yason

Such a wealth tax surely should be progressive. If I have $500k I'm not necessarily wealthy-wealthy but I'm heck of a lot more wealthy than someone who only has $5k, or even $50k. I could afford to pay something for the sake of being lucky enough to have a have half a million. Someone with $50M could afford to pay much more.

However, I don't think wealth tax is a good tax. You'd be taxing something you want citizens to have: wealth. It seems that wealth tax is often used as an easy fix to "we can't somehow tax the income of high-earning wealthy people because they arrange the legal ownership of their wealth so that it's hard so let's tax their wealth". What should be fixed instead is profits slipping out of the taxable base. In general, a lower but wider tax base is always better than higher spot taxes that encourage people to optimize. Wealth tax is just a slap-on solution that mostly just encourages tax planning.

The inequality of the distribution is the true issue, and indeed not taxing the wealthy enough does accumulates that. A country should be proud to tax widely and moderately, even the highest earning people and businesses. A country can't compete with a tax haven but a tax haven can't compete with a functioning state and society. Working to tax wealthy people more in par to what ordinary people are taxed would work towards a more equal society. Some of the wealthy people would move away but the country should recognize and maintain that it has other factors of appeal than the tax rate.

We don't go birdwatching because we read somewhere that birdwatching is good for you.

We want to know what it is in birdwatching that registers as beneficial because if the factor(s) are distinct and isolated then the same benefits can be scaled outside of birdwatching.

And if you just went birdwatching because they said so, you wouldn't know why it might be beneficial to you. Or maybe there's a factor that wasn't identified separately and birdwatching itself doesn't improve your cognitive capabilities while, for many others, it supposedly does.

You would want to know you're getting benefits from whatever you decide to do if you're doing it in order to gain those benefits.

So, how's the suspension travel on this one? One of the key qualities of the original designed-barebones 2CV would be the long suspension travel and linked arms front and back.

ClearMotion has the Bose technology now and apparently is productizing it again.

Unless you live in a city that has mass transit that actually works.

Recycling fees for and managing packaging ought to be delegate-able to a packaging company. I.e. could buy a pre-made, EU-stamped and PPWR pair-for box of size WHD for a slightly higher price, put your stuff in it and ship it. The box already includes the whatever recycling fees and bureaucracy charges when the box was purchased by you. If you manufacture something complicated that requires you to roll your own packaging then you're responsible for the recycling fees but you probably can already deal with it at that stage.

In Europe the battery subsidies could've been used to double the price of electricity and make things worse for everyone paying for it. What a wasted business opportunity.

I don't understand this, what's the point?

How does anyone accidentally give personal information to an LLM? Because either you don't in the first place (eh, I guess, most people?) or you do but for some specific, weird reason (I can't think of any but I guess these exist).

Owning your device (instead of the manufacturer, a set of unlisted governments, big software corporations, etc.) means no scanning.

Social media as it was born touched a novel point of contact that didn't quite exist before. It was a powerful shift from what we had before.

Social media allowed you to be in touch with people in a way that wasn't possible with phone calls, text messages, instant messaging, email, or domain-specific forums.

What I could do in Facebook in 2010 was stay "friends" with selected acquaintances such as old classmates with whom I never was in email terms, messaging terms, or any other terms except having known them in school (or at work or at a hobby or...) I could follow their life via their posts, and I could leave a comment, sometimes, without any expectation that we should ever talk, meet, chat, or become more than old classmates. I haven't sent email to anyone in my school that I didn't know outside of school, as a friend. I don't have their numbers and it would be awkward to even consider calling someone with whom we didn't necessarily even talk much in school. But it was perfectly okay to ask someone to be your friend on Facebook (like, Hey, I know you? and if he did remember he would accept) and follow their postings and maybe (re)kindle something with no pressure to grow it into anything more than that.

We had that. Now... we no longer do. Or we still have Facebook and we can send friend requests to old acquantainces that I'd like to follow but there's nothing to follow because they aren't posting and because Facebook wouldn't show me their posts. So we're back to the point where actually making contact with another person (on Facebook) basically requires sending them a message in Facebook. Which already goes beyond what's expected from an old acquantaince on Facebook.

I recall a site for classmates where you could register to your school years and see your classmates there. But that was before social media and there weren't any posts that you could comment. You could just see your classmates listed there, and one in ten might have written a few words in their profile. And that was classmates only, not ex-work colleagues or other people you've passed behind in your life. Facebook was really good at the time it became a thing.

We still have email, instant messaging, etc. but what's the platform today where I can keep in touch with people I'm not emailing or talking with? Is there one?

Emission controls are the best scapegoat for Deere and others to lock down systems as tight as possible for profit. They don't care about emissions, the farmers don't care about emissions, the emissions happen on a fscking large field out of nowhere instead of rush hour city traffic, and tractors usually run at high power which makes a cleaner combustion with less soot (but higher nox): all in all, the world doesn't become a better place because of farm equipment DPF/SCR filtering. But emissions are the perfect mandate for manufacturers to make it impossible for the owners to own the equipment.

The interesting part of this mostly bullshit is how it exposes a kind of reverse Goodhart's law scenario. When driving becomes less about attention to surroundings and focusing on driving and more about keeping the trivial beepers off, it changes the way people drive.

First, it will be less about motoring and driving a vehicle in a dynamic environment but focusing on pleasing the camera with your eyes. Back in the time my driving instructor said the eyes should move around all the time, every second to far, near, mirrors, side mirrors, etc.

Second option is that some people will just tune out of everything and I mean everything. When the car has too much to say they won't even look at or register at anything anymore. Blind spot warning is useful and so is engine high temperature warning or brake fault, but if you're constantly bombarded by ping pong bleep bing beeps who the fuck will care anymore?

Third, this will just prompt homebrew hacking to disable these things and basically de-digitize these complex systems. This will inevitably lead into a cat and mouse race between users who want to control and own their vehicle and manufacturers who are forced to keep controlling and owning the owner instead.

Obviously, if governments really cared about safety and not adding simple warnings to merely patch and train behaviour they would ban all attention-requiring context-specific user interfaces in cars that more than destroy all even theoretical safety gains from these beepers. It's illegal to look up your phone while driving but perfectly legal to wade in deep menus and panes via a touch panel while the car is beeping at you.

They should classify it as personal information, and you could share, sell, and publish it as much as you want.

If this continues long enough there will be plenty of 140-year-olds rocket-jumping through levels in TF...

> biggest reason why air conditioning is not so widespread in Northern Europe as in the United States

It certainly is a transitional period where each summer more and more people realize that eventually something needs to be done, "maybe a/c next year" for many years until the year of installation finally comes.

In Northern Europe it certainly is still a rare occurrence that everything gets heated so warm that the air does no longer cool during the night and you can't cool down for the next day. Yes, we do get heat waves but they don't last very long. Yes, summers are mostly getting hotter but it's still nothing like in southern Europe. We might have several weeks of 25-28C with a lot of lakes and sea to dip into.

Admittedly it can be tormenting in city apartments where you might not have a place for A/C even if you wanted to, and where you might not have enough outside walls to effectively cross-ventilate. Further, the stone and pavement in a city absorb heat like a sponge which keeps the average a few degrees warmer than greenleaf areas across the hot season.

Yet I think maybe half-ish of households (or at least detached houses) already do have A/C. Installations have been steadily creeping up in the last 25 years. But those units aren't there because of their cooling capacity (which isn't necessarily always even used). Those are air-to-air heat pumps that keep the house warm in the winter, and can be used for cooling in the summer.