robocat

I am hoping to try learning Korean. This looks useful if the writing speed could be controlled. For the moment I guess I could just edit the SVG.

Sorry for changing thread topic.

Cheers

Looks like a lesson in how to play zero-sum games to lose.

The USA is better at playing the zero-sum game of where to begin a business. Zero-sum because many businesses are winner-takes-all and the country that business starts-up in is the one that wins.

Business founders are greedy (almost by definition), and a country needs to think what marginally motivates a founder to keep on going (or to founding 2nd/3rd business).

Hate Meta, or even hate Zuckerberg, but the USA is winning export earnings from the rest of the world because of Meta (and likewise other billionaire companies).

On the third foot, I'm guessing Zuckerberg has other motivations than more dollars?

The game isn't equitable, and the wealth disparity is heinous, and perhaps even the products are despicable. However everyone in the USA is living off the back of that wealth coming into the country.

It is really noticable in New Zealand where top marginal rate is 39% and GST (sales tax) is 15%. Why work an hour to bring in in a dollar to NZ when you get less than 50 cents (after all the other taxes). Our left parties want to tax wealth at 50%+ (if 2% wealth tax and drawdown of 4% ). Invisible inflation makes the taxation much much higher.

A wealth tax of 1% sounds trivial, but it isn't when compared to risk-free returns after drawdowns.

Unfortunately most voters are not founders, so they don't understand marginal motivation. And voters don't understand who brings money into the country. Voters just want increasing amounts of money spent, and politicians cater to them.

If anyone here is a game mechanics designer, what do you most notice about the motivation of taxing wealth?

That is a caricature.

Sam parlayed working for YC into owning a significant holding of Reddit (and other companies?).

To me, he appears to be a successful parasite that selects the fattest hosts. There are plenty of people that laud VC culture.

> those that are loyal will get more rewards

Seems remarkably hopeful within a lose lose culture.

Negative incentives seem more likely: punishment for disloyalty.

The loyal just get rugpulled.

That is worst possible outcome thinking.

If you consistently fail (or give up) at the very last interview, there's something rather wrong.

Your median/average should be better.

> no reason for 9 kids today

I've always felt more kids makes for better adults.

Although I've just realized that I don't really have any friends from one-child families (and I myself have two siblings). Sampling bias, or just statistically normal for XGen?

I'm XGen and two dear friends are from 7 kid families (not due to religious reasons). I've always felt they had some maturity I lacked, eminating from having many siblings to get on with.

Does one have kids for them, or for oneself?

However your comment is confusing because you are replying to a sentence about ⓑ, but you're talking about ⓐ.

A big house is sold to people as an investment in future value (ⓐ).

More importantly a big house is often driven by a not-so-hidden desire to show off to others a massive status symbol (a tragic McMansion), and high status is also ⓐ.

Of course a big house can be ⓑ: but it is less common to see crazy money spent on large whims (assuming having enough wealth to be able to burn pointless dollars).

Sorry if I'm mansplaining - but I just don't understand why you'd say something so obvious, while implying something so disconnected.

A ⓑ house can have a high valuation. The thesis of the dichotomy is about intent, not about outcomes. And we often have mixed intents so it isn't as black&white as I stated it.

Let's pick one dimension: hip replacement costs in NZ versus USA. A poor example since fewer of working age.

Looks like surgical costs are similar when adjusted for GDP. The USA system isn't more expensive in comparison with the NZ system.

Replacement is free on the NZ public health system, but I've seen the painful years of waiting, the majority in my experience have to endure. A critical situation like my solo-mum friend who needed hips replaced was grossly delayed: hellish years trying to bring up her young children.

Statistics are very different from outcomes.

There are two types of homes:

ⓐ: A financial asset where you landlord yourself, always worrying about the valuation by others. Think rectiliniar greige.

ⓑ: Your home, lived in and modified to your wants and whimseys. Often over or under capitalized.

The first home we buy is usually a financial instrument type ⓐ.

If you can buck your initial programming/conditioning, you can get ⓑ with effort and luck.

> same power my oven pulls

Exactly the point of the article: that power is many times what a streetlamp uses or can provide.

Your charging likely wouldn't work from a streetlamp.

> Are you from the past?

No need to be snarky. Read guidelines.

I had two brass taps stolen from outside my house and the thieves left the main water line in broken. Worth nothing - maybe it was kids? The plumber cost me plenty to fix it. The inconvenience cost me more. In another suburb I had my spare tire stolen: for the aluminium rim.

I was thinking of catalytic converter thefts: an industry of theft that was constructed around valuable untraceable metals. Fortunately I haven't seen that in my neighborhood.

> nice things

I've been constructing my own fantasy that there is an emergent-trust-group-of-respectful-people where "nice things" are just normal.

Perhaps implies an opposite group of defective arseholes together?

Maybe aspirational but the idea is to just be reliably good and eventually others trust you and you become part of a trust network.

I've had it happen at the scale of individuals: once you've shown you're trustworthy and unselfish then many people seem to respond to that with goodness.

Most people can smell selfishness such as "manifestation" thinking. I find it difficult to be generous without intent of obligations. I believe it only works if you're genuinely good with no strings attached.

Kindness is easier.

I'm no fan of karma or religion or magical woowoo: even though ultimately the idea perhaps has the same roots as those.

It isn't reciprocation: that is transactional investment. Reciprocation definitely works fabulously well. However it has debts and credits, and I have some sort of unreasonable antipathy towards those both. We live in a transactional society, and many people inspect every action of others for their needy goals. Or people have their own currencies and balance sheets.

I try to frame the fantasy more rationally as an emergent behaviour of society as a response to defectors.

So far my main negative proof against the whole idea is that I've had life pretty good even though I have been normal levels of selfishness. I'm still working on how that fits in.

Meanwhile I'm giving the experiment a good go. I like to test against my own reality. Finding I'm wrong is usually valuable.

It's a poorly thought out fantasy. Too many reasons why it is broken: Like seeing givers enable takers, or selfish people winning good things.

(edited to make clearer)