Bingo. The guy has a lot of things right, but I was floored when I read "progressive consumption tax" coming from an otherwise well written essay. Consumption taxes are regressive, and no amount of progressive lip stick will make them redistribute sufficiently to achieve the effect he wants.
I would say that any tax reform that fails to reduce asset concentration will completely fail to reduce economic inequality. Let Bezos have his newspaper, if that's all he owns. Let him game the system to evade income tax. Fine. The problem is when a very small group of people own all the newspapers plus their original business empires plus their privately owned social media companies, plus their funded PACs, their psyops, etc.
All assets must be taxed directly to such an extent that concentrated assets are redistributed naturally through market forces. Tax wealth, not work.
How do we even know they're being honest? They've been lying about everything for so long, and now we're just suddenly gonna believe they're being honest only when it pertains to Venezuela? Why?
If they're lying... that's an awfully strange choice of lies. It makes them look rather thuggish. Usually you pick a lie that would make you look better, right?
The administration doesn't care about whether their motives appear palatable or not. Every decision is based on an ever increasing cascade of consequences they can dam up and then release on other people so said administration can go do something else during the cleanup. Aside from one person who's a massive narcissist they don't give a damn about how they're perceived. They only cared when other people had the authority to grand them authority, but now that they are the authority they'll never give it away. And when you don't have to worry about losing your authority you don't have to care about what people think of you. This is why the weakest monarchs were the ones with debts, and the strongest ones were those with centralized militaries.
I have a file like this, several years long, but parsed with YAML so that each day is clearly separated from the next, and for list parsing, and for dictionary parsing so each project I work on is associated with a YAML dictionary key. I can go back in time and easily find notes related to specific projects or specific dates.
I chuckled when I read that, when over-16 is considered elderly.
What will we do when we no longer have the views of 14 year olds at our fingertips? Well, hopefully they will write their views down on notepaper, and in two years we'll hear all about it.
It's a personal decision. I haven't gotten a diagnosis because I've been able to hold a job for many years, and I'm married, so I'm mostly fine. But I have spent my life avoiding most human contact, precisely because I know I'm incompatible with them, and people often want to know why I never leave the house.
I don't think there is any treatment. I think it's just a set of skills that you learn in case you want to try to pursue activities that most neurotypicals take for granted. It seems like a lot of work to me, and maybe it would be easier to just let things be, as you're saying.
I know what my limitations are and I can observe others doing the things that I can't do, including my own wife, and I imagine what life would be like if I could do those things too. But it mainly boils down to having FOMO, and thinking about how much work you want to go through in order to be able to do some of the things that you're having FOMO about.
Thanks for that insight. I previously had only a vague notion of why disorder is used. One of the main reasons I don't want to have an official diagnosis is because the word disorder has such a negative connotation. I really don't want any disorders, so if I just ignore it, try not to think about it, maybe it will go away, and then I won't have a disorder.
Manufacturing and automation is another big one. Think about a water plant that is air-gapped but needs computer automation software to run. These things are everywhere, in every town that has indoor plumbing and sewer. The specialized software that automates these plants only runs on Windows. It relies on industrial hardware and touchscreens that are designed for use in harsh outdoor environments. All of these types of plants rely on high school educated operators that need to understand what's going on at a simple level. Having an OS that in any way relies on Internet access is a non starter. A Linux based system would be removed within a year of operation. You could get it approved maybe if you really worked at it but it would not be accepted in the long run, after the initial startup. There are physical constraints, technical constraints, and human/political constraints that are all working against Linux.
Most of that stuff is probably still running windows 98 or XP. If it's airgapped, and it works, and it controls a million dollar piece of equipment, then management will tell anybody suggesting it be updated to the newest windows version to stfu.
Also, the extent to which windows is needed to accommodate uneducated operators is overstated. A lot of industrial equipment runs other oddball operating systems configured by the manufacturer and machine operators don't need to know the difference because they just know which buttons to press to get the job done.
I work in a lab. Let me give you some ideea of what's happening:
- Some machines use embedded MCUs with no operating systems. I haven't seen one of these in the last 15 years. The last DNA extraction machine we got (a glorified sample shaker with 2 stepper motors) runs Win10! It has no keyboard, no network, and absolutely no ports of any kind (or at least not accessible without dissasembling the machine). A 8051 could do the job and still have memory left for Pong. [1]
- Very old machines run MSDOS and a proprietary software that directly talks to hardware ISA boards via I/O ports - no drivers. That software can't be ported to Windows2000+ because of the same reasons DOS games can't run in Win2000 - the kernel won't allow direct hardware access. Linux doens't allow it either.
- Newer machines run Windows 2000/XP/7/10, many of them offline. Some of them were updated to run Win10 from older versions, with the same app version (just Windows updated).
- Since Win10 can no longer be bought, newer machines run Win11 with permanent internet connection and they are minimally customized - the vendors left all ads, Copilot, Store and the kitchen sink installed. It's atrocious to work with those, but nobody cares. The management that make the decisions to buy the machines never ever touch them or even see them, and they don't take advice or feedback from us (or anyone else but accounting).
After rereading, it sounds like I meant for the two sentences to be related, but I didn't mean it that way. I was referring to the fact of Microsoft trying to force people to connect to the Internet before they can install Windows, or sign in with a Microsoft account in corporate infrastructure scenarios where that makes no sense, and so customers are forced to use Linux instead, but that's a complication being added to their overall system for external reasons.
A Linux-based system would be identical to a Windows-based system as far as operator experience goes. They interact with HMI software and only see the OS underneath when Windows pops up silly notifications and errors.
Windows owns the industrial space for historical reasons, mostly to do with OPC being Windows-only and software for doing maintenance on field devices originally running on DOS. It quickly became a chicken-and-egg situation - everyone wrote their software for Windows because everyone else wrote their software for Windows. SCO owned a decent chunk of the field before that, but we know how that worked out.
We're seeing some change now that OPC is being phased out. Ignition now has feature parity between Linux and Windows (barring OPC, of course). Windows won't go away any time soon (if ever), but you can now have a fully functioning SCADA system with no Windows at all.
It depends on what your motives are. Every evil personality you hate started out first as a subversive force. Do you know what the secret end goal of your subversive force flavor-of-the-month is?
The article describes it as a "useful analogy" but doesn't specify in what way it's useful. Seems the manner in which it's useful depends on your worldview or even your intelligence. Does it mean that predictions of crisis are all equally valid or worthless? Or does it mean that we should question how the conclusion was reached, or that we should require some minimum standard of scientific consensus before publishing such predictions?
It's not just him, it's the whole base that does this. Taking a cue from the most infamously persecuted person in history, Jesus Christ, that's what they're going for. The more hate, the stronger their resolve. Hate is the fuel that keeps the whole engine running, so low public support will do nothing to slow this process down. It will only fuel it.
Think about that photo of blood coming from a nicked ear evoking Jesus Christ on the cross. That's the photo that made him into a god and won him the election. It's all about the persecution.
I would say that any tax reform that fails to reduce asset concentration will completely fail to reduce economic inequality. Let Bezos have his newspaper, if that's all he owns. Let him game the system to evade income tax. Fine. The problem is when a very small group of people own all the newspapers plus their original business empires plus their privately owned social media companies, plus their funded PACs, their psyops, etc.
All assets must be taxed directly to such an extent that concentrated assets are redistributed naturally through market forces. Tax wealth, not work.