mdavis6890

Actually I think that's exactly the concern - that people won't be allowed to keep their carbon-fuel heating systems, even as a backup.

Don’t worry! You would replace that with a new white knuckle anxiety that misconfiguring your infra deployment would exhaust your four figure cost limit, causing AWS to helpfully shutdown ALL of your infra to avoid any accidental overspend.

Ah, the good old days!

I’m all for websites collecting less personal information. But I wish they wouldn’t base it in child status.

Now all I read is “websites must collect a ton of personal information about you and send it to the government to verify your age, and also tell them all the websites you visit.”

Why are we so worried about corporations getting our data? The worst thing they’ll do is try to sell me something. It’s the government I’m worried about - they can do far worse.

I wonder if charges can be configured to wait for a given time to begin charging. That way you could plug in your car whenever you want, but still get the benefit of waiting.

Not necessarily - reducing the workforce and closing stores may well be a healthy consolidation. Taking on debt may perform the same function on the balance sheet. You should worry if they take on debt to expand stores or the workforce.

The issues with these articles is that they focus on money, and the price of energy, which leads people to believe either consciously or not that something can be helped with money. It can't. There is a fundamental supply constraint that has nothing to do with money.

People will consume less, either because prices rise and they choose not to pay them, or by rationing, or by random blackouts (gas-outs?).

Instead of what? Making the switch will require tremendous effort that must come from something else, which Germany will necessarily lose (not produce). Likely this would be distributed through the economy so that there will be a bit less of everything else - shoes, haircuts, food, etc.

"I will do everything that's in my power"

Will you pay money for the content you consume?

I personally like it when the text is presented as a gif. Especially a gif of cursive scrawl, containing a long URL.

The problem with the word “costs” is that it’s too easy to conflate this with money, and just think it means spending more of an abstract and essentially unlimited resource (money).

The reality is that it means we will HAVE LESS STUFF, food or otherwise, because we are increasing the effort required to generate a unit of food.

Thanks for the level head and second-order thinking. Still outrageous - but beware the knee-jerk reaction as you said.

I don’t know, I think there are a lot of people that might not want to be owners anymore, but they just can’t bring GM themselves to sell and pay the taxes. Especially if they are, say, 60 and in dubious health anyway. So they hold, and hold, and hold some more for decades. I could see my own parents on this situation possibly.

Or I have a neighbor house that’s a rental, but it’s still owned by the same (now) 90+ year old woman who used to live there, but who moved out 20 years ago. Her 70+ year old son is managing it now… Does she really still want to own this house, or is inertia and fear of taxes holding her back from selling? I don’t know.

It provides a large artificial financial incentive to hold onto a property that you otherwise would sell.

I also think it's not right to create this kind of arbitrary, large tax break that only applies in specific circumstances. I think if we're going to have a capital-gains tax (and maybe we shouldn't), then we should keep it simple and not have carve-outs.

If I sell my house while I'm on my death bed, I pay all the taxes. If I wait a week to die first, and then my heirs sell, no tax. This is wrong and unnecessary.