random28345

> For what it's worth, a lot of people like myself consider Snopes a source of leftist propo, not truth.

Is this more "reality has a known liberal bias" sarcasm? Or as you saying the entire concept of objective truth is leftist propaganda?

> It's a good strategy, if you can afford not to withdraw from the fund on the year (and for several years after) you 97% bet turns sour

If the bet turns sour, you close the fund. The idea is that you grow the fund and take your two and twenty while your bets are winning, and you keep your prior years' two and twenty after your fund collapses.

The idea is that you can simultaneously be protected by the laws of nation-states that you like (protection from pirates), and are free to break the laws of nation-states that you don't like (taxes, drug laws, etc.)

It's an example of Libertarian paradise syndrome; where you want all the comforts of modern civilization with none of the obligations.

I want to move to this libertarian paradise where I'm not affected by externalities and acting selfishly is always pareto efficient. I want to live in this magical place where we don't need government. Where is it?

> I think the EITC uniquely incentivizes those in the program to work themselves out of it, unlike other programs. That's why I like it so much, because I think other programs do fall under your critique.

This experiment has never been done, but I think we could probably agree on the outcome of this thought experiment: In the absence of any other social programs, the net effect of EITC would be higher employment and lower (employer paid) wages as the demand for labor is (somewhat) elastic, and employers and labor will settle on a lower clearing price for hourly labor at a higher employment level.

I also agree that many welfare programs have a negative impact on work and personal income, as many social services have cliffs that reduce a recipient's net income if their wage income goes over a certain amount. That's not necessarily bad; some people do not have the option of meaningful work, a problem that many think will be exacerbated by automation. If we start actually seeing the 42% unemployment rates that were recently promoted by Trump, then tying social services to income would be devastating.

> My expectation would be that employers would offer lower wages so that employees will have roughly the same take-home pay.

You are absolutely right, in the absence of a reasonable minimum wage, this is exactly what happens.

> Objecting to the redistribution of wealth isn't the same as trying to do away with the rule of law.

The rule of law depends on the redistribution of wealth. Courts, public defenders, police, regulators, juries don't magically appear out of nowhere.

Therefore, it seems obvious that if you are absolutely opposed to the redistribution of wealth, you are therefore absolutely opposed to what most people would consider civilization: rule of law, education, public services, etc.

Do you agree that being part of a functional modern western civilization is impossible without the redistribution of wealth (paying taxes, serving on juries)?

> we as a society don't understand that the purpose of automation is humanitarian.

The purpose of automation is humanitarian in the same way that politicians serve the needs of their constituents, and police protect their communities.

While I reap the positive benefits of all of the above, there are plenty of marginalized people who are harmed by exactly the same forces.

In the gap between theory and reality, there's a lot of misery.

> Lower the taxes and don't let government get their hands on it at any stage of the process. This smacks again of redistribution of wealth and I'm totally against this.

Brilliant! I'm sure that startups will flourish in an environment where there is no functioning government. What I don't understand is why the movie Mad Max didn't show a vibrant startup community with flowing rivers of lattes and soylent, rather than the human misery that comes from the absence of rule of law, retirement, and health care.

Serious question, do you really want to live in a world devoid of "redistribution of wealth", where life is cheap, the working class is treated like disposable trash, and treatable illnesses are a death sentence?

What would it take to convince you that the wealthy contributing some of their riches back to society is the foundation for a functioning civilization?

I second this. It's usable.

You know, I think it would be a shorter list if the systemd guys were to enumerate the things they didn't want to control on a Linux system.

> So Netflix has a six year lead and attendant network effects in it's favor.

I completely agree with you. I personally have a Netflix account, and do not subscribe to other services.

My point is that right now, today, this very instant in time, Netflix is not primarily differentiated on technology, but on having content that their subscribers want; that online video distribution is now a commodity.

Intel still has a good edge on single-core performance. And productivity software is about pushing lots of instructions through a single core.