ad404b8a372f2b9

He gets plenty of those, he drags me all around the house by the hand and we talk about the things he sees, it's a whole workout keeping that kid entertained.

Very cool, thank you for the reference.

Well I don't mean equations or anything like that. Even toddlers learn math in their own way and they say a good home math environment is important for the pre-school age range.

That's cute, I'll see if he likes it. I've read song based acquisition of numeracy is recommended so I have a few toys that sing the numbers too.

I'm afraid that's a little too early for him, he's at the eat everything phase so I'm sticking to big toys. I have so much lego stuff to give him though once he'll be older!

We already watched those.

The SaaS term has included B2C companies since the very beginning. There are talks on Youtube as early as 2013 about B2C SaaS companies.

Thanks.

What's SP, I can't find it on google.

I find it reprehensible. Lots of hot air to accomplish nothing at all except making a few activists feel good about themselves.

The online disabled community has been completely poisoned by it sadly.

That's funny we went the opposite way in France, "invalid" in the past, now "handicapped".

I'm not trying to fight either, what I'm unclear on are the specifics of the fix. If they don't sell, no capital gains are realized, so what do you tax?

You are. I'm trying to understand the problem and solution space.

- From the perspective of a communist, it's clear.

- From the perspective of a libertarian, it's clear.

- From the perspective of people who want to stay within the bounds of capitalism but would like to have some way to curtail inequality, a group to which I belong, it's not clear.

If you're of the same beliefs but are unable to present and defend a specific solution to address the problems presented, as I am, you should welcome those questions.

Interesting, I didn't know the rates used to be that high.

I don't understand fully how loans evade taxation either. What I've read is that it's a combination of:

- They can be carried forward into other loans.

- They don't repay them, they only pay the interests.

- They aren't close in amount to their actual net-worth.

So most of the money they own is not liquid and not subject to those taxes. Unless we're talking about a wealth tax, which I'd be interested in seeing an argument for as well.

You tell me, that's what I'm asking.

See my sibling comment about income and capital gains taxes. By what mechanisms should they be taxed in your opinion, taking into account these limitations?

My understanding was that the wealthy essentially do not have income, their net-worth is tied to their stock ownership.

Tax on capital gains do not work to tax them either since they don't sell their stocks but take loans against them.

In what way should these systems be changed, or new systems be used, to appropriately tax them without compromising their ownership of the companies they built?

What are those policies?

This topic comes up often but I rarely see a discussion of the alternatives, except from communism advocates.

Assuming we agree with the premise that this amount of inequality is too extreme, what is to be done to reduce it? And in what way do we ensure this does not compromise the basic principles of our capitalist economy, e.g allowing the rewards to be commensurate with the risks, rewarding people who work harder and have more qualifications, and preserving ownership.

Reminds me of this episode of star trek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Bough_Breaks_(Star_Tr...

It's about an ancient civilization so advanced they have tools and computers that can create art just from their intent. But they have grown so distant from the inner workings of these tools that they are incapable of modifying or repairing them and their survival is put into jeopardy because of it.

The taxonomy is not the point of the article. The point of the article is about language and hardware development interactions and whether we are locked in a paradigm in which our reliance on C prevents us from taking advantage of hardware innovations, and in turn create languages which properly makes use of such hardware.

The salvation of the web lies in banning all the normies and mobile users.

The presenter is hilarious! I've rarely seen an engineer with such charisma.

Ah jinx!

And she had post-it notes at home where she had written "I killed them on purpose."...

Prices seemed to have lowered when AMD came out with CPUs competitive with Intel's.

I don't know that his argument is based on essentialism since he goes on to describe algorithms which he considers artificially intelligent: "There are programs that can look at a photo of some magnified cells and tell you, with greater likelihood of being right than any human doctor, whether it’s cancerous or not,”. And he puts it in contrast to his previous statement about LLMs not being artifically intelligent.

It seems to me he wants people to look past the impressive facade of correct grammar and see that a lot of the LLMs often spew out bullshit. Personally I've seen them perform intelligence tasks, generate correct code and so forth. But I think many people ascribe to them a general intelligence that they don't have, which is why you see them quoted increasingly often online as if they were knowledgeable or correct-by-default.

That's the point, if people are doing it because they are too poor, at the cost of their health, then don't think it's a thrilling living experience to be celebrated.

A month at a capsule hotel will cost you more than renting a room. A New York pod or a Bay pod will cost you more than renting an apartment in a place that doesn't have a crazy renting market, pretty much 99% of the rest of the world, even big cities.

That's the point, making up for crazy living conditions in which people are packed like sardines and there isn't enough room for everyone. It's not a positive, it's not a thrilling living experience. It's a disaster and people put up with it.

A hostel is different, but if you have the money you can also rent an actual room and still get to meet people there. Hang out in the common areas, and so on, without having to deal with the terrible facilities. So stay at a hostel once and then realize if you ever do it again it'll be to save money not by choice.

The opposite, I've left, traveled all over, lived in hostels, lived in poverty, lived on the street. That's why I'm not fantasizing about those experiences as if they would be thrilling solely on the basis of the poorness of the accommodations.

There is no reason outside of ideology that a normal person would choose a pod/hostel bed/... over a spacious room for the same amount of money. It doesn't matter if you only sleep there, a house is always more comfortable all things considered.

All other argumentation is making up for the fact that you are paying exorbitant amounts of money for a tiny crowded space and can't afford a house. It is a social and political failure, not something to be celebrated.

In Victorian times you could pay a few pennies to hang over a rope with your fellow bums, or sleep in a coffin. 200 years later in the Bay you can do the same thing for a 100 times the price and people will actually relish the experience. This is slum tourism at home.