atq2119

The vast majority of this wealth is directly or indirectly in the form of ownership of large corporations. Those corporations are where productivity is. Who owns them doesn't matter from a productivity perspective.

More generally, I'd say the burden is on you to demonstrate the exact mechanism by which productivity would be affected.

A sufficiently progressive wealth tax does the trick. If wealth in excess of a billion is taxed 50% annually, multi-billionaires won't remain so for long.

There are only two operational challenges, but if the political will is there, they really aren't rocket science. One is having enough auditors to enforce the tax. The second is liquidity, which can be solved by allowing the tax to be paid in kind, i.e. by allowing it to be paid by transferring ownership to a social wealth fund instead of cash.

A lot of the public successes with agents is really LLM-driven local search against an objective function that is evaluated in more traditional ways. This one seems to fit the pattern.

I'm okay with that if it helped prevent Nazi Germany from building an atom bomb...

This is the kind of thing that really needs a primary source instead of ChatGPT.

You're not crazy, economists really have a weird an IMO misleading way of drawing their diagrams.

I agree with you that price should be on the X axis, and drawing the two supply lines in the same diagram is at least somewhat problematic.

What economists posit[0] is that at any point in time, there are demand and supply curves. They answer the question of who is willing to sell or buy how much given a price? (Quantity is the dependent, so should be the Y axis!)

And they argue that the microarchitecture of the particular market causes price and quantity to converge to where these lines intersect.

And then factors external to the market can change the supply/demand curves. The February diagram looks different from the April diagram. They are conceptually separate diagrams. Combining them into a single diagram in a coherent way would lead to something 3D, which is hard to draw and think about, so economists have the convention of drawing it all in a single diagram anyway.

None of this is correct, by the way, but it's sometimes a useful model.

[0] Outside of literal markets with order books, supply and demand curves don't really exist. And in those markets, their dynamics are different.

In order for the ASIC to achieve 1% of the price, there'd have to be 99% overhead in GPU implementations which for some reason you'd have to be able to eliminate in ASICs but not in GPUs. That seems rather implausible.

FWIW, what you're describing is a simple demand curve, not Jevons paradox.

The "paradox" is when an increase in efficiency which would decrease the use of a resource all else equal, instead indirectly causes more use.

That's a feel good response, but there are also individuals who post a bit too much, but still fairly interesting stuff.

A middle ground would be to have a "reduced follow" mode where you still have a chronological timeline, except that at most N posts per day are shown from "reduced followees". The filtering can still be based on a popularity signal.

Nothing in your link is evidence of a problem.

It also doesn't explain the regional correlations. If immigrants are objectively a problem, why is anti-immigration sentiment highest in regions with the least immigration?

Make it make sense...

> the immigration issue that clearly is forefront on the minds of such AFD voters,

Let's be real: this "issue" is a strawman. It doesn't really exist, especially in that part of Germany. Just like pretty much everywhere else, the German anti-immigrant far right is strongest in the areas with the fewest immigrants.

This is not to say that the wave of immigration that is now more than 10 years past didn't have its challenges, and they were downplayed by some.

But at its core, the immigration scare is just the classic playbook of offering simple but wrong explanations to distract from the class warfare that's being waged by the wealthy.

Ideally, we'd turn down the temperature and have patient conversations, but the media environment was made very counterproductive over the last few decades.

It feels like this progression of increasingly drastic measures to circumvent the protections of a computer system ought to be enough to establish criminal intent and get some of the people running those crawlers into prison.

This is ultimately about power.

Democracy is built on the idea that people are equal and have equal rights. This is only sustainable if the power differential between people isn't too large.

Corporations consist of people, yes, but the power to control where the efforts of these people are directed is concentrated on very few people, giving those people a large amount of power -- so large that without any checks on their influence on government, it undermines democracy.

It's the same argument for why super-wealthy individuals are so problematic. They're literally destroying the fabric of democracy through the power imbalance afforded by their wealth.

Assuming that summary is accurate: it specifically talks about businesses, so the requirements presumably don't apply to a personal website, which is what the post you were responding to was about.