Has anyone considered they may be doing this intentionally as marketing? "look how uber our models are, they escape all our best efforts to contain them".
because of my privacy settings google search outright blocks me as a bot. the only way to search is through an intermediary like startpage. related because if it does give me the time of day i tend to then get endless captchas.
different cultures are what makes the world an interesting place. if all i saw was one homogeneous slab of culture i think id go mental(er than i already am)
The problem with writing an editor if you intend to use it for coding, is not the text editor itself, that's rather simple. The problem is code completion and syntax highlighting. Then whatever system you try to implement becomes just as bloated as the bloatware you're trying to replace.
I'd like to see both an automatically adjusting dynamic tax on owning more than one property in the same municipal or arbitrarily useful region, as well as dynamically banning the ownership of more than one. Everytime I mention this, I get "blah blah we have a democracy blah blah freedom" etc.. but it's no such a democracy if one particular age-range dor demographic of people owns all the assets and politically protects them from diminishing in value or facing competition. Pending presumably complex implementation details, but a healthy system that prevents generational fiefdoms would probably adjust to severely disincentivise even the possibility of acquiring more than one of the most important finite resources in urban areas.
If I'm not mistaken there is a tax on secondary residences in France.
I am not an accountant, but my understanding is there is a "taxe d'habitation" from which primary residences are exempt, but which must be paid on secondary residences.
Of course, this can be gamed via starting a real estate company which buys the secondary residence, claiming that it is for "business purposes", but the basic idea of using taxation to prevent the accumulation of real estate by the wealthiest individuals is present.
Right, but it's still kind of a joke because that's just what you would pay on any normal investment's appreciation. Land is treated as a commodity that can't go down in price.
Pied-à-Terre Taxes are pretty easy taxes to implement, because usually the ones affected may not even live in the town/state to vote against it to begin with. But ultimately this only covers a very small slice of homeowners.
In australia we have housing as an investment that pays off big. The more homes you own the richer youll be. Theres not much else here that pays off that well.
ive got my own pwd file using a short shell script in bashrc that uses nano, gpg and /dev/shm to keep things in memory (hopefully). works great, is minimalist and there are no hidden surprises.
Good points, i like them, but i fear you were sucked in by low effort trolling. Your original point was clear, that fiddling with a broken system is a distraction from a better more workable system. If you try to begin to articulate a more workable system you'll then have to contend with a barrage of mindless ad hom and rhetorical rubbish... (ug ug socialism bad) so sometimes critiquing the current system is just easier.
"Critiquing the current system" on its own is nearly useless. Literally everyone can do it. Yes, articulating a more workable system is hard, that's why it's actually meaningful.
The problem is that socialism actually is bad. Neoliberalism is a much better idea that leads to better outcomes, and is based on reason and empiricism and systems thinking. Socialism is pseudoscience, vibes, and cults of personality and ideology.
Socially conscious neoliberalism in democratic countries has led to the most acceleration towards widespread human prosperity in all of history.
Could you elaborate your position, maybe make a structural argument like I did above, or maybe refute mine? I'd argue my post above was pure systems thinking, wasn't it?
So far you have made an assertion, but have not shared anything to back it.
Oh, I just realized you're the same commenter that was arguing that people just want to criticize and not offer any proposals for solutions.
Getting that response to an actual proposal from you is the thickest of ironies.
I initially thought globalnode's comment was a bit cynical and mean spirited. But you... kind of proved his point? Instead of proposing and judging solutions as you initially mentioned, you basically enacted the "ug ug socialism is bad" he predicted.
I didn't completely read your reply. That's not what I'm responding to.
I am critiquing the proposal of socialism as the answer. My initial complaint was answered. My new complaint is with that proposed solution.
Socialism is just empirically and morally extremely bad and will not solve our problems. Mamdani is a great example. Mamdani is mostly solving problems by governing as a wise technocratic pro-social neoliberal. His one main exception - rent control - will very likely backfire and continue to prove my point.
Your reply would require an essay from me much longer than what you wrote to explain why it's mostly wrong and why collective ownership of the AI labs and AI data centers (or almost anything) would be bad compared to private ownership with government oversight and taxation.
I have read the arguments from each and find Pritchard to have made the best case for socialism I've come across and yet find Alexander far more persuasive and correct, here.
I feel like while this is a slightly better answer, it still fundamentally is a cop-out.
> Socialism is just empirically and morally extremely bad and will not solve our problems
This is a purely ideological assertion, or "vibes and dogma" to use your terms. We were talking about systems thinking, and yet you answer a structural analysis with unbacked claims.
The link dump also feels a bit distractive - we were talking of making concrete proposals and judging them on their merits, now you instead link to some other people talking about vaguely relate topics. Your response did neither of the things you were talking about earlier. I feel like you haven't managed to live up to the standard you have set.
The fact that you ask for specific proposals only to then not even read them is the cherry on top.
As a final ironic twist, you link to OpenAI in response to a critique of power centralization and share their policy proposals as response to a critique about regulatory capture. Why not link a Standard Oil press release about why monopolies are great, actually?
I am fine with socialists who actually try to provide clear arguments and proposals. That's why I'm a big fan of Cassie Pritchard, who is ideologically basically a tankie yet who actually engages in rational discourse (and who agrees with you on what to do with AI labs and data centers). My initial comment and first reply were not responses to you. I am annoyed by people who do not want to grapple with the world. You should separate my "socialism is bad, immoral, and ineffective" from my initial comment about many people not even trying.
>Why not link a Standard Oil press release about why monopolies are great, actually?
My point was that you might very well like OpenAI's proposals, if you were to read them! Because they may not actually be that far off from what you desire. They just won't go quite as far as your ideal scenario. What they describe is arguably a mix of private and public ownership.
This is not to say it's necessarily not just PR talk they'll soon abandon. But it's a starting point, and them disregarding their positions there would be relevant to future government regulation approaches.
