snapplebobapple

Why should the default be for me to guess in a search engine more expertly when someone is referencing a program as a suggestion instead of for them to be more explicit? I get it for things that dont live on the web but if you are going to say you replaced some program with another program the default should really be to link it especially when the name is two common characters in a common order or it is opensource imo...

Got a link? Pi is suitably as to make search engines questionable

I would expect fortune to be able to understand basic economics, but I guess not. I can't verify because it is a paywalled article, but if this article isn't about oligopolies abusing labor market power, then it is intensely wrong headed. Paying workers less is a good thing to a point, it means less dead weight loss to the economy from labor abusing market power (which is basically the worst thing you can do in economics). If it's about abuse of monopsony power in the labour market by oligopolies then I apologize, that's the one case where paying people less is bad, but it's also kind of rare these days.

I think it's those small writes that was making garagefs perform so badly and rustfs perform a lot better. My setup sounds like a different scale than yours though. It's my home lab running on questionable hardware. As truenas apps for rustfs/garagefs. I use cephfs on my proxmox cluster and it's honestly not that great if you have a lot of small files either (which I do because of things like screenshots in jellyfin/music players/etc). My rustfs setup is not clustered either. It's just single node

An economist would say that making another company less valuable is good in most cases because it usually means you are outcompeting them because y(u found another way to supply that need more efficiently.

the real reason this is not good is because it doesnt and cant easily capture what value flows to the customers and if the market is competitive all the value will eventually flow to the customer since pricing aboce marginal cost will get competed away and moat innovation is essentially making marginal cost lower

Did you get garagefs to work well? I ended up moving to rustfs for my plakar and restic backup station because the performance was abysmal on garage. i also dont really get the point of zerofs. Seems like you are building a posix fs on top of s3 that is built on top of a posix fs... seems like a lot of extra steps that probably degrade performance vs just backing up that first posix fs semi regular.

I'm saying by the very definition of taxation regime they are both taxation regimes. You choose a variable and you vary the tax rate along the possible values for the variable. I'm also saying, yes, obviously it's a penalty for choosing a way of life, that's what all taxation regimes are that aren't a flat tax or a use tax. Choosing to work hard and succeed so you have higher income and pay a higher tax rate is also a life choice. It's not a worthy argument for or against anything.

Except, for most people (possibly all people), that's not a choice they made.

Yes, since you are clearly pretty left wing you would believe that, despite it being so simple as to be untrue. The complex version is there is friction in moving between success levels that modulates the outcome of your personal choices. It's a separate issue to what we are talking about here that I am amenable to addressing (Go look at my previous posts, I'm a huge fan of actually using antitrust law again and breaking up most of the fortune 500 and many private companies). Your personal choices still move you into higher tax brackets, The friction is not so bad that your personal choices don't affect what tax bracket you are in each year and, even if it was, it's a separate problem to be addressed, not an argument that is valid here.

Or maybe it's because democratic states would never consider it?? That is one unsupported hypothesis about what is going on. I can make those too: Or maybe democratic states held onto more religion longer, and had a better economic starting point in freer markets so they are running into this below replacement birthrate fiasco later on?

No, you can have a society exclusively maintained by immigration from other societies. Might be a bad society, but still a society.

That is historically untrue, at least on civilization timescales. it can works for decades, not permanently. That ends in weakness and losing the country to invasion or takeover from within because the people that immigrated didn't assimilate and instead grew to be a big enough population that they took over from within. It's not a situation you want to end up in.

this is one more reason to not contribute to the society one hates being part of And that's another reason to implement the tax regime I suggested. Do your job or pay someone else to do your job. Either way, the job needs to be done.

What is and isn't a taxation regime isn't up to you, it depends on whether your tax rate is modulated by some choice, which is clearly the case here. Lets flip to the counter example. I can just as easily say "Choosing not be a useless turd and therefore paying more taxes per dollar earned is not a taxation regime, it's a penalty for choosing a way of life." It's literally the exact same statement swapped for what is being taxed and it is just as untrue as your statement.

I already demonstrated...

Saying totalitarian states are the only people to have tried this is actual what aboutism.There's no valid reason to expect outcomes to be the same when all the other parts of society and economy are so radically different. This is not justification of anything.

Not my job. Incorrect. Having a birth rate at or above replacement is one of the foundational requirements of having a society. If you are in the society it is definitely your responsibility, it has just never been an issue before because we previously did not have birth control or many women out of the home. No, I don't think that. If I thought that, I wouldn't need a taxation regime to get this outcome, I could just stop educating women and keep them in the home, it would be far simpler and far worse than taxing people who don't do their job and maintain the future society.

Sorry? Should that be the other way around to be comparable?...

Yes maybe, if we ever get back to the situation where the average women is having 5+ kids. That's not the situation we are in and even if we get there it will take along time to be an actual problem, so there's not really a point in fleshing that out at all.

The rich have more disposable income. They won't feel 10%...

Yes they will because it's a much larger amount of money and rich people tend to be pretty rational. There is also a complex basket of goals and desires going into the children choice so you don't need to force the entire decision, just tip the balance towards popping out that extra kid or two. If everyone below rich person isn't contributing enough to pay for the government/services that's a bigger discussion than this that requires different policies and likely massive cuts in spending unless the rich guys footing the bill are actually happy with what the money is being spent on.

Oh, so they're exempt from childless tax too? That's moving goalposts. No,that's presenting an idea on hacker news instead of through a research paper. I didn't rigorously lay out the argument over 30 pages with 100 citations and I'm not going to.

sigh Very much true and very much not whataboutism because it is valid to compare taxation regimes. If you like progressive taxation then the onus is on you to justify your claims that applying the exact same regime to another characteristic (doing your job at keeping the birthrate above replacement) Is totalitarian while applying it based on income is not (you've failed to do this btw because you can't because they are either both totalitarian or both not because they are the exact same premise).

Also, you fail to appreciate what tax penalties look like. This will incent the rich to have more kids because a 10 % penalty when you are making a million dollars a year is 100k but it's a rounding error if you are in poverty because the first almost 32k of household income is tax free if you joint file. It was said partially in jest, but it is actually a good policy if you can price it low enough that it doesn't cause migration but high enough that it does cause more kids.

I don't really agree with the specifics but I can identify with the emotion. To me the problem with AI isn't AI, it's that investors are idiots and put hundreds of billions of dollars into AI companies that have near zero chance of being profitable enough to pay them back and those companies took that money and blew up computer parts supply chains that are vital to the rest of human existence. If we didn't have this massive build out that has no chance of repaying itself and instead had a build out that only doubled ram/gpu/nvme prices we would be far better off. As it stands, we're going to have a ton of gear that will be of questionable utility once any of the disruptors get their 100X+ per watt improved/different hardware going and to get that hardware we broke everything else. This ai stuff will also likely plateau and have the openweights models and opensource tooling catch up and at that point the companies are basically GPU REITS with diminishing demand as the stuff ages out and the disruptor's gear gets built for much better performance per watt. They've made it really ugly for us now and it will get really ugly for them in the midterm future imo. Not a good outcome for anyone.

The taxation scheme on not being a useless turd is closer to a totalitarian regime than taxing people for not having kids is.

If the government can charge me a higher rate of tax because I am not a useless turd with no marketable skills then charging people more for failing to keep population at or above replacement is also not an infringement of freedom. While we are talking about freedom, have you looked at what happens to societies when population growth rates collapse? They tend to not stay societies for very many generations after that. They tend to get invaded and added to an empire that still has a positive population growth rate, or they collapse internally due to the weight of unfullfillable promises and infighting over the shrinking pie and get picked off at the edges. In that regard, policy to preserve the birth rate is a freedom enhancing choice if you think our current society is free. I personally think it's not that great but everything else is pretty bad, so it's the best of a bad situation choice, which makes it worth preserving.

is there any decent management software for a whole network of these yet? That's what keeps me going back to unifi with opnsense as the router. Last I checked it was basically openwisp, which was hugely painful/complicated to get working when I last looked a few years ago. I would love nothing more than to have a viable option to start replacing the unifi stuff (even better if there is also 10gb switching but that feels like an absolute pipedream still without a large budget for datacenter gear)

Tieing it to a real person will juat make the pressure to hack real peoples accounts much higher. Just maje a way for a user to cost them money if irs spam. Like deposit a quarter to call if no complaints for a month you get it back. If they report you youlose the quarter. Spam phonecalls gone in a month

I shouldnt have said useless, whether it is accurate or not, i apologize for that. I take issue with the rest of your criticism though. My comment is on a policy discussion about people who have chosen a set of ideas having less kids. Its not about a people with some innate characteristic that they did not choose having less kids. Their less kids is a direct consequence of their poor policy preferences and as such it is a self correcting mechanism that we shouldnt be breaking and certainly should not be spending my tax dollars on. Suggesting other bad policy choices they could take up was perhaps in bad taste as well so i apologize for that as well. the spirit of my comment is still desperately needed in the discussion because it is utterly missing and it is the correct one. When people who choose a set of ideas make moremoney and have way less kids the problem that needs solving is their ideas, not their birthrate

Wouldnt it just be better to have a lefal system that enforced the contract without extra bs? Lawyers would be unhappy as their wages normalized but that would be a large benefit to society as well

Nah just bump every tax bracket of people over 25 with no children 10% and use the money to care for the vat grown replacement children they didnt have. Cut the taxes back when they hit their 2 kid quota and cut them further for additiinal kids

Wonder why they didnt use valetudo?

my biggest beef with tmux is the copy/paste is terrible even with the various plugins supposed to fix that (especially the copy).

Printing is still a disaster on linux, but in linuxs defense, its also a disaster (n windows just a but less of one

Zero dollars. Because the marginal cost of production is zero and the movie production budget is just a sunk cost. We need to cut copyright terms back to the original term of 14 years and call it a day. Instead of the commons being ceded to benefit itself with hifher content production, the commons was just robbed to give us current copyright law

#metoo

has anybody figured out how to get this to open a fixed layout? I'm using tmuxp to do this easily with tmux but would switch to this pretty quickly if it was easy to get my layout over. It's really nice. It's like zellij without the bloat (but with different ai bloat that doesn't seem to drag down performance at all and isn't in your face unless you want it in your face)

You missed my first point. You get a different outcome because you can hit a different price point securing your outcome and that outcome is still constrained by law. If you make a few hundred billion like Elon did you too can do that. My point was that this mechanism is a criticism of the system, not of Elon. Elon is not doing something wrong here (at least not provably wrong yet in a court of law, see what happens as the horse he bet on loses political clout and the various institutions take a look at what was done with a different political foot on their throat).

The second point was the ambiguity in outcome is what allows societal change and I don't want to lose that because there is still a lot of stupid enshrined in our legal code and institutions. We need enforcement to be lax enough to allow people to break stupid laws and the legal code to be ambiguous enough that, when enough people's opinions have changed by the law breakers breaking the law and nothing bad happening/ the law breakers being closer friends and family of enough people that you can get a big change to the law through, either via the courts deeming the law unconstitutional or the congress critters changing the law. It's a fine line on multiple fronts there between effective changing to suite current needs and too much corruption and I don't see a way to change the system that decreases corruption without also decreasing flexibility for change so I am very cautious on that front.

This doesn't contradict my claim at all. This is and should be a criticism of the system because the system has an ambiguity of outcome built in. If I can hire the same lawyers and skew my outcome to the better for me side then we are all still operating under the same rules. I do agree with you that it would be nice to fix this so that the only difference between hiring the 50 dollar an hour and the 2000 dollar an hour lawyer is spending an additional 1950 dollars. I don't really see a way to fix this without also losing the ambiguity that makes other aspects of the system work though (i.e. the ability to do illegal things like same sex marriage/relationships enough that the overton window moves in the population enough to allow a legislative change to allow those things).

Why would that be? To me it doesn't seem that interesting vs going to an l4 type kernel that is mathematically verified secure in various operations.

The original claim is stupid because it is applying a personal moral judgment to a legal system at the individual level, usually for the purposes of justifying theft or other punishments for the person being talked about. it is irrelevant whether the person is honest or dishonest by your own personal moral compass, what matters is whether what they did was legal or not by the legal standard we are all operating under. The criticism needs to be leveled at the legal system and its ability and desire to change to accommodate the criticisms is the measure of the total system. By this correct measure what we have is amazing vs what has come before and alternate systems tried in the 20th century (looking at you *isms, which have all been terrible in the long run and usually also in the short and medium run).

The marxist nonsense about exploitation is getting really tired and needs to die already. Yes, we get it, marxists don't value anything that grows total output, don't think it should be compensated and are totally fine living in the stagnation that view creates. If they could all just skip a few steps and go to the end game of their philosophy that would be great because I'm tired of hearing from them.

Why do so many people make the same analytical error? It's really simple what is going on: information and power asymmetries are used to accumulate more wealth and therefore power. This happens through a whole bunch of mechanisms usually referred to as market power abuse in economics all centered around getting control of a pain point that makes it less likely people will leave for a competitor and then pushing prices down (think chain restaurants saturating a region and only offering minimum wage, think the app economy getting you on the app and watching your every move to price your labor as low as possible, think larger companies spending money on lobyists to push new regulations to decrease competition and kill start ups)

The government is implicit in a lot of this when it should be doing stuff like breaking up big companies to curtail it. UBI and VAT would just exacerbate the actual problem because it would grow the government and the government would eventually just get captured again (or stay captured) and be put to work ensuring the wealth keeps flowing to a select few.

No, my response is protect yourself from the reality of the market via mitigation because you and i cant affect change because the incentive is to get worse for the corporation and minimum efficient scale is too high to have enough competitors to change the benefit math

then put something like the OREI 8k HDMI 5 in 1 switch in front. Costs less than 60 dollars, you can control it with whatever universal remote you want or the remote it comes with. If I needed that I would just map it on my flirc skip remote and continue operating my whole setup from that one remote very easily with the tv only ever getting on/off and maybe volume signals. The nice thing about this solution is it lets you run everything at hdmi 2.1, which is often impossible on even newer tvs because only one or two of the ports are hdmi 2.1 on many tvs.