hogehoge51

As the great Yoshio Kojima says Sonna no kankei nee! (そんなの関係ねぇ), Sonna no kankei nee! (そんなの関係ねぇ), Sonna no kankei nee! (そんなの関係ねぇ),

This article is nothing but a press release. It presents no evidence for it's claim, or details on what prices in what area at what time have been cut. Meanwhile any Australian can see contary evidence just by looking at their power bill.

Anthropomorphising a system to give it attributes such as cruelty is silly.

Entertaining a lump of monolithic production fallacy is also silly.

There are any number of detailed and specific problems that need to be solved to solve the greater economic problem you describe. A system that promotes direct effort to solve specific problems is required.

Your naivety only exacerbates the cruelty.

I agree with the system you describe, i tend to disagree with the conclusion.

I suspect the size of the debt is just a "dc offset" and not the main signal. While important, maybe not as "information-ally" significant as it's size would suggest. Still it is probably hiding something, a subtle bug in the accounting, and that something contributes to the frequent cycles of debt-jubilees, revolutions, upheavals etc.

Now the real question you have posed is what is missed in the debate - most wealth in our society is captured in the make up and choice of goods and services consumed, and what is the contribution of a bias towards wealthy consumption here? e.g. in my country there were about 150 luxury yacht sales totaling ~$4billion, vs ~80,000 luxury car sales @ ~$15billion, vs total car sales of ~1,000,000 at ~$100billion. The annual cost of our public disability insurance scheme is ~$50billion. The "sharing" seems to have a significant access to resources compared to luxury on those accounts. I personally think the public disability insurance scheme causes harmful distortion to the broader economy while also meeting the important needs of some members of society.

My gut feel the issue is not ideological or political or a luxury preference, it's structural - the economy is not structured to deliver the correct set of needs, and this is due to real material constraints that have always constrained the economic problem. Not in terms that just the wrong top down decisions are being made, but that the correct bottom up decisions are prevented from being made. If you apply a model of computation complexity, feedback and iterative improvement - bottom up generally has more access to information and compute to directly address problems, while top-down can occasionally deal with global biases and accumulated error.

One true material constraint is the scarcity of competence and accountability. Wealth accumulation is the natural consequence of that material constraint. Top down "political & ideological decisions" are generally the enemy of competence and accountability.

you failed to answer my question.

either the activity and resource is part of an economy or not, an activity or resource that is still in the economy is not hoarded.

either thise things are in the economic system or not. swiss banking is simply another economic system, eiher it is a separate closed loop system(and not accesible), or an integrated system with flows in and out. if the money is not part of the closed loop of the economy what value does it have? (it's addition and removal simply inflates or deflates the remaining closed loop system) normal banking and currency exchange already creates and destroys money in orders of mangitude larger than private wealth.

land and hard resources are the only place i think you can hoard. it can be taken out of the economy and still maintain value, and depending on the relative holding you can influence value. but even that requires a holding cost. the holding cost is part of the broader closed loop economic system, an/or political system. you could say much of the fuedal economy was paying the holding cost for this hoarding, the advancement of the modern economic system was to build a massive integrated economy around it that made the holding cost higher and significant hoarding moslty unsustainable. (except by goverment)

How do you hide something in a closed loop system such as an economy?

You don't have to believe it. It is a risk, you simply have to mitigate it.

The accounting system is what ensures that we can ACCOUNT for if such a statement is true or not.

It also allows us to characterize and understand how the capability to generate surplus has been distributed etc etc.

There is no single lump of goods and services, or a single lump of surplus. There is an economic problem of ensuring such are created in surplus and distributed to those who need them. A surplus of lawn mowing and shopping services (such as disability welfare has created in my country) could easily be accompanied by a shortage in housing. In fact one could be caused by the other.

The economy has capacity today and surplus from yesterday. Beyond that takes vigilance and accountability to maintain the system.

The fundamental question is why exactly you think a system can have some fundamental governing and observation mechanism such as debt (or equity accounting) removed and it would still maintain the same system characteristics that produce said surplus?

This is basic engineering and system architecture 101 and I would expect technologists to have more than a surface level expectation that systems do not operate magically nor label components as redundant without detailed reasoning.

You are failing to analyze the system corectly.

"Have enough" is a static steady state. "Produce enough" now and in the future is a dynamic constraint.

The mechanism is economic surplus, to have the producers (productive people who produce needed goods and inputs to such) create more than they need. This generally requires increasing and maintaining productivity to have surplus.

Once you have a surplus the absolute maximum priority is to maintain it. Plant, machinery, systems, irrigation, fertilizer production etc etc.

The system is dynamic, surplus today is not surplus tommorow.

In my country we have a means to ditribute this excess, and it may even go to those in need, but the cost of distributing it has been increasing at a far higher rate than the rate of increasing surplus.

what i fail to understand is why people come to a technologist forum without a basic understanding of system dynamics. this is entry level material for engineering, mathematics and physics. are they not teaching it in CS?

Yeah, 8051 wins, it was and still is in everything (sdcards, sim cards, cables, ports...). I may have some trauma from spending too much time with Keil's 8051 C compiler that made me forget it.

But I still think 68k was king of that era for discrete CPU's that could go anywhere, and run a high level OS/complex software, before the MCU and then SoC era came and stole m68k's crown.

Sure, PPC took the m68k's role of discrete CPU in automotive, aerospace, networking and consoles for a while, but I don't think it is the king.

Back to TFA, I think the m68k got a bit more than just "commercial traction"! Which is why it will hopefully stay in the kernel for a long time.

> The Motorola 68000

> Overall, it got lots of traction commercially; it ....

Before ARM the m68k was possibly the most deployed processor architecture in history. In the late 1990s it was in printers, cars, personal digital assistants, erc, as well as all the home computers, arcades and unix workstations it found it's way into in the 1980s and early 1990s.

It's sucessor, the Coldfire, could have taken ARMs place...

Probably this is the reason it's still in the Linux source tree!

Makes sense, that's a fair heuristic.

TBH - I weigh it higher as it's from a University in Saitama, a place I have a strong connection to and don't see here often. An irrational reason to ignore the AI smell, but why not.

I would challenge the asserion that there was no effort in writing it. Basic information theory sugests the bits in content needs to come from somewhere. The more the bits diverge from what is in the training corpus, the more effort the human author needs to apply. Unless people also think there is a special LLM bit that differs from human bits of information. It also suggests a lack of appreciation for the effort in delegating any creative work, to humans or agents, and still getting what you asked for.

Regardless of agentic provenance, i liked the chance to read something from Saitama university here. Saitama's a nice place.