Cool, I always wanted to have a non-movable toolbar in all my software, I miss 1997.
Readit Newssershe commented on Microsoft is open sourcing Windows 11's UI framework neowin.net/news/microsoft... · Posted by u/bundie
There is no "overspending." There is only undertaxing. The debt is literally just the accumulated difference between spending and taxation.
If extreme wealth was taxed, the debt would be zero. The point isn't even to "pay for spending" but to enforce a functional social contract, and to limit the political and democratic distortions created by extreme inequality.
"Markets" should not have a veto on policy in a democracy.
Making it non-zero is a policy choice. Inflating away this debt is also a policy choice. There is nothing accidental about this.
What will not be inflated away is personal debt. That will remain linked to inflation even after the currency is revalued, and will be captured from personal assets wherever possible.
"If extreme wealth was taxed, the debt would be zero"
Do you have numbers for that? Even ignoring the issues with lots of wealth being paper wealth that cannot be translated into any kind of realized gains, and any 2nd order effects, the wealth (stock, can be depleted once) is not even in the same ballpark esp. given the deficit (flow, keeps happening).
sershe commented on Yosemite embodies the long war over US national park privatization theconversation.com/yosem... · Posted by u/rntn
I think part of it is also the purism of the outdoor community in the US. In the Dolomites you can climb an "alpine" route with anchors made out of giant rings held by a bunch of cement, then have a beer and steak at the hut and take a lift halfway down. In Chamonix you can take a cable car to 3.5km elevation and the crux of your day might be walking down to the climb dizzy from sudden change of elevation. I've no idea who owns all that stuff but if there was a 100% government run attempt to do it in the US the outdoor community would have an apoplectic fit.
In US the best exemplification of the attitude is when in WA rangers chopped rappel anchors in the middle of nowhere so someone could die on a sketchy natural descent because hey it is totally possible without bolts. Keep wild wild or whatever. I personally think the only reason not to put a Starbucks on top of Rainier is that the water boils too slowly up there.
I posted this a few days ago on a separate Palantir-related thread, but it probably is more relevant here. The world could use fewer Alex Karps.
--
This quote from the CEO of Palantir (Alex Karp) haunts me. ---
> “I actually am a progressive,” he said. “I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology and by scaring the bejabers — I’m trying to be nice here — out of our adversaries. If they are not scared, they don’t wake up scared, they don’t go to bed scared, they don’t fear that the wrath of America will come down on them, they will attack us. They will attack us everywhere.”
The reality of course is that he is right. The entire history of the world including as late as 2022 demonstrates that.
sershe commented on Employee – CEO pay gap historically wide cnn.com/2025/07/23/busine... · Posted by u/e12e
I'm convinvinced that CEO-employee wage gap is due to this not-so-well known legal case from 1919: Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. [1]
Basically, in 1919, Henry Ford sought to reinvest the Ford Motor Company’s profits into raising employee wages and expanding hiring, arguing that sharing success with workers would strengthen the economy and the company’s long-term prospects. However, minority shareholders John and Horace Dodge (who also ran their own competing auto company) sued Ford, claiming that his actions violated the fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Dodges, declaring that a corporation’s primary obligation was to serve the financial interests of its shareholders and not broader social goals or even the well-being of its employees. This decision established a legal precedent that continues to shape corporate law even today and reinforcing the doctrine of "shareholder primacy" and limiting the ability of companies to prioritize stakeholders (like workers or communities) over investor returns.
It's been downhill for employees since.
People always talk about shareholder value like it's some outrageous weird thing. Really, shareholders are just.. owners. And managers are their agents.
Let's say you hire a general contractor to remodel your house. How would you feel about him doing what's good for society without consulting you - e.g. buying sustainable material that is more expensive, or locally sourced material that is less durable or less safe? Or hiring more workers like they do on NYC construction projects cause it's good for labor? Especially if it's something you disagree with, like he's maga and refuses to hire cheaper immigrants, giving preference to disgraced former cops. When the bill comes with all the extra costs, hed just say he's not working for the owner value but for the good of society as he sees it :)
So let me get this straight, going back 30-ish years is a-okay when caused by climate change but going back slightly less to curb it is a problem? We haven’t reached some sort of equilibrium and will stay at the currently committed level of climate change, it’s just getting worse.
This is all so maddeningly stupid and frightening.
I found the biggest estimate from a paper as a reference for "catastrophic"/"humanity is done for"/... comments.
The more likely estimates are much lower.
What do you mean by going back slightly less, in terms of measures to take?
Sure, on the merit this particular action was dumb. But on the net I think fossil fuels are for the time being a net positive and non-replacement phase out would be worse than the amount of warming it prevents, not slightly less bad; especially in the developing world.
And, because like in so many political issues, nuanced positions aren't really popular (as these we're all gonna die comments illustrate), if having to choose between two flavors of uncompromising shouting I'm going to go with the fossil fuel camp on this issue. Although I d personally prefer more of both plus carbon tax etc for the shift.
But my original comment was just trying to put catastrophising into perspective,"following the science" ;)
The fact that roughly half the comments here are some sort of weakly veiled climate denialism tells me it won't matter how much data we have anyway.
If members of a reasonably technical community can't accept what's happening, then there's no reasonable hope that people will ever be able to reason about our situation correctly. We are surrounded by evidence of all varieties in every direction that we are heading down a path of catastrophic climate change, and yet people contort their logic to find ways not to see it.
Various estimates of GDP loss from IPCC and such are iirc like 8-10%. That would catastrophically plunge us all the way to the dark ages of a few years ago. I just googled for the most alarmist estimates backed by an actual paper and the worst I could find was 12% per degree of extra warming by 2100. So, it's like going back from today to the 90ies. I mean having to listen to grunge and techno again does sound pretty catastrophic.
sershe commented on The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality english.elpais.com/cultur... · Posted by u/geox
When I was growing up we had an old Soviet fridge at our dacha. It was at least 30 years old (maybe more, it's age was definitely compared to my mother's on multiple occasions) and it was working 3 months out of a year in unheated uninsulated room in up to 90 degree heat, while sitting idle thru Russian winter.
The only issue with it was that the door didn't close too well. My more conscientious family would bend down to push it gently, whereas I would just kick it. It took me less time to quit smoking than to quit kicking fridges every time I close the door. I think I was still kicking fridges in the US in 2010 after last seeing that one in 2000. It was also small and didn't have any features other than producing some amount of cold air. But it worked! It still works for all I know.
If most hand wringing in this thread is to be taken at face value this is what we should pivot to :)
sershe commented on The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality english.elpais.com/cultur... · Posted by u/geox
> However, a common experience for me is that I own something of good quality from 5/10/15 years ago and now buy the successor model from the same brand, but the product has gotten worse, being cheaper made.
My most recent experience with this was a Fjällräven 30L backpack. I'd had it for years, loved it to death but it was getting a bit ripped up. Went into the store, bought the exact same model, went out to the RV where I had my current one and did a comparison. I was shocked. No padding on the straps, nice padding on the back replaced with hard foam, many of the nicely designed little details gone. I went back in and returned it and just opted to repair my old one a bit (replaced a broken buckle and sewed up some holes).
I complained the same way about Speed 40, my 2011 one is more intact than 2018 one and I use it more even after buying the newer one. According to people in the outdoor industry the materials are noticeably more flimsy cause everyone wants ultralight ultralight ultralight ultralight. Nobody wants sturdy. Just look at carbon poles .. these things have no reason to exist unless you are setting a winter record on PCT. But they all but replaced much sturdier aluminum poles. Interestingly a few years ago this brand was suggested to me as one of those bucking the trend, but I guess that didn't last.
sershe commented on The bewildering phenomenon of declining quality english.elpais.com/cultur... · Posted by u/geox
Many comments here are arguing that quality has actually gone up over the past decades. However, a common experience for me is that I own something of good quality from 5/10/15 years ago and now buy the successor model from the same brand, but the product has gotten worse, being cheaper made. And I have a hard time finding a replacement that matches the quality of the old version. It’s a regularly reoccurring frustration.
My suspicion is that when products are successful and mature but reach market saturation, profit growth pressure leads to cutting some corners on every iteration, and hence to a slow decline in quality over the years.
I'm in the same camp of the people who like using things forever. However, I find that I'm in a small minority... I am not even talking about clothing, fast fashion etc., people around me are constantly doing kitchen renovations, changing cars every few years, phones every year, etc.
What's the point of building for durability if there's no demand for it?
Moreover, if you look at expensive cars or furniture, the markup on them has to be higher than cheap stuff. Honda Fit is like 20% of the price of a BMW, but I bet doesn't cost 20% to manufacture... So if people wanted quality it would be better for companies to produce more of the expensive option. Either companies are dumb or people don't want quality.
I just recently got a coffee grinder that costs 3 times as much as my old one and it's actually better across multiple dimensions, including material e.g. metal vs plastic . But how many units do you think the plastic junk at 0.33x the price sells vs mine?