jbstack

Wrong Fedora

"Take a loan with it" - that's not a practical solution if the asset is property. Getting a mortgage approved is far from straightforward, can take months, is by no means guaranteed to be accepted, and can be extremely expensive if done frequently (e.g. yearly) due to one-off costs and lock-in periods.

Yes, a bubble just means that it's over-valued and that at some point there will be a significant correction in stock values. It doesn't mean that the thing is inherently worthless.

I don't follow why it makes a difference? If someone wants to invest to improve their future quality of life, why would it matter how long they will live in a place for?

It's actually more like 2.2% for shares (5.88% assumed return taxed at 36% = 2.2%.

If you have an ultra-low risk investment strategy focused on value preservation and inflation beating (where your expected returns are in the low single digits e.g. 2 - 3%), that does start to look like being robbed blind.

> It is only fair that those that have a lot of money contribute

Really? 60k is "a lot of money"? Yes, it's a lot in the sense that many people have far less than that, but it's not "a lot" in the scheme of things when we're talking about saving and investing.

With 60k you'll be lucky even to get the down-payment on a mortgage for a small apartment, which you'll then be paying off every month for the next several decades. Should we be taxing people on their wealth before they've even had the chance to own their first home? I would argue that such a person can't legitimately be called wealthy.

I guess my complaint was more about the type of taxes rather than the concept of taxes in general. Income tax I can accept: it's the price of entry to live in the place and enjoy its benefits. Even then there's plenty of room for debate between the extremes of "ultra-low / no tax" and "very high", but let's set that aside for now.

But having a wealth tax with a very low threshold is something else entirely. It means that I'm not free to invest and grow the money that is already mine, that I already paid taxes on in the first place. It means I'll always be held back and prevented from advancing as much as I could. It means that improving your situation so that next year you're doing a little better than this year, is something that the system actively pushes you away from.

There are also practical problems with taxing wealth. Income tax is "easy": by definition you have the money to pay for it because it's charged on money that you've received. With a wealth tax, you might not have the money. For example, if you own an investment apartment or some other illiquid asset you can't just sell a piece of it every year to pay the tax. You'll either have to find the money out of income (assuming you have enough) or ruin your investment strategy by selling the whole thing when you didn't plan to.

It also distorts the risk/reward tradeoff: many investments might not make sense at all if you're suddenly paying 2% a year of the value.

I love the Netherlands and have spent a few months trying it out as a place to live. It's among my favourite places: moderate weather, friendly people, a high level of personal freedom, very high rate of English speakers, clean and modern environment, good international restaurants, lively town centres even in smaller towns, most towns have rivers / canals which make them very pleasant to walk around. I could list many other positive things.

There are some (big) downsides though. Properties are very small and very expensive compared to other European countries, so you can't expect a high standard of living in this aspect unless you have plenty of money. Taxes are also very high. In addition to the usual income taxes, you pay a wealth tax and the threshold is very low (around 55k EUR in savings/assets) so this isn't only targeting very rich people. This makes it a pretty bad place to live if you care about investing and saving for the future.

If it wasn't for these last two points I'd almost definitely move there.

Misleading article. From the second paragraph:

> David Heinemeier Hansson (also known as DHH) released a new kanban tool, Fizzy, this week and called it open source.

From the linked article by DHH:

> That means it's not technically Open Source™

Something can be technically true while still being misleading. In fact arguably that's what the word misleading means (as opposed to false).

I think most people, when told that something will last for "years", would be quite surprised to learn that it will fail after 2 years.

> It says two years of average use.

Even this is misleading. The product hasn't been released yet. So what is it an average of? How do you know how people will use it?

It's pretty bad when you consider that you have to limit it to just this use-case (3-6 second recordings 10-20 times a day), when it could have instead been useful for other things e.g. recording much longer thoughts or making notes while reading a book or watching a video.

Even for just the narrow use-case, 2 years is still pretty poor. I generally expect my tech to last a lot longer than that.

I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. I did as you suggested. $100 invested 50 years ago into gold would be worth $3000 today. $100 invested into the S&P500 50 years ago would be worth $6870.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-dat... https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-...

Examples don't help if you can't understand them.

I refer you to:

https://xkcd.com/1053/

They can be nice for running low footprint VMs (e.g. in LXD / Incus) where you don't want to use a container. Alpine in particular is popular for this. The downside is there are sometimes compatibility issues where packages expect certain dependencies that Alpine doesn't provide.

"Just" write your own module?

Have you seen how bad the Nix documentation is and how challenging Nix (the language) is? Not to mention that you have to learn Yet Another Language just for this corner case, which you will not use for anything else. At least Guix uses a lisp variant so that some of the skills you gain are transferable (e.g. to Emacs, or even to a GP language like Common Lisp or Racket).

Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of Nix and the way it handles dependency management and declarative configuration. But I don't think we can pretend that it's easy.

Not really. Smart contracts ensure that if all the conditions are met, the contract will be fulfilled. They achieve that through decentralisation: no one person can decide whether or not it will be fulfilled.

No real world contract can replicate that - you have to go to court to enforce a breach of contract and it isn't certain you will succeed. Even if you succeed the other party can refuse to comply, and then you need to try to enforce, which also may or may not work.

Reform is also headed by a guy who regularly used phrases like "Hitler was right", "gas them all", and "go home, Paki" as an 18 year old (confirmed by 20+ former classmates).

Ordinarily we might give him the benefit of the doubt: maybe he's matured and grown up since then. But the fact that he's called all of those classmates liars says that either they are all liars, or he is dishonest about his racism.

"a more libertarian government"

As long as you are white British. If you're anything else you're probably going to be worse off under Farage.

It's a shame that if you want to vote for someone with different policies to the two main parties, you have to accept that you are also voting for an outspoken racist.

Or you can pay £0 per month for 99% of the content.

I'm a bit like the parent comment. I've always wanted to be able to pay a monthly fee (even a high one, say £50 a month) to have access to a good quality selection of movies and TV shows. The thing is, it's always bugged me that you can get a much better experience by pirating than by paying for legitimate access. That seems the opposite to how things should work.

This pre-dates streaming. DVDs came with FBI warnings and other screens that couldn't be fast-forwarded or skipped. You couldn't buy a DVD in the US and play it in a DVD player in Europe because the "region" didn't match. You couldn't easily transfer it to watch on a device without a DVD player because of the DRM.

All of this means that, even ignoring the fact that it's free, it's just far more straightforward to torrent a movie and watch it wherever you want using whatever app you want.

Is anyone in the UK really complaining that it's difficult today to show you're eligible for hospital care, voting, employment, or buying a drink? I can't honestly remember a single time in my life where someone told me this was a problem for them. It's certainly never been a problem for me.

This sounds to me like fixing a problem we don't really have. At a time when we have plenty of genuine and serious problems that need fixing and aren't being fixed.

I'd rather see my tax money spent on tackling climate change, or decreasing hospital wait times, or hiring more teachers, or reducing dependence on Russian oil, or any of the other countless things that would make a genuine difference. Instead, we're going to blow a load of money on something that isn't going to improve people's lives (except maybe in a very negligible way) or make the world safer, and is probably going to erode my privacy and security.

I'm not sure that's still correct. There was an uplift because of Covid and people having more spare time, but whatever more recent (2024 - 2025) sources I can find suggest the trend has reversed.

It's worth also considering demographics. If you narrow the focus to just younger generations (who, we can guess, are more addicted to smartphones) then the numbers look pretty bad. E.g.:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/nov/05/report-fall-in...

Exactly. I share the view that it doesn't make sense to effectively have two window managers running (one in my WM and one in Emacs) with different philosophies and shortcuts. But, and in a more general sense this is the great thing about Emacs, if you don't like its default behaviour you just change it.

I think this largely misses the point. It isn't about which out of keyboard vs mouse is objectively better or faster. It's about subjective comfort. If a system "feels" nicer to use then I'll feel more motivated while using it which means I'll use it more and be more productive, and that's a sufficiently good reason to prefer one over the other. For me, that means using the keyboard and not the mouse.

I think some of these are unfair criticisms, because they are things that can be trivially changed. E.g. disabling evil mode or changing the theme are one-line modifications in the Doom config. After all, any opinionated Emacs distro has to make some choices otherwise there would be little point in anyone using one.

For me the issues with Doom are (a) the complexity as a whole that it introduces, and (b) so many things are already installed/configured that you end up using them without any real "under the hood" understanding which is so essential for customisation.

They have their place. I started out with Doom and it definitely helped to streamline the beginner phase where vanilla would have felt overwhelming. But, as with you, I soon became frustrated when I wanted to move beyond its default configuration.

I've since switched to Vanilla and I've been using ChatGPT to gradually explain and help me integrate the Doom features that I like, so that I end up with a similar base that I actually understand and which I can deviate from where I want to.

It's not about my victory or yours. It's merely the recognition that people can have all sorts of reasons for doing all sorts of things, and one person can think nothing of doing a thing which the person next to them would never dream of doing.

The fact that you personally would be happy to be an organ donor but would draw the line at having an ECG while dying is a perfectly valid position to take. Many people would no doubt take the same position. It's unlikely though that 60-70 million people per year would all react that way. Neither of us has to be right or wrong here (about the difference between the two scenarios), because it's other people's motivations we're talking about.

It's still a worthwhile comparison because it demonstrates that some people have a desire to turn their death into something meaningful or useful to others. After, all question was "what would motivate someone to willingly transform their last moments into a medical experiment?", and my examples are about motivation.

For some that motivation might be strong enough to be willing to undergo some discomfort (if, indeed there needs to be any discomfort in the first place, which isn't clear). For others, it might not be.

It doesn't matter that you aren't sure, and it doesn't even matter if most people agreed with you. Around 60 to 70 million people die every year globally, so if even a tiny fraction of these were willing to take part there would be sufficient numbers for a statistically significant study.

In any case, the fact that a significant number of people opt for organ or body donation suggests they are willing to allow their deaths to be useful to others in some way.

And does that simplicity come at a cost of flexibility? Do you think bundlewrap is sutiable for managing a homelab with a diverse set of software running inside a mix of containers and VMs, and perhaps different distros?