john567

I can tell you exactly how I noticed it because it was on my workstation this reproduced originally.

I have a Ryzen 9 5950X CPU and it has a crazy fan ramp. Anytime a process maxes out the CPU it will be audible to me when I'm working. Now, to put this in perspective. It doesn't happen when I'm gaming. I can play Diablo 4 and Cyberpunk 2077 without this noticable fan noise but when setup.exe loses it, the fan noise is how I notice it. It will max out one core and I'm going to assume "never" complete. The longest I waited was 78 CPU minutes before killing the process. This would happen now and then but it would not prevent Chrome from successfully updating. So, it was bizarre to begin with.

This is so fitting because even if Microsoft is deprecating and giving up on this monstrosity the executable is still sitting there. Serving legacy web apps that should have been abandoned a long time ago...

This thing branched horribly. You had to use instructions to selectively write to distinct memory locations to avoid typical branching because misprediction was expensive.

This was Frostbite/Battlefield 3 era. Good Times.

Yes, we're spending the summer in Denmark. If we like what we see this is the best option. It all hinges on how this year's election goes. I don't know why I believe we can change but I hope we bring about something new and start fixing problems.

Taxes in the Scandinavian countries are similar but it wouldn't be as frustrating to pay them if everything else was working as intended.

My situation is foobar and I rather go to some place where you as an individual have more freedom and responsibilities. New Zealand sounds nice and warm though.

HDMI is pretty prevalent. I don't see any consumer electronics supporting much else...

You expect some enormous sea monster but all you got was some kind of immortal sea weed. Trees have this thing as well. Many tree organisms are 100 000 years old. There's also some kind of distinction between tree organisms and tree individuals. Tree individuals don't get to be that old.

It's sounds like you'd be interested to live in my country (born and raised here, I'm almost 40 now and have two kids, happily married etc) but I don't think you know all too much about Sweden. And if you really want to know, ask away, I will answer as truthfully as I can.

The tax rate hasn't always been this high. It's basically the result of government overreach over the past 100 years. I don't think you need to take more than 25% to provide essential services but I also expect people to pay more for the services that they use. I want people to allocate capital more so that the government.

Right now, Sweden has a serious immigration problem. 2 million new people over that past 20 years, a lot of them from radically different cultures. Our social welfare is being used to support these people and they aren't able to contribute back. This is a net drain on our economy and I'm not super happy about that. The studies we have show that these people don't integrate and don't generate tax revenue. And I'm not paying these taxes for their benefit, I'm paying these taxes to build a better future for my kids.

For the longest time, the lie that was being told was that it be a huge asset and opportunity for Sweden and it could have turned out this way, Sweden has had successful immigration in the past but it didn't turn out this way this time.

You talk about progressive taxation and income inequality but people forget that you need a healthy economy as well. You can't just tax everybody and expect equality.

Despite everything you think you may know about Sweden, we have the most gun violence and the most rape in Europe. The Swedish police can't be bothered with solving all the rape because of all the killings.

We have an energy crisis because environmentalists wants to shut down our nuclear reactors (50% of our energy production) and replace it with wind whit cannot work short term or during winter.

I will stop here. At some point Sweden did deserve it's reputation but this country is living on old merits. There's so much crap going on right now that I will take my chances. At least in a free and open society I'd be able to make a bigger impact myself.

Sweden, the way I think we should look at it is the discrepancy between what my employer is paying me and what I receive in my bank account.

That's 51.8% of what I make. That is the government is taking just slightly more than half of everything I earn.

In order to answer what I think is reasonable to pay in tax, we need to look at what the Swedish government spends it's money on. Core infrastructure, health care, school, police etc. This is about 30% of the current government spending. That is frightening to me. I'd be happy to pay less in tax, frankly I want to pay as little as possible but Sweden has this huge government apparatus and it's growing by the day with all kinds of more or less non-essential government arms. I could go into details but I won't right now. I just don't want to finance a lot of this with my money.

It won't be possible any time soon but I'd love to see my tax rate cut in half and given the spending of our governments it should be possible but only if we make it a priority.

N=1 isn't an argument either. I'm simply saying what a lot of people in my situation also thinks. It's just sensible that you don't stay because you like paying taxes. You stay where you are because of family and friends. To say that it doesn't influence people decision is deceiving.

> all the statistical research in that area.

Calling BS on that right there

No it's not. I'm currently contemplating leaving my country of residence because absurd tax rates. I'm a productive member of society and high earner but I'm starting to loose faith in my institutions. If you keep on taxing, and fail your responsibilities, people get fed up and leave, that's what they do. Only the people that don't have the means to leave stay creating a particular nasty downward spiral of people without jobs and home ownership dependent on government subsidies.

We should all learn from this and understand that if we don't fight for and uphold our liberties they will be taken away from us. Every fight matters and if it wasn't for the US constitution this might have gone down very differently.

Politics aimed at making a specific type of energy unprofitable by taxing it to death is not. It's activism.

Sweden cannot depend on solar alone, we have plenty of hydro in the northern parts of the country and wind doesn't work during winter. Wind also kills birds and insects, en masse.

People have an irrational fear towards nuclear. Fact is, very few people have died because of nuclear energy. If you compare deaths vs produced watts, nuclear is the single safest energy source by several orders of magnitudes.

Also, I don't know if that's a typo or a misunderstanding but we are not talking about nuclear weapons, i.e. nukes we are talking about thermonuclear energy production. These are two different things altogether.

So, what's your argument? That people won't buy nuclear energy on an open market or that an open market for nuclear energy doesn't exist?

In Sweden, where I live, about half of our electricity is from nuclear. It's built and operated by a state owned entity called Vattenfall and while they currently have a politically appointed board that is against nuclear they operate (for profit) all of our nuclear reactors. The only reason we don't build more is because they've made it practically impossible (not illegal) to expand nuclear energy through various political motivated decisions. Sweden had a referendum on the continuation of nuclear energy after the Chernobyl accident, we did vote, though by a narrow margin to transition away from nuclear. However, this past winter we had huge supply issues and people ended up having to pay 4x for electricity due to the premature shutdown of nuclear (meanwhile we had to power up oil and gas burning to compensate). Right now, most people in Sweden are of the opinion that we should keep our nuclear reactors. I, together with several others would like to us to expand our energy production from nuclear to prevent a reliance on oil and gas.

See, now I know you're just lying because the equation isn't at all the same across all countries. Maybe you don't like nuclear and that's fine but you don't have to lie about it.

What county are we talking about here?