Vote for the Party that promises academic grants for people that write 1k character long forum posts for the laypeople instead of other experts of the field.
and hope for a president that can do both
Readit Newsshoubidouwah commented on The universal weight subspace hypothesis arxiv.org/abs/2512.05117... · Posted by u/lukeplato
I eat them fairly often, but tend to get "nettle fatigue" quite early on due to their strong fishy smell - ammonia-like. Anyone got a recipe / way of getting past it, or masking it efficiently?
This.
There's an unproven assumption that somehow the inequality of outcome is 1) unjust, and 2) something to be "corrected."
The first has no foundation other than appeal to emotion to create in-group / out-group tribes ("eat the rich!") to then suggest what end up being power grabs that destroy the middle class and do nothing to the wealthy.
The second item requires destroying value. All economic activity comes from exchanges of value, which is intrinsically tied to time; that irreducible finite quantity to which everyone is subject. We've seen over and over again, when you try to destroy the concept of value, which is subjective and circumstantial for each individual, all you end up doing is causing human misery.
This obsession with taking other people's money rather than enabling opportunities to make your own is unhealthy, destructive, and immoral.
I am actually advacating for something different: I am not taking your money, I am saying after some level, what you accumulate is not - your kids - money. It realigns incentives (do something with it before you die), helps your kids (unearned weath corrupts, enormous unearned wealth corrupts enormously), and actually enables opportunities through investment and redistribution at a time when most people need something like a downpayment or school debt clearing.
This is, quite literally, the silliest thing I may have ever read.
Cool, cool. Work for 30 years, save up and have say $3M to retire on, based on stock market at an all-time high. You're not a robber baron or investment banker, just someone who worked a long time and saved and invested. Govt takes $1M away from you, you have $2M now. Market drops 25%. Now you have $1.5M.
Congrats, your "plan" resulted in someone like that having HALF of everything they saved up just gone.
Yeah, yeah, I know, "if you have $1.5M you don't NEED any more money." Sounds like something that only someone with something less than $1.5M would say.
You don't "need" your iPhone, or your flat screen, or whatever. The government should not be in the business of determining what you "need" and taking the rest.
I am talking inheritance, not weatlth tax, and have actually written I'm for reducing said taxes. you truly do not need the extra million when you're dead. Maybe read my comment again with more charity and re-engage?
So people put the money in a trust or use another way to dodge it. I don’t think it’s nearly as easy to collect ad you hand wave.
it is already more or less the case, but I argue that it's for the benefit of the living holder, not the heirs. A lot of the incentives to have huge, untouched inheritances revolve around dynasty effects, exactly the kind of behaviour we want to curb.
I'd go further and say that "unearned wealth corrupts" is a well known effect, and (apart from the small subset of rich people who do not care about their kids corruption and intrinsic worth apart from them being the vehicle of their dinasty) we see that divestment into charity / foundations are the modern preferred way for inheritance management, both sparing the kids somewhat (being downgraded to a multimillionaire is not a hellish situation) and gifting them cultural influence. A sovereign fund could scratch that itch somewhat.
Why make it on inheritance then? Tax wealth 100% above 2M. I do think this would doom progress but would be a fun exercise.
incentives. It's okay to be successful and enjoy the fruits of your wealth, and you want people to strive towards wealth. but transmission across generations is a true societal poison.
The only thing that I personally care about is the ability of ordinary people to build and retain wealth.
Wealth disparity doesn't grow because wealthy people are allowed to retain their generational wealth or not, it grows because the rest can't build and retain their wealth.
This isn't a zero sum game.
PS: I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes. So I would rather the children of wealthy people squander their wealth, than a politician transfer that wealth to their patron.
> I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes
thus the importance of the sovereign fund.
1) set a generous threshold over which your inheritance gets taxed, inflation adjusted (e.g, 2M not including the principal residence)
2) tax 100% above it. (should only concern a fraction of a fraction of cases)
3) put all this tax's proceeds in a sovereign wealth fund
4) at 21, a citizen gets access to her redistributed generational wealth
5) profit
shoubidouwah commented on German government comes out against Chat Control xcancel.com/paddi_hansen/... · Posted by u/SolonIslandus
Laws can be changed, can be reinterpreted, there are no absolutes. What matters is who is in power, and how powers are kept in check. There is no finality to any of that. It’s a constant process of keeping things up, or failing to keep things up.
This is actually one of my own fears for efficient organization at state level and above:
- any new technology, any new opportunity either has checks and balances or gets exploited by smart optimizers with no regards for the commons or human flourishing
- checks and balances are as you say a constant drain on public attention and resources: you need smart people doing the checking (finite resource), and receptive eyeballs (finite also)
- it is thus an optimization problem. attack_surface - check_capacity = societal_explots
I worry that the check_capacity term is constrained, but that the attack_surface keeps aexpanding with new technologies. At some point, we started playing whack a mole, frantically jumping from one check to another, and we're holding the fray stochastically. but at some point it's going to become extremely adversarial.
I have 2000sqm of land and I feel like 1. the CEO of garden operations, 2. a sitting duck in terms of money and invoicing.
> Too much land to manually manicure a lawn on top of
> too little land for john deere to be of any practical help
I feel you.