mptest

>or some other loophole to get around it. (or if it's individual wealth, then they'll use trusts or some of the many other options available to them

Completely agree, it will always be a cat and mouse game. But it's a worthy aspiration, and I'd argue the reason the wealthy have been the cat more than the mouse in the relationship with the state is due only to the budget disparity between them.

Start to shrink the disparity between the enforcement budget (think IRS special forces for the ultra wealthy) and the "avoid taxes" budget and the aspiration looks a lot more doable.

>owner of the 999m will stop investing

Maybe. Or maybe they'll get better and spending rather than hoarding and continuously need to replenish that stock.

Even if these "winners" of a more 'social capitalism' stopped gracing us with their genius, the surplus of wealth in endeavors like free stem schooling for everyone (that wants it) would surely make up for that loss??

Is it bold? What percentage of all of our modern infrastructure is from the benevolence of philanthropists?? I am sure it's not zero, but I can't imagine it being a majority... But please enlighten me. For "billionaires know best what to do with all that wealth, they'll take care of us" sounds an awful lot like what sbf was preaching.

>state should control any large enough corporation

Not necessarily, company could be broken down in to smaller, become employee owned in some part, could have some amount of stock become owned by an infrastructure fund or something. There's many ways to skin a cat

And since philanthropic approaches to such aspirations demonstrably do not work, we need extremely high taxes on the ultra wealthy.

Before the six-seven digit earning engineers here lambast me, I'm talking billionaires.

No one intelligent can/has yet looked me in the eye and told me earnestly: anyone with a billion + $ would have a single degree lower quality of life if their wealth was capped at 999 million

If you want empirics google "highest marginal tax rate 1950- present" and "infrastructure spending 1950- present".

Completely agree transmission of knowledge is a sticky wicket. Good reminder to stay logistically grounded. I have found many of the ambitious thinkers close to me tend to aspire to a "humanity learns" moment but if they're anywhere near politics they tend to be tempered fairly well by the logistical realities of bringing ideas to pass

True, good point. famously never exploitative music contracts. I don't think I've ever heard of a famous artist being taken advantage of via "deals".

>are responsible for funding the entire platform, no?

No, they all are. I wouldn't be a subscriber and I doubt many others would be if they only had the "top" artists that "are responsible for funding the entire platform".

Go through your playlist for a minute and find how many artists aren't "the big ones" and ask yourself if you'd use the platform if the small artists weren't included. The whole point of spotify is ALL music, so ALL music is important, surely?

humanity learns just mean sufficient individuals learn to take power and enact such a society

David chalmers doesn't think llm's are conscious yet but also doesn't think there's any real barriers for silicon to get to human consciousness[0]

[0]https://youtu.be/j6cCXg-rjRo

He gives a few of the biggest reasons they're not conscious, and gives his thoughts on them as long term barriers.

1. biology necessary for life? He doesn't buy it

2. sensors/body - no embodiment akin to philosophers brain in a vat at best. "no agentive consciousness" he also doesn't buy this one, a it's solvable, b the brain in a vat might still have some limited form of consciousness

3.world models : stochastic parrot argument - he doesn't buy this either as being a valid "llm's will never be conscious" reason. he even thinks current llm's did have some world model if not a "full" one"

4. feed forward systems - stateless - lack long term memory Recurrent processing necessary? "Not all consciousness involves memory"

5. Unified agency - they're chameleons, actors, - are stable goals/unity necessary for consciousness? a "fixed" identity?

from a quick scroll thru of the vid

>so much potential for software to improve that field

Reading Dr Fei Fei Li's "The worlds I see" really drove this home. And not just ecology, Soooo many fields would benefit from that type of interdisciplinary communication. Medicine, 100k people die a year from medical mistakes. Some would be remedied with something as simple as a sensor that detects when a patient has been still too long.

It's basically a book on the history of computer vision paired with a biography, and it's amazing to see how much early psychological, neurological work went in to the early field of computer vision. And how much cooperation needed to happen for ai to even come near healthcare. Really made me appreciate how interconnected nearly all intellectual pursuits are.

>Empower parents to do what exactly Oh idk, maybe not spend 100% of their conscious time/energy working to make someone else enough money to buy their fifth yacht??? And actually parent?? So kids aren't pawned off on to screens for 12 hours a day?? Seems pretty damn simple when most households need to be two income what the problem is. Parenting being pawned off on technology. All this "parenting" software is missing the point so hard it's comical.

Maybe subsidize child care and recognize the economic value raising children has and how much unpaid work parents do for all our future? Then parents would actually have time and energy and money to parent.

Damn bro tell me more about how easy opium is to make. time to start a garden

Because like always, the punishment for the rich playing games with our lives is a negligible fine 1/10000th the profit they make selling your information to anyone with a buck.

The talking out loud I agree is problematic. The bluetooth functionality and increasing quality audio pass through give me hope for a simple earphone in one ear, and eventually... this: https://x.com/ruohanzhang76/status/1720525179028406492

Also bullish on hand gesture control. Maybe most stuff will eventually become jutsu level fancy hand movements lol. What a time to be alive. It is easy to remain grateful in this age of rapid progress.

You are laughably, childishly naive if you think he's following that guy ironically just to "watch out" for his problematic beliefs. It's so comical I have to laugh. "Guys, i follow all these nazis and terrorists to KEEP AN EYE OUT, not because i sympathize with their beliefs!! That would be silly!" Do you hear yourself?? How many stochastic terrorists, white supremacists and pedos do you follow??? lol. "Guys, i followed epstein to his island to keep an eye on him!!" Lmao what an absolute farce. >I wouldn't be so sure about that. Hate blinds harder than honesty.

I hate things he does, not him. I don't know him. I like other things. But on the whole I think it's pretty evident simply by his twitter what a piece of shit he is. That's not even touching the wealth hoarding or business practices. Simply his politics. I pay for star link, I have commended plenty he's done literally in public on a radio show I run. You're the worshipper who believes one can't point out all flaws in the man without being a "blind hater"

I think he's evil. That's an opinion. Did you expect a mathematical proof of his character? Did you want me to produce a documentary documenting everything he's done? Are you stupid? Can you read?

In my original comment I asserted he does plenty to inspire dislike without some media conspiracy to foment that disdain. And that I think he's evil/a white supremacist/nazi sympathizer based on his politics. Those are two separate statements you pea brained musk cultist.

Where did I say that? I only noted that example would be one of the things he does that inspire dislike independent of some media conspiracy.

If you think following a guy who tweets shit like that says nothin about you good for you, keep sucking elon off, have fun. But not all of us are so blinded by worship.

Yeah cool, except I'm talkin about someone who is asking questions about pedophilia, to give the most generous interpretation of that person, not someone who has some minor debates on budget allocation.

No one said you have to only follow people you like. But following that guy probably says somethin about your character. What? You clearly think nothing so keep sucking him off, good for you lol. I am just not as blind as you.

Just cause you're playing glib and acting like you don't understand the rhetoric in that thread doesn't change reality. It's literally verbatim great replacement shit. "They want to exterminate you." The venn diagram between confederates and white supremacists is a circle with a smaller circle in it. Keep playin glib tho I'm sure elon will pay you any time now for all the hard work you do.

What she does is stochastic terrorism. Maybe you should look it up. Here's a definition for you: Stochastic terrorism refers to political or media figures publicly demonizing a person or group in such a way that it inspires supporters of the figures to commit a violent act against the target of the speech

Which is exactly what evil cunts like libs of tik tok does. Demonizing lgbt people and inspiring violence and bomb threats.

You crack me up you boot licking piece of shit, elon isn't going to pay you for simping for him you know?

Here's a third link, to him congratulating a literal stochastic terrorist. https://x.com/stevemullis/status/1721656699856306290

Don't be a boot lick. Elon is evil.

Here's some of the white supremacist great replacement stuff for you just to start, found in maybe 30sec of scrollin the sub https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/s/Xe4nIKVHgq

I don't care enough to dig deeper but you have to be blind or not on twitter to see the ripple of his dog shit ideology.

No one sensible gives a fuck about anything but the dodged taxes and pro terrorist shit from jan six to libs of tik tok. He deserves to be hated.

Well, gee I don't know, let's start with this, literally just off the top of my head from the past day or two. https://x.com/esqueer_/status/1721235855241547877 but you can look through his likes/follows/rts to see plenty of fucked up stuff.

>it's surprising just how effective they've been at turning many people against him.

He's done plenty of it himself, retweeting nazi shit and great replacement shit and all types of horrible shit he supports on twitter. It takes a real boot licker to not recognize his overt evil he believes politically, and believe it's some media conspiracy. The fact he takes government money isn't a question, whether giving elon that money is a net benefit or detriment is a different question entirely. The boot is so far down your throat you're being as myopic as those you accuse of being myopic.

I'll explain this real slow. The problem with people like elon isn't that they get tax payer money, it's that they act afterwords like they bootstrapped themselves alone in to success and then dodge billions in taxes. Simple enough for you elon simp??

joking, but maybe they have achieved agi (internally) ;)

You're right, sorry about the rhetoric, i was extremely angry at such "welfare queen" rhetoric. I've calmed down and read your comment twice. Of course it's not magic. Of course it shifts the burden elsewhere (9 people own more wealth than 3.6 billion combined, there's plenty of burden that need be fricken shifted). Of course it would require new taxes (mostly on the rich, most people end up paying less for care, i'll pay 500 in taxes over 1k in premiums any day of the week). We will spend more on healthcare either way as you note, this is the cheapest way through the storm with the best allocation of the tax burden.

I also completely agree with the prophylactic notion of reducing medical burden by increasing healthiness. Idk about fat camp specifically but shit like better healthier foods in schools and killing food deserts and reducing poverty would all go a great extend to help. Like you are agreeing with me in a different form, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and early healthcare before problems get bad is part of that.

>And more broadly speaking, welfare benefits in general also are not things that will improve society as a whole at no cost.

Who said they would do it at no cost? I think i simply noted it would be cheaper than the inhumane way we do it now. So it's more humane AND the math is better. Literally the only reason to think like that crab in a bucket i replied to does is if you're a meanie who wants the poor to suffer instead of accepting a poor might get some healthcare or not starve on their tax dime. that's what made me so mad. I am still sorry for commenting in the manner as I did. I was fully prepared to be quickly flagged lol.

Re welfare benefits, they produce some of the best return of dollars spent by the government. Like besides the irs, (quick search shows 400$ in revenue per 1$ spent on irs, 6:1 $ gain if we spent more on enforcement) nothing comes back quicker per dollar spent than giving poor people money. It goes straight in to the economy.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/golden-truth-behind-w...

if only idiocy like your comment recognized that dumb ass margaret thatcher reagen esque measuring of who gets aid and who doesn't costs more than just fucking giving people the money. How are you idiots actually rehashing 90's austerity shit. Wtf?

look no further than healthcare for all by every study[0], showing it would SAVE money. Hey idiots, turns out hiring a bunch of people to decide who is allowed to get a checkup costs more than the checkup. Not to mention the money you save from the whole "ounce of prevention vs a pound of cure" math. Ridiculous, brazenly unscientific, and extremely cruel sentiment.

[0] https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-wou...

Wildly different, sure, but deeply, deeply connected which is why I include them together. There is no reason we can't decrease poverty AND inequality. In fact decreasing inequality would in turn reduce poverty if done correctly.

>the biggest changes that allow people more free time to spend with their children or otherwise, are technological ones.

The important bit to note here is the allocation of that gain in efficiency. I agree tech is the driver of the positive sum games we call the economy, but it's important to note that on top of technology we need a political apparatus that allocates the efficiency gain. Ie a 30% increase in productivity should yield not a 30% increase in profits but maybe a 5% increase and a 25% reduction of time spent doing labor or 25% increase in wages. Obviously the numbers are variable, but I thought it important to note this too.

>The billionaires aren’t blocking us.

People hoarding more wealth than BILLIONS combined aren't blocking us?

You can seriously, earnestly think, in your heart of hearts, that hoarding that much wealth for yourself doesn't deprive some other more worthy endeavor of resources??

>When electric lightbulbs came to the masses, it made some rich people even richer, but that’s not the important part.

Not THE important part, I can agree with you. But AN important part, still. It might not be sensible to accost the inventor of the light bulb for the effect of his invention, but it should always be carefully noted the above mentioned calculation of where the efficiency gain is allocated. Did allowance of working at night, doubling the possible working hours allow any reduction of labor or increase in wages? Or did it simply increase profit?

I agree the profit itself is not the problem, the billionaires themselves aren't technically the problem, merely a symptom of an ill designed allocation of the fruits of technology. But to act like 9 people hoarding more than billions of people combined isn't detrimental to any goal other than the enrichment of those 9? I name you silly, sir.

>Taxing billionaires won’t accelerate any of this.

I mean, if we JUST tax them and then burn the tax money we get from them, sure... But if we spend the taxes on the above mentioned goals... You somehow think they wouldn't be achieved quicker???