trboyden

By comparison, the US only spends 3.4% GDP on the military per year.

If you plotted all the other things the government spends money on, pensions would be the biggest chunk. Stop being dense.

In case you need me to Google that for you some more...

US GDP is currently 21.43 Trillion dollars.

7% of that is 1.5 Trillion dollars.

The 2020 Federal budget was 4.79 Trillion dollars.

So, pensions are roughly a quarter of federal government spending every year and growing.

Newsflash, most taxes have loopholes in them to allow the money to be used on things other than what they were intended for [1]. Vehicle taxes are used for multiple purposes, not just roads. Currently, 7.2% of GDP goes to pensions [2], and that is just the federal government's part. States' contributions would easily double that figure.

[1] https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-state...

[2] https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/pensions_spending

Yes, continue the explanation with your math, including the part where you don't actually get that rebate; as part of the solar program financing, you have to hand that rebate over to the bank to pay the finance fees, which is factored into the financing. Otherwise the monthly payments go up, and you end up paying more per month than you generate energy. I was in RI and RI rates and program is similar to NY's.

Hmmm. No. The payback is 20 years, which is the length of the panel life, and the limit on time the utilities have to pay you for the energy. After that, they get the energy from you for free.

Try $20k plus a re-roof at $10k. And that is for a small 1200sqft 3 bed/1 bath house that has full south-southwest exposure.

I put solar panels on my last house. You know what impact it had? Zero. Why? Because renewable energy sources are more costly, less efficient, and have a greater environmental impact over the full lifecycle than Natural Gas Plants [1]. If we replaced all power generators with Natural Gas plants (which Europe is doing because they already realized this fact), you could realize the carbon savings and generate the power that will be needed for future electrification demands.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T...

Doesn't work. Because corporations find loopholes around the law to achieve an "equivalent" of carbon reduction, that doesn't actually reduce it, but still call themselves green. If anyone thinks that planting a few trees actually reduces carbon given how much the Chinese pump out, I have a bridge in Brooklin to sell you.

It's easy to throw around numbers without understanding the people behind them. Say the plumber whose business is worth $10 million dollars, pays himself $100k, and re-invests the rest back into his business and his employees. Is he rich? No. That's the problem with ideological socialism. You just want to stick it to the guy who is rich on paper - it has nothing to do with actually improving peoples lives.

If you truly care about cost, efficiency, and the environment, you should be looking at Natural Gas plants [1]. They are inexpensive at $60 million each, are more efficient [2] than all other power generators, provide more power (which will be needed for EVs), and is cleaner when taking into account the full lifecycle costs (construction to decommissioning). They also involve less red tape to get constructed, so they can be built quickly.

But you have to look at the decaying grid as well (another plus for Natural Gas because you could afford to do both). A lot of the power generation is lost in the grid. If you invested there, the current generation facilities could operate more efficiently and you could shutdown the dirtiest/least efficient ones over time.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/natural-gas-fired-power-plant...

[2] https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T...

No, redistribution is organized extortion. I make $100, the government takes $50 of it, pockets $30 of that, and then redistributes $20 to those that will keep them in office (A.K.A. a bribe).

And your point is what? You just provided the exact evidence to what I already stated. Parts of the gas tax, excise taxes, vehicle sales tax, recycling fees, etc... are all fees that Americans pay that are supposed to go to addressing impact on the environment. But the government only spends 0.2% on it. Where did the money go? That is exactly my point. Most of it went to pay pensions that the government over promises on and doesn't budget enough for. Any business that did that would be out of business or switching to 401ks, which most have done.

Americans pay many fees and taxes that go to environmental concerns. They also see the government does not use that revenue to address those environmental concerns, because instead it goes to state and federal pensions. Therefore, the real issue is, what do Americans have to do to get the government to spend the money on the things they say it is supposed to go to? Until the government is willing to change their spending habits, yes, Americans will be unwilling to contribute more to the national credit card with no limit.

Quite a coincidence. My dad was an HM3 on the USS Frontier from 1964 to 1967. He also passed in 2016. He never talked much about his service though. I only remember one story he told where US soldiers were issued bullet proof vests for the first time, and they chose to try them out by shooting each other with M16s. The result wasn't pretty.

Except, they did. Apple started the threats against Epic when Epic started lowering their prices for add-ons on other platforms, which made Apple look greedy. To bolster their anti-competitive case against Apple, Epic turned on the in-app store to which Apple then pulled Fortnite. Epic has to be able to show damages and anti-competitive actions in order to have a case. If they didn't force Apple to pull Fortnite, they wouldn't be able to show damages.

These replies to my comment are completely missing the point. The debate isn't about what is the better system, which is arbitrary, it is about whether you have a choice, period. If you didn't want to use Windows, you had a choice; you could use Apple, Unix, or Linux. You do not have a choice on iOS, you use the App store, or you can't get apps. That's the anti-competitive behavior under review.

Except, as we have seen with Epic, and why we are talking about this case, is they can, by dropping your app from the App Store in retribution for offering an alternative. They can do that because there is no other app store on Apple and effectively prevents you from competing.

That's a false premise because consumers have endured the Microsoft ecosystem for decades and the risk vs choice is one that consumers have accepted. The only way Apple would have an argument for that aspect of their ecosystem, is that if all similar vendors operated the same way. This case is about consumer choice and it's the better consumer choice argument that is going to win.

Yes, digital downloads for Nintendo, Xbox. Digital gift cards for Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo, including credit for Playstation Store and Nintendo eStore.

I can also go into a mom and pop store, load Target's website on my phone, and order a pick-up order from Target. The Mom and Pop store can't stop you from doing that.

Except what you state already exists. I can load the Walmart app on iOS and order a TV from Walmart, not Apple. Apple is preventing Epic from doing the same - buy in-app merchandise through Epic's app on iOS.

The problem is, this is all marketing, and pricing it lower than Tesla is just a head-turner for the press, not the average citizens that actually buy these things. The base model F150 the low-end of the Lighting line compares to is only $28,940. That's $10,000 less than the electric model. Most consumers are not going to be buying a base model and dealers rarely carry them on their lots. So, the realistic starting point for these is most likely going to be around $50k. Slap on top of that the $10k to $20k dealers are currently getting above MSRP and this will be out of reach for most people.

This is a misconception of what is actually required by US state tax laws. The business is required to pay the tax on retail sales - they are not required to charge the consumer that tax. The fact that it has become common practice for retailers to pass the tax on to consumers to pay is the real issue at large. The same applies to regulatory fees that the consumer pays on utility bills or telecommunication services. The consumer isn't supposed to be paying those, the business is. One of the biggest complaints in current US tax law is that businesses don't pay their fair share. Taxpayers as consumers are directly responsible for that, by not demanding that businesses start eating these taxes that they are supposed to be paying, by putting pressure on politicians to make that the law. Yes, it would be difficult to enforce (business adding tax into product price), but not impossible, as businesses have to track COGS (cost of goods sold).

I believe that is anti-community in spirit and non-conductive to solving the issue you claim exists. Many developers breath of knowledge extends only to that they have experience with personally. Maybe they joined the project because they want to learn something which you can only do by diving in, making mistakes, and learning as you gain experience. How many developers that could evolve into great developers have been stunted because someone denied them the opportunity to become competent? Once you open something up to contributors, it becomes everyone's responsibility to learn how to work together effectively and productively and changes should be discussed and adopted based on what is best for everyone. I am certain it would be possible to establish mentorship and technical review committees that can both ensure the quality of the end product and encourage growth in the particular specialty area the project addresses.

I think that is totally fine! Especially if it is organized that way from the start.

But as soon as you allow contributions, is the project really yours anymore? Is it fair to the community that has contributed to your project, all of a sudden to be locked out from it, and forced to fork it to continue it's evolution? Why not hand it over to the community and start your own fork for personal development? I think that is the larger debate to be had.

I can't help but think this is self-inflicted. If we really are to apply the spirit of open-source, wouldn't the community-pro action here be to open the project up to additional maintainers to pick up the slack and delegate out the work? Isn't that how popular projects grow? And when they do get really big, isn't that the time they should be transitioned to an organization like Apache or Canonical to manage the day-to-day management efforts of a large project?

I think the idea that a founder of a project is responsible to maintain it into infinity and beyond is missing the whole point of open-sourcing code. That founder is putting unfounded pressure on themselves rather than letting the project grow and evolve in an organic way. Much like a helicopter-parent that micro-manages their children's lives, rather than letting them make mistakes, learn, and mature into independent adults.

Obviously, there are a number of open-source project methods for handling this, forking being a common one that the community itself can apply. But I would think it would be beneficial to the project community to have an honest discussion about it an entertain offers to take the project over rather than breaking the community spirit of contribution that is core to the ideals of open-source programming. If there comes a time when no one is willing to step up, the community and more importantly repository providers, should offer a way to put a project into maintenance mode, and allow someone to come along and take over maintenance of code that has the time and willingness to do so.

This comment is not an effort to criticize the founders of the mentioned projects, but an open-ended question to the community at-large to ponder and reflect upon how we manage and grow the spirit of open-source, while taking care of the maintainers/contributors that help keep it going.

Not accurate and the car insurance market provides the model health insurance should be based on. In car insurance you have multiple providers you are free to choose from with different coverage levels and service options. If your bad driving history prevents you from getting standard insurance, government programs provide a backstop alternative way to get coverage. Yes the alternative costs more, as it should, because you are responsible for your driving habits. But there are also government programs on top of that for low income drivers.

The point is, the free market should be plan A, and government programs should only exist to cover the gaps. Ultimately, people should be responsible for their own health, but in special cases, for no fault of their own issues, government should provide a backstop because it is the right thing to do.

Most taxpayers would agree with that. What they don't want is to be forced into something that is inferior and on top of that be penalized to subsidize someone else's premium.

I am sure the Nazis told the Jews there are plenty of opposition voices (government controlled ones) as well in the 1930s.

BTW, I WFH doing manufacturing ERP system implementations and custom development. I also have Psoriatic Arthritis, so have been pretty much sidelined at home since March 1, 2020. Used to travel a few times a year for work, which was nice, but companies are definitely starting to see the cost benefits of not paying consultants to come onsite. So I expect this is more or less a permanent situation. For most companies the servers don't live onsite, so what's the point having someone come to their office to install software, configure it, and customize it when it is all done remotely anyways? What would normally be $20k a week with travel expenses is only $10k remote. We are pretty much pros with Zoom and Microsoft Teams now and make use of digital whiteboards for presentations. Travel for implementations hit the ridiculous point last January anyways when we went onsite at one customer's HQ and all the people we were talking to were Zooming in - we were the only ones there in-person!

Do I feel fortunate for my situation? Absolutely. But at the same time I worked my way up from a helpdesk-like position for $12 an hour to where I am now 25+ years later. I have earned this and then some.