[flagged]
Readit NewsDeleted Comment
Dead Comment
sorcerer-mar commented on U.S. intelligence intervened with DOJ to push HPE-Juniper merger axios.com/2025/07/30/merg... · Posted by u/rascul
sorcerer-mar commented on U.S. intelligence intervened with DOJ to push HPE-Juniper merger axios.com/2025/07/30/merg... · Posted by u/rascul
[flagged]
sorcerer-mar commented on Meta's Vision for Superintelligence meta.com/superintelligenc... · Posted by u/GlitchRider47
>regardless of how good technology gets
Technology increases aren't there so you work less hours for the same pay, they're there so your business owner gets more money form you working the same hours.
If a machine gets invented that can do your job it's not like you can now go home and relax for the rest of your life and still keep receiving your pay cheques. This utopia doesn't exist.
Yes but even this ignores the more important dynamic at play: rent rises to eat nearly all the productivity gains.
If you add technology to your workplace your wages should go up (not to eat all the gains of the technology, but a decent portion via wage competition), but then once your wages go up, the local rent goes up anyway.
sorcerer-mar commented on Meta's Vision for Superintelligence meta.com/superintelligenc... · Posted by u/GlitchRider47
I don't buy these Superintelligence claims from Meta of 'abundance' and 'humans are free to do other things' as they are tied to Wall St and earnings.
It is always abundance for the super rich, scarcity for those in jobs.
How can I be free to do my gardening whenever I want when the landlord is asking for $11K rent in my SF flat?
So eventually they will do the opposite of this 'vision' and put this super intelligence to replace jobs.
Also, what happened to the Metaverse that Meta invested hundreds of billions as per their namesake?
> How can I be free to do my gardening whenever I want when the landlord is asking for $11K rent in my SF flat?
This is the fatal flaw. It's been recognized explicitly for at least 140 years that the price of land rent rises in lockstep with productivity increases, guaranteeing there is no "escape velocity" for the labor class regardless of how good technology gets.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
How about "to give the public a cut of the economic rents — i.e., private taxes — that the public is allowing you to extract from the market, which you get from your legal monopoly that lets you block competitors from copying you"?
Would that be an exercise of raw political power? Yup.
(The older I've gotten, the more I've drifted into the camp of the folks who think that society was better off when we had top marginal tax rates in the 80% to 90% range: Back then, your salary, your bank balance, and your yacht size weren't the most important metrics with which to measure your success in life. That's because, once you hit a certain compensation level, the government took most of the incremental increases. Innovators and business execs weren't notably less motivated back then.)
Or how about this: After an initial period of low taxation, we should heavily tax all patents. The idea would be to encourage owners of low-value patents to let them expire early for failure to pay the increased taxes. That would allow independent reinventors (of whom there are many) and copiers to do their own thing without having to worry that, if they make it big, the owner of a zombie patent won't suddenly appear with their hand out, demanding a cut. (Believe me, that happens.) That's kind of how patent "maintenance fees" are supposed to work now, but the amounts involved are utterly trivial and should be dramatically increased.
Yes, I know ALL about the economic rationale for having a patent system to mitigate the free-rider problem that discourages innovation. I also know all about how people work very hard to game the system. They're aided and abetted by patent lawyers who fervently believe in patents — and who of course want the paying work. (I knew an old-time patent lawyer, now long dead, who would sometimes tell clients — only half-jokingly — "If you paint it purple, I can probably get you a patent on it.")
Sure, the model that you propose here sounds a lot better than the one being proposed by the current administration.
It seemed like you were suggesting that a property tax (which does not function how you just described) was a good idea, based on your initial comment which called it a good idea.
In my experience, the single most important factor is realizing that the sensation of hunger is your primary enemy and that you can attack it head-on.
Satiety is not dictated by how many calories you've eaten but (mostly) by the physical weight of your stomach. If your goal is to eliminate the sensation of hunger while consuming the least number of calories, the nutrition label tells you everything you need to know: eat a lot of low caloric density foods.
What you'll find over time is that foods widely regarded as unhealthy are simply ultra-dense (e.g. peanut butter is an engineering miracle) while healthier foods tend to be extremely low-density (e.g. non-fat Greek yogurt and fresh vegetables).
The biggest error I see in people dieting is thinking they just need to muscle through the feeling of hunger. It doesn't work in the long run. Accept that it's an important sensation but it's distinct from actual starvation, and address it directly!