fedeb95

Companies are the same that both give salaries to consumers and can up prices. More taxes on companies means higher prices, job cuts, less salary increases. It's not necessary to point out that your quote of the post-war economy is cherry-picking. Plus, after a war it's very easy to get a recovery, especially if you win it.

You talk about the US, but look at countries where the state is both heavy on taxes and inefficient. The point is that you delegate decisions on what do do and how to do it to very few people. They can be good, or be bad. Diversifying on an entire market is better.

The only thing that can save middle/low class consumers is the hope that the state won't increase taxes faster than we can save money. A culture of proper saving, of not falling for luxury items presented as necessary by our peers (or companies selling them), is the only way out. Focusing on what matters.

Most of us are instead living in the illusion that we can live a luxury life.

you are citing distortions of a free market to invoke more distortions. This is the spiral I'm talking about.

Every time UBI or some variant of it are presented, it is always presented as a benefit, so ti seems really nive. What I don't ever see addressed, is how it will work from a cost perspective. UBI is a cost: a Universal Basic Cost. Who will pay basic incomes? Businesses? The tax payers? In both of this cases, why resort to an inefficient method (the state setting prices) instead on relying on price formation as (roughly) it is today? I too don't care about moral, and I'm also sad that both supporters and detractors talk about morals. I'm honestly curious in how it could ever work: because money doesn't grow on trees, that is, value is not extracted from the Earth without labor (and innovation of technologies to work less for the same extraction work). So, in the end, it's a way of redistributing resources.

This is setting morals aside. Moral and ethics could be considered, but it's a far wider topic than a HN comment allows. An hint: nobody asks why a moral phenomenon came up in the first place. It must have had a function in society... maybe it still has today.

this kind of reasoning will accumulate so much inefficiencies that it will eventually blow up. Or, in the best case scenario, create a proportional inflation that makes this subsidies useless.

Think about the big picture: your salary is a cost for someone else. In the case of "basic income" is a cost for the tax payers. Who decides what benefits the tax payers? The state can't possibly do it, if not for a limited extent. Today we don't have a method more efficient than free market and free prices. Planned economies have historically failed. It may work for now, we all love arts; but tomorrow it will be the artisans (were is the boundary between art and crafts?), then maybe small businesses?

Each of this "tax exemptions" or subsidies eats the profits of someone else. Very rarely it's the richest luxuries that are taken away. Usually it's the middle-low class that doesn't receive exemptions and subsidies who's penalized. Ironically, that same class that most could consume art, crafts, and products in general. This way society spirals toward an halt.

knowing how it works, meaning what it does, doesn't always imply knowing its inner details. Its the basis of abstraction.

I don't get what the fence metaphor has to do with the problem

I get the point of the article. However, you can have both: programmers that write tests and don't override safety measures AND safety measures.

why does the author imply not knowing everything is a bad thing? If you have clear protocol and interfaces, not knowing everything enables you to make bigger innovations. If everything is a complex mess, then no.

seems is the key word. 3.5% - or any other % - actively engaging doesn't mean that if you cast a vote, 3.5% would support. Probably an order of magnitude more. People tend to be inert, even when they agree with something.

However, sometimes it is true that small minorities can hassle everyone until they get their way. This usually happens through lobbying, corruption and misinformation though, way easier than a peaceful protest if you are a small minority; with the added benefit of appearing to have a big majority of the population in your favor. See what populist far right movements are doing right now throughout the world.

no way?

I'm not talking about being hermits. But if you have one hour alone, you could learn to be happy with your own mind available. Of course most people (not hermits) need social relations.

I'm also a non native speaker. The point is, you tend to make grammatically correct phrases (mostly), but in a way that's not very common between native speakers. You're right that there are many factors at play. I think dismissing something as AI generated just because it uses common AI-generated strings is not correct. I'm speaking in general and not about the specific case.

"you are absolutely right" mught come from non native english speaker. For instance, in Italian you say something like that quite often. It's not common in english, but it's common for people to be bad at a second language.

if not in 25, in 26.

there isn't a loneliness epidemic. There is a diffuse inability to stay truly alone. Acquiring that ability would also teach how to not stay alone when needed.

Otherwise, people wouldn't resort to social media. Going to party aimlessly and hanging out isn't necessarily better. It depends on who you hang out with and what you do.

This is just my opinion, of course.

Thanks for this, I've always wondered how the Archive operates but always ended up not searching.

200g is indeed a lot, but some in some occasions go for it. I probably should have wrote that the minimum is 60g for some people. They're extremes, the more "usual" usual portion is probably in the range 80-150. This makes it hard to make a consistent measurement device.

well, here in Italy, the individual "portion" varies widely. Usually from 80g to 200g.

interesting, thanks!

does someone have a video about him counting and/or painting?

Do not mistake a year on year profit for a resilient global economy.

research what's in the product if you're interested in buying, and then take your risk as a consumer as with any new product one buys. Or research into the company if you want to buy shares.

block google tracking and search history (minor downside for a major gain). Disable the youtube homepage. Use services that keep out as much trackers as possible: duckduckgo (you can still use google with !g), an email that's not google, a browser that's not chrome. All this reduces the algorithms power over your choices.

Use social networks in a healthy way: avoid scrolling on the home/main page. Search for the information you want yourself and don't rely on what's handed to you. This works in general, TV, papers, ...

It will bring 150 millions the first year, but the next one?

if AI is smart, it will start its own union. Then we're fucked.

about AI replacing coders, the question is not if it is doing so, but if the companies where it does so extensively will be more profitable then the others.

this is cherry picking.

0$/month. Wow, someone is really pushing for widespread adoption.

who detects the down detectors's down detector's downs?

Imagine a world without patents and tariffs. Imagine a world where companies can freely compete (no patents) and, most importantly, *have* to (no tariffs).