jdasdf

I'm my experience claude code is kind of shit.

Pi works very well with deepseek though

The big flaw in his argument is that a mere 1% which is actually 20% of annual return is still less than the average income tax rate on workers

This is untrue btw

50% of people in the US pay effectively no net taxes

If that is what is being targeted, then why not actually target that. Apply some percent taxation on the current value of all assets transferred because of death.

That already exists. The rate is 40% of the asset value.

As per the thread, the hardware is bricked and requires a full OS reinstall

The comentator either wasn't talking about the company as a whole, or was mistaken.

This is public information. Their financial statements show clearly that they made a loss every single year since the data is available.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NET/cloudflare/inc...

CEOs are democratically elected. And if they do a bad job they are democratically removed from office.

What are you talking about??

For instance - If overhiring happened, how is this not at least a little bit on the individual that approved of a hiring spree? Why is it that they should be able to yield a baton that hurts the workers they hired, without having to actual bare the brunt of the decisions?

Do you think shareholders do not consider their employees performance when deciding to hire/keep them?

Do you think CEOs don't do that when it comes to their executive team?

Do you think the executive team doesn't consider that?

It all comes flowing down.

I can assure you as a shareholder i am 100% focused on getting a return, and I will fire (or vote to fire) any executives that i believe are doing a bad job, or who accept that their underlings do a bad job.

Hiring people, and then firing them some time later is not intrinsically the same as doing a bad job, nor does it mean there was "overhiring".

Also. "hurts workers"? What?

Workers receive the payments that were agree to, for the period that was agreed to. No more, no less.

You are no more entitled to a job than the supermarket is entitled to my patronage, and me choosing to no longer purchase from you, whether it be groceries or labor, is not me hurting you.

Why should people who are profitable to employ be laid off as well?

It just sounds like you're upset and want to hurt whoever you feel is responsible for making you upset. That's not a productive stance to have on important topics.

They don't have a PE ratio. They have never made a profit.

Cloudflare has never made a profit.

Is your stance that shareholders should perpetually subsidize it out of the goodness of their hearts?

While that does sound interesting, I don't see any benefit for me.

It would still ultimately exfiltrate the data outside of my control, and frankly i don't trust any "secure enclave" tech.

As far as i'm concerned physical access is root access, and for any private stuff that is wholly unacceptable.

I just use the API directly. It's simple enough to setup and i like the control i get from just charging up and not having to worry about any random subscription taking money out of my account

I've been using v4 pro for the past few days and honestly in terms of quality it seems more or less on par with open AIs 5.4 or opus 4.6 (i havent tried 4.7)

To be clear, i'm not doing state of the art stuff. I mostly used it for frontend development since i'm not great at that and just need a decent looking prototype.

But for my purposes it's a perfectly good model, and the price is decent.

I can't wait for open model small enough for me to run locally come out though. I hate having to rely on someone elses machines (and getting all my data exfiltrated that way)

You request the judge to apply a lien on their assets. You take that to their bank and request that it be applied, and the money paid out.

If that doesn't work, you can always go to the police/bailiff with the court order and schedule a date/time for them to go with you to their offices to seize and auction off their stuff.

Such censorship shouldn't exist in the first place.

most laws enforce agreements.

thats the point

It is that easy.

Those regulations are choices. You can make different choices. You can make them tomorrow.

I'm sorry but i cannot take seriously any problem that essentially boils down to "We want it to be like this".

But it does show a number of problems inherent in Germany's current situation: (a) shortage of skilled laborers; (b) high cost of labor; and (c) exorbitantly much red tape. These three points alone are among the most frequently cited factors that companies feel inhibit business, and it holds across disciplines.

There are 9 billion people in the world, roughly half of them are perfectly capable of doing manual labor.

There is plenty of skilled labor, and the cost is frankly not that high, you just need to let them work.

Can we be serious here? There is one and only one cause of "high housing prices" and that is a political choice to make housing expensive.

Don't tell people what they can or can't do with their property.

Don't prevent people from being brought in to build stuff.

Do these 2 things and housing will be built if the price is truly high. Anything else is bullshit.

but at least £200bn will be sucked out of the UK economy back to investors

That's not how the economy works... Nothing gets "sucked out of the economy", and certainly not a productive investment that generated that income.

i agree.

HR on the surface seems unimportant, but you’d notice if the company stopped having health insurance or sending your taxes to the IRS etc etc.

Interesting on how the very example you give for "oh this job isn't really bullshit" ultimately ends up being useless for the business itself, and exists only as a result of regulation.

No, health insurance being provided by employers, or tax withholding aren't useful things for anyone, except for the state who now offloads its costs onto private businesses.

You can't stockpile nurses and save them up for when you retire.

But you can?

It's called paying nurses more to encourage greater supply...

Well, the current situation is equally effectively unfunded because you’ve got gains in an investment account that will be competing for a rapidly shrinking working age population in concert with large amounts of voters who don’t have investments but have a vote to vote for someone who will increase taxes to increase benefits. Pick your illusion of generational contract and financialization performance art.

You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what the current situation is.

There is no "gains in an investment account" because social security is unfunded, and has only vestigial investments (many of which are primarily fig leaf to finance the government at lower costs/lower returns).

There won't be any "gains in an investment account that will be competing for a rapidly shrinking working age population" because there fundamentally aren't any gains.

Now, assuming that your misconception was correct, and that there was a pot of unrealized gains to be consumed when you retire... That still wouldn't cause any "competing for a rapidly shrinking working age population" because the thing about having resources is that you can spend them to get more of the things you need. Sure a large influx of capital requiring some specific goods or services would increase the price of those things... which would in turn increase the incentive to provide more of those things.

Frankly that isn't an issue if it's fully funded.

large amounts of voters who don’t have investments but have a vote to vote for someone who will increase taxes to increase benefits.

And this is the problem.

Theft and its normalization through political power is what causes the self-funded and fully funded model to fail, not anything inherent to it.

Pensions are no more a Ponzi scheme than a capital market predicated on growth that will not occur due to structural global demographic dynamics.

There is nothing to capital markets that requires growth. Indeed historically it is the opposite, and investors tend to overpay for growth resulting in lower returns.

Most pensions are Pay as You Go systems where no investment actually occurs (or if it does it is vestigial).

Effectively no different from a regular ponzi scheme being used to purchase votes.

Self-investment has the actual investment there.

If pensions were fully-funded you'd be right, but they aren't in almost every country. Unfunded pension liabilities are well over 300% of GDP in most european countries, but since they don't show up on debt to gdp metrics, people aren't aware of it.

The investment dollars in scope are similar, with pensions being better managed than your average human would do.

Also that is untrue.

Public pensions and family benefits may seem old-fashioned compared with asset-based solutions. But they provide security without locking households into markets, without generating trillion-dollar investment pools, and without driving asset inflation that prices younger generations out of housing and wealth. Sometimes, the non-assetising path may simply be better.

It's an obvious propaganda post intended to demonize the financial markets, and promote unsustainable social security policies.

Private payrolls are published though.

Because*

This is a result of subsidies distorting market prices and encouraging malinvestment.

It’s too late, those promises have been made. We have to lie in the bed we made.

Yes, that involves treating it like pyramid schemes are treated.

That means:

- Arresting those involved in making them - Reclaiming all funds paid out - Refunding all funds paid in

Anything else isn't treating it like the pyramid scheme it is.

Perhaps if people were burned for trusting electoral promises, they would be more mindful of their sustainability.

Stop justifying pyramid schemes.