mgolawala

When Wall Street is making billions off of selling balloon interest mortgages with no income verification the position is "The consumer is an adult and can make decisions for themselves and read the fine print.... blah blah blah .. personal responsibility."

When the people are causing Wall Street to lose billions on their absurdly large short position, suddenly they are concerned for the "amateur" investors. The "unsophisticated" investors. "We need to save them from themselves, we have to do something, they don't know what they are doing! How could they possibly be responsible adults taking this position that is hurting us financially? I know! Let's strap on these training wheels for their own good so they cannot hurt themselves cough or us cough. "

It is unfortunate that you consider the stance to be "outright ignorance", when what you are really questioning is how would such a thing be implemented.

That is not an easy question to answer. The approach you suggested is certainly one that could be considered. You mention that most people would sell those shares for cash.. well that is cash in their hands then. That is money they didn't have before that they now have, that they can then spend on goods and services correct? Is it not redistribution of the wealth of the deceased within society?

It sounds like you agree with the principle, but are worried about the implementation. I would likely consider myself to be in the same boat. However, I am not even seeing any public conversation about it, or an attempt to move in that direction. I think the conversation should be

"This is what we want to do, this is fair wealth redistribution.. now let us come up with ideas on how we can make this work".

Yup. It's called boiling the frog. I am not totally against wealth taxes, however I disagree with the approach.

What I do not understand is why not just implement a more aggressive estate tax on people and close the "trust" and "foundation" loopholes for avoiding the estate tax.

Let's take Jeff Bezos as an extreme example (who isn't even a California Resident). At least until we figure out immortality, Jeff Bezos will die someday. Let him enjoy the wealth that he has earned by creating a company that has benefited society as a whole. When he dies, his wealth should return to the society from which it came. He was rewarded for his work/ingenuity/effort during his life, and now that he is gone, society reclaims the rewards it had given him. What is wrong with that?

The way I see it, once you are dead you don't get a vote, and you don't get a say in the affairs of the world so you shouldn't be able to direct that wealth through any kind of inheritance, foundation or trust. His children have done nothing to earn or create that wealth themselves so why should they deserve any of it? They will have the same opportunities to create and earn wealth that he did, and they will benefit from the society he contributed to.

If they are able to build equivalent wealth via another Amazon.. Great! They earned it! if not that is fine too. You want to help your kids? Teach them how to fish for themselves instead of giving them an unlimited supply of fish.

Passing down wealth from generation to generation or directing wealth long after you are dead through foundations and trusts is directly opposed to any effort to give "equality of opportunity" for future generations.

Fair point. I see what you are saying. I was focusing on the innate human nature side of things, but I have to agree, the behavior that actually manifests through conspicuous consumption is being heavily influenced by media and advertising.

Hasn't Human nature itself been crafted by evolutionary forces? It is conceivable that our ancestors that were more laid back and content were more likely to be out competed by those who were hungry for power and prestige.

In fact, as an example, isn't there some often quoted statistic about half a percentage of all living humans having descended from Genghis Khan?

I didn't realize there was that connotation.

If that is the case, funemployed would be the more appropriate term.

To me sabbatical meant, taking time off to focus on oneself or ones own pursuits, however I didn't realize there was a work or growth related connotation to the word.

I had a friend once refer to it as “funemployed”. I loved the term, though I still prefer to refer to intentional and willful breaks from employment as sabbaticals.

Why should they have dropped the price on the phone?

They are clearly stating what does and does not come in the box at the price. They clearly state the price. You either think what comes is worth it in the box or you don’t. They could exclude the power adapter while simultaneously increasing the price by $200 per unit. If people do not like it, they won’t buy it.

I don’t understand why there is this expectation that something is “owed” to the consumer market. If this was a bad decision on their part, and it drives a lot of consumers away from their products, it will show up in their sales numbers and they will course correct. Sort of how they did on their Mac keyboards.

My guess is that no one will care about the missing power adapter. I certainly don’t. If it increases their margin, good for them. If it is offsetting increased build expenses elsewhere, fine.

Also I would imagine $30 on a $700-$1000 device doesn’t really move the needle for most buyers. My sales taxes on that device will add up to more than that.

Housing, Healthcare and Education. Those three have eaten up a larger and larger chunk of people's paychecks over the years.

In regards to the cost of housing, I came across an adage a while back that has stuck with me, "Housing can either be affordable, or a great investment, not both". I think the real solution is a change in policy for housing to no longer be treated as a great investment. Not that I have high hopes of this ever coming about.

I think the point the OP is making is that the benefit of this efficiency gain is passed on to the technology teams that implement and maintain those intelligent inventory tracking systems. They are the ones getting paid the higher salaries. They are the ones making the the store workers more efficient.

What makes you feel that Software developer salary is linked to computing power? In fact, even if we were to consider it a fair comparison, computing power, if measured by Moore's law has doubled every 2 years. Software Engineer salaries have lagged far far behind.

The "So What" comes into play here in that this may not be the situation that this generation wants to be in. It is one thing, if this generation is choosing to not seek employment and cohabit with their parents, it is quite another if they have no choice and are being forced into this situation.

It is a bit like saying, people are living in tents on the sidewalk. "So what?". Plenty of people live with less than a tent and some even choose to do so. We have to go one step further and ask ourselves if this is a life that these people are choosing to lead, or if it is one that has been thrust upon them through a lack of options.

It might be completely automated, but there could also be an algorithm that selects searched domain names and then puts them in a "review" shortlist for a human (or a team) to scan through and flag for purchase.

I don't think it is about it being wrong (though it is abnormal in the US context), it is the reason for this shift that is worrying.

Is there any reason to believe this is due to a cultural shift amongst Americans? I don't believe it is controversial that the young have been the most negatively impacted by rising education and housing costs, as well as their demographic being the most heavily impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. (is it?)

The implication here is that more young adults are staying at home, not because they want to, but rather because they cannot afford to leave (or in some cases, as the article mentions, because it is better than being isolated at home alone). I hope you agree that this is an important distinction.

I prefer my Civ games to be very long.

Like so many, I spent countless hours of my childhood playing Civ 1 and 2 as a kid. These were single player experiences that I would play out over several days.

Much later in life, I remember there was a competing game that came out "Civilization: Call to Power" from Activision. It wasn't perfect, but it was some of the most fun I had. You see, that game had support for a type of play called "Play by Email" (PBEM). You could hang out on the Apolyton forums (https://apolyton.net/forum) and co-ordinate a PBEM game with other civ players.

Each player would play their turn, mail it on to the next player, and post an update on the forum. Posts would often be role play .. often with diplomatic messages, declarations of war, expressing outrage, or overtures for peace, or just listings of grievances or demands. People would email each other directly to scheme or perform diplomacy, form secret (or open) alliances and non aggression pacts.

If a player went inactive for too long, we'd get a new player to join the game and take over the helm for their civilization. These games would go on for many months start to finish. Players could be engaged in multiple such games at the same time.

I don't know if the new Civilization games offer this type of gameplay (I do not think they do), but I would love this type of game structure.

RAM on iMac's has been user upgrade-able since at least 2014. I have a 2014 27" iMac and a 2017 27" iMac, and I upgraded the RAM on both of them. It's not a crazy "disassemble half the machine" type job either, it is really easily done via a panel in the back.

I agree with you, the author of the original post, and your summary, however I have one nitpick with his rape analogy.

With something like Rape, it is wrong and cannot be tolerated in even the smallest amount. Zero is the only acceptable level of rape.

Pollution is different. We all know that exterminating the majority of the human population and returning to a hunter/gatherer society is not an option. The realistic goal isn't to eliminate all forms of pollution everywhere, it is to reduce the pollution to a level that is less harmful to the planet. The problem is in identifying where and how deep to make the cuts.

Such a situation allows for a person to continue to eat meat, live in a big house and take vacations, while simultaneously calling for cuts to deforestation, legislating for EV transport and nuclear power, and do so without hypocrisy. Essentially you can have each group say "make the cuts, and make them deep, but make them over there".

This is so depressing to see. These are the symptoms of a system slowly grinding to a halt under its own weight. Compare the tax code in 1970 (or earlier) vs today (1). Regulations and laws keep getting more and more complex. It keeps getting slower and costlier to get anything done. Then throw in the aging infrastructure, the greater wealth inequality along with significantly decreased social mobility. Un-affordable healthcare and education costs that cripple you before you can even begin to walk. Completely un-affordable housing after that, or a ridiculous commute without decent public transport. No wonder our political system looks as bad as it does.. people are getting increasingly angrier, more polarized, more frustrated, more desperate. There is such inertia to these 'systems' that it takes overwhelming effort and sacrifice to change its course.

These problems don't seem to be getting solved, they seem to be getting worse. How do you realistically reverse something like this? Are there examples of a successful reversal having been made without hitting the dreaded 'reboot' button on society?

We will probably muddle along during our lifetimes, but I fear for my children's generation.

(1) https://taxfoundation.org/how-many-words-are-tax-code/

Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime.

Overcooked.

Overcooked 2

Up to 4 player Co-op. Incredibly fun games.

Source: I play co-op and versus games with my kids. We've incorporated casual video game play into our family time for the past few years.

That is what I figured too. People are rightly concerned about the security implications of this new paradigm of including package dependencies.

These concerns and the conversation around them are good and healthy. Give it some time. People will experiment with what works and over time best practices will emerge for the set of trade offs that people are willing to make.

I think it is expected that we will see the full spectrum of reactions to this new work environment. Everything from : - whether you are living single or with a significant other - happily married or have your relationship just scraping by (As an aside, I read that China has seen a spike in divorces after their lockdown) - have kids or no kids, have teenagers or toddlers - have a comfortable home office or are working from your kitchen table and sitting on a dining chair - are introverted or extroverted - have great co-workers in a great workplace environment or if you dislike your office and/or co-workers - if you have a long commute or live a relaxing 10 minute walk from the office

... the list goes on and on.

It is not surprising that you will have every variation of the above. But my guess is that for the majority of the people, once they setup a proper home office, the would likely find working from home to be somewhere in the "mildly positive" to "really positive" side of things. Even if some disagree with that, at the very least, I imagine that most would agree that they would like to have the _option_ to work from home whenever they choose.

Gandhi was brown, and his policy of civil disobedience was essentially based on the premise that a government only derives its legitimacy from the will of the people to be governed by it. Leading to the act of mass civil disobedience.

I am not being disingenuous in the least. I believe you are mis-interpreting the phrase.

Here it is in full form under Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. [1]

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/en...

Yeah, that is a good question. A worker can reasonably claim that they should not be asked to break the law as part of their job. I am curious to see how all this plays out.

Having said that, I read somewhere that there are like 10,000 employees at Tesla's Fremont plant. Do we really think the County would actually follow through and arrest 10,000 people? Thank Goodness we do not live in such a society.. Perhaps they would arrest just the management, perhaps just Musk? Shut off the power instead? Ugh.

Yes I read the link before I posted it, I just didn't think the full phrase added anything to my response to the OP. :)

Anyway, I would think that being unable to open your own factory while your competitors are allowed to be open when you have done nothing wrong, would be quite "unjust and unfavorable". I mean it isn't like he can conduct this type of business from home instead.

Edit:

Here is the full sentence according to Article 23 from the Universal Declaration of Human rights:

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. [1]

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/en...

Well, the UN definition of "Human Rights" includes the "right to work"[1]. So one could argue that this is, in fact, a Human Rights issue. Just because this guy is a billionaire does not mean that these rights do not apply to him.

[1]https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/

Civil disobedience is typically, but not always, punished. We will have to see how this plays out.

There is also the question of which branch of government gets to have a say in the enforcement of a law. Consider California's approach to marijuana use vs the Federal government's. Or consider how there are numerous sanctuary cities that are in defiance of Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

These things are complicated.

You must also take into account the history of intentional civil disobedience where the government has over reached and the population simply reaches the point where it refuses to comply.

Prohibition is obviously a prime example of this, but if you consider various laws that once existed or are currently on the books but no longer enforced (think laws pertaining to racial segregation, sexuality, drug use, and such) you realize that being a law abiding citizen does not mean you are no longer allowed to think for yourself. Read up on "Jury Nullification" or "Jury Equity".

Well said. I was reading the responses, and seeing the implicit group consensus on what "success" looks like.

The thing though is, your entire life outcome is based on luck. There is nothing you can really do to compensate for that, besides getting back up, brushing the dust of your knees, counting your blessings and keep going.

List of things that are luck:

1) Where you were born in the wrong place at the wrong time. (think Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.)

2) Being born the wrong gender in the majority of the world by population (ie female).

3) Being born with the wrong sexual orientation in a huge chunk of the world.

4) Being born with a health condition (physical or mental), or with a learning disability. Even a mild one like ADHD or dyslexia.

5) Being born to the wrong set of parents. ie. belonging to the wrong community/religion/race... in the majority of the world.

Honestly, even your mental capacity and grit are to a large extent (if not completely) luck. If developed via nurture, you didn't pick how you were nurtured. If nature, you didn't pick the genetic combination you were born with.

So really, what is left? What percentage of your 'success' can you actually take credit for?

I am exactly like this as well. Some days I am just in the mood to listen to 'old' music. Music I listened to growing up. Other days, I crave something new.

I find the same thing with foods as well. When I discover a new dish/restaurant I love, I will have it several times and relish in the new flavors/atmosphere. After a while, I still love and enjoy that dish/restaurant, but now the thrill has been replaced by a more comforting and familiar association with a fun night out.

Another example, growing up, I was only allowed to drink Coke when we ate out or went on picnics, or attended sporting events. As a result, as an adult, my brain made an association between drinking coke and having a good time.

This is exactly their strategy, and it works to some extent. Their aspirational marketing works quite well. The people acquiring their product are aspiring to be outdoorsy, fit, and adventurous.

I bought a GoPro several years back as well, after using it on one of my camping trips and a trip to a water park with the kids, I realized I don't really have the kind of adventurous, outdoorsy life I was aspiring to. The GoPro sits in a drawer.

You actually have to be pursuing activities that you think are worth capturing on a GoPro or a drone, and then you have to have an interest in capturing/editing those pursuits.

Longer term, there is a legitimate niche for their products. It is the intersection of people interested (personally or professionally) in photography/videography who have adventurous/outdoorsy pursuits and hobbies. Whether that niche is large enough to support a company of their size (and their competitors) is still an open question.