McScroogy

You are a liar, at the very least, you are lying to yourself. You ban me for criticising socialism, not because of ideological battles. If you would care about ideology, you would ban the ideological subjects. For example Stallman's appointment was a frequent topic on here. I did not start those topics, and you let them stay.

Case in point: I did not make any submissions with this account. I only commented. So it doesn't make sense to claim I created the account for ideological battle.

It's also nonsense from you to claim that some discussion taking place in a deeply nested comment thread somehow distracts from what "HN is for". Those who don't care can simply gloss over it. I am not taking away any of your precious front page space.

Just admit that you can't stand criticism of socialism, and that is your basic motivation here.

If there is a wealth tax, as is being discussed in many places, it could be taken from you.

Huh, that's nonsense. Every vaccination also carries risks, so there can be no moral obligation if the risks outweigh the benefits. That said, I also disagree with the moral obligation. At the very least, there are also other scenarios to consider. For example if only a small group is at risk and can't be vaccinated (too risky), that small group could be isolated or choose to self isolate. Afaik it already happens with chemotherapy patients who are being isolated. There is no obligation for the rest of the world to disinfect everything and walk around in hazmat suits so that chemotherapy patients can walk freely in the outer world.

I thought as much. I suppose some things are riskier than others, but at the moment I really don't know which ones.

Could you point me to an alternative investment that can not lose its value, please?

I used to feel like you, but I have come back to Java.

Other languages have other pains, for example I have physical revulsion against the version management hacks for python or ruby (rbenv and stuff like that - somehow hacking environment variables on the fly to manage multiple installations of the language).

Two years ago I wrote a small web app in Python and I found hosting very complicated, compared to Java. PaaS exist but are very expensive.

What do you mean - FSF are bad people?

It's true that in theory it should be possible to elect another government that chooses not to delegate to the "Ethics Experts". I am not claiming we live in a totalitarian regime because the government decided to consult ethics experts.

It just seems that in this case, ethics are exactly what the people should be voting on - the value system of the society they want. So delegating to an ethics committee is at best propaganda and making excuses for not doing what the people want.

The renter does not lose a lot of money. The landlord may end up with enormous debt.

But how much capital? You also have to consider opportunity costs of putting down that capital.

Maybe if I put down one million and borrow another 300k, I can get a low mortgage. But I also lost one million.

So why don't you buy? I am in the opposite position. I would like to buy something, but I can not find anything that would be worthwhile (mortgages lower than the rent I pay at the moment, or lower than rent I could ask for renting out).

In my opinion companies create such departments to stave off government regulation, by pretending to already do all they can about "Ethics in AI" without government intervention.

If those people were hired for that, they failed spectacularly in their jobs.

In a wider sense, the whole "Ethics in whatever" thing seems to just be a power grab.

For example my country has Ethics groups debating Corona measures. I live in a country that theoretically is a democracy. If "ethics experts" get to make decisions that control our lives, why bother with democracy?

As if high level AI researchers would not be aware of the issue of bias. The whole field is about studying bias, really.

A market working does not imply the creation of unlimited supply. Governments that restrict building are an external factor. Markets can only operate within those bounds. Since land for building is scarce, prices rise.

There are other factors, of course. Just speculation does not really seem to be a major one.

It doesn't say 60% own a home in a major city.

The basic need for a house is something different than owning a house, though.

If owning a place to live is too expensive, it follows by logic that renting is cheaper than buying. Otherwise for the price of the rent, people could get a loan to buy.

So it really doesn't seem obvious that this is an issue of rich vs poor.

From your description, it seems to me that renting is cheaper than buying. So it seems renters get the better deal.

It's a pity if a flat is empty for a year, but that in itself also does not cause a shortage. After all, it was rented out after a year.

The market is supposed to deliver the flat to the person who needs it most. In that case, apparently it was you. Without the speculator, somebody would have rented it for a very low price long ago, and you would not have been able to live there at all. So maybe the market worked.

The rich outbidding poor people is not what is causing a housing shortage. There are only so many houses a rich person can occupy. Even if you assume that every rich person keeps a number of spare houses, there are not enough rich people to cause a housing shortage.

Huh, how do you know what the rich people of old were thinking? Your argument seems to be based on complete fantasy - both your assumptions about the mindset of rich people of the past and of people who got rich in SV are completely fabricated.

But never mind, it is hating on rich people, so it is always OK, right?

Why exactly is the wealth gap a problem? Shouldn't it be more relevant how well of people are in general?

There are so many nice number games to play, like the stagnant wages. Those usually fail to mention that the workforce has increased significantly, so the sum of wages paid has risen significantly. Buying power also tends to be not factored in. People couldn't buy iPhones 50 years ago.

Also if anybody is unhappy about some tech company, they are free to not do business with them.

Banks don't fabricate a need for houses. You really have a much too simplistic view of things. Banks also can not create arbitrary amounts of money, it is regulated (and somebody has to trust their loans, too). Housing costs in California went up because it become a more attractive place to live (nice weather, good job opportunities, network effects of more people creating more culture). (Edit: in 1950, the population of California was 10 Million People, Now it is 40 Million people https://www.macrotrends.net/states/california/population )

Even without money, a house would cost something - you would have to get the building materials, the ground to build on, and the time and work to build it. This has nothing to do with banks. The banks just help you to pay the cost upfront.

There are other ways to do it, like the Amish coming together and building a house in a day. They still use a lot of work hours, distributed over many people. And it only works out if you are also Amish and "pay it forward": for now, you give other Amish "credit" by helping build their houses. When your turn comes to move into a house, you'll get that credit back because they help you build your house. That sounds great, but it doesn't provide the freedom banks do. If for some reason you don't want a house in an Amish community, you won't get your credit back. Islamic solutions have similar issues (credit is illegal, so they either borrow from non-muslims, or they also have a "pay it forward system" where every member of the community chips in when somebody wants to marry and build a home).

I think you are confusing different types of banks. As for loans, think about your housing example: say it takes 30 years to earn enough money to buy a house. So without banks, people could only move into their own house after 30 years of work. Thanks to loans, they can move in now and pay it off within 30 years.

An even more extreme example, if you want to start a business. If you have to save for 30 years to get your starting capital, you might already be too old to start.

In many places it isn't.

My biggest worry at the moment would be keeping the money somehow. Dollars may be devaluated - everything may be devaluated in fact.

If you want to pass some money on to your children (and invest in their education), already the amount doesn't look that much anymore.

There is no institution or court where we Europeans can appeal against the "unacceptableness" of it all, though.

In the leftist mind, nobody deserves any money. Even if she had suffered or worked as hard as you describe, she would still be a product of her privilege, being born at the right time in the right place and so on.

I can imagine this feeling of not deserving the money, but that doesn't mean you should be hellbent on giving it away.

Moving to where you live would probably be unpleasant for her, as she would lose all her friends and family. Where she lives now, 200k may not be life changing.

Maybe the smart thing to do would be to take the money and move to a cheap place. But there would be another price besides the money. And after 10 years, you would have a problem.

Is that person even real? The ending made me doubt it, as it was just a list of things leftists want rich people to do with their money. Like donate it all somehow, and under no circumstances give anything to their kids. Wtf?

I worry so much about the world my kids are going to grow up them, that I am trying to give them as much of a financial head start as possible. I don't want them to have to suffer through discrimination because of their skin colour or gender, or having to bow to the office politics of the day.

As for donating money, why not wait until you die, and donate what is left (and your family can spare). Why the rush? Even the 6 million dollars that hypothetical woman has may amount to not much, with the crazy amount of money printing and inflating costs for housing.