, have you looked at what happens to societies when population growth rates collapse? They tend to not stay societies for very many generations after that. They tend to get invaded and added to an empire that still has a positive population growth rate, or they collapse internally due to the weight of unfullfillable promises and infighting over the shrinking pie and get picked off at the edges. In that regard, policy to preserve the birth rate is a freedom enhancing choice if you think our current society is free. I personally think it's not that great but everything else is pretty bad, so it's the best of a bad situation choice, which makes it worth preserving.
is there any decent management software for a whole network of these yet? That's what keeps me going back to unifi with opnsense as the router. Last I checked it was basically openwisp, which was hugely painful/complicated to get working when I last looked a few years ago. I would love nothing more than to have a viable option to start replacing the unifi stuff (even better if there is also 10gb switching but that feels like an absolute pipedream still without a large budget for datacenter gear)
Tieing it to a real person will juat make the pressure to hack real peoples accounts much higher. Just maje a way for a user to cost them money if irs spam. Like deposit a quarter to call if no complaints for a month you get it back. If they report you youlose the quarter. Spam phonecalls gone in a month
I shouldnt have said useless, whether it is accurate or not, i apologize for that. I take issue with the rest of your criticism though. My comment is on a policy discussion about people who have chosen a set of ideas having less kids. Its not about a people with some innate characteristic that they did not choose having less kids. Their less kids is a direct consequence of their poor policy preferences and as such it is a self correcting mechanism that we shouldnt be breaking and certainly should not be spending my tax dollars on. Suggesting other bad policy choices they could take up was perhaps in bad taste as well so i apologize for that as well. the spirit of my comment is still desperately needed in the discussion because it is utterly missing and it is the correct one. When people who choose a set of ideas make moremoney and have way less kids the problem that needs solving is their ideas, not their birthrate
Wouldnt it just be better to have a lefal system that enforced the contract without extra bs? Lawyers would be unhappy as their wages normalized but that would be a large benefit to society as well