LargeWu

All the Social Security taxes you pay get paid out to recipients this same year.

When Social Security was created in the 40's, the ratio of workers paying taxes to beneficiaries was like 40:1. So, each worker originally paid a very share amount.

Today, owing to demographic factors, that number is 3:1. Soon it will be 2:1. So by 203X, that number will drop below 1:1, meaning the program will be paying out more money than it takes in. It's at that point that the program will be considered "broke", because it can't meet its obligations.

So there's any number of solutions, which mostly boil down to some combination of the following: Raise SS taxes, cut benefits, or delay benefits (ie later retirement age)

I think a more apt analogy is a chef who is not waiting tables. Which, by the way, are typically completely different roles in a restaurant.

Your comparison might work better for a dev with no testing experience. Write the code and throw it over the wall. But I fail to see how an application engineer should need to worry about the intricacies of, say, setting up virtual private gateways.

In practice though, at least at places I worked, it wasn't 5%, it was more like 80%.

Part of the problem, and what ultimately drove me out of coding altogether, is that Ops is a specialized skillset completely orthoganal to the business of building applications. And, I was really bad at it due to a complete lack of interest. As cloud environments get more and more complicated one ends up spending more and more time dealing with that at the expense of building things.

Conversely, there are lots of folks who love ops type problems and are not well suited to building apps. So, it makes sense to put them on separate teams where they can each do the thing that they're best at, rather than fumble through the parts of the jobs they hate. But yes, at this point it's not really DevOps anymore, it's just ops.

Google and Facebook make plenty of money off just ads. But that's not enough anymore, the line has to keep going up, forever.

We have a 2022 Leaf. Great city car; not so great out of town.

Just to be clear, that's an infrastructure problem, not a car problem. There aren't too many places you can drive in the US where you don't see a gas station at least every 50 miles, typically much more frequently. Charging stations are a completely different story.

If you live in large parts of the USA, by which I mean pretty much anything that is not the eastern seaboard or California, and you need to go anywhere remotely rural, charging infrastructure is absolutely not reliable.

I have an EV, which is amazing in my metro area, but I regularly take trips where I would not feel comfortable finding a place to charge, despite what EV locator maps might tell you. If you show up and that charger is not working, which is not uncommon, you might be stranded.

He started SpaceX because he had a pipe dream of colonizing Mars, and too much money.

There's massive negativity because our bullshit detectors are going off.

First of all, I don't think it can do what it claims to do.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I don't think it should.

Downvote if you want, but this is a very relevant question. If their marketing is to be believed, they would be eating their own dog food.

This very analog to the Meta executives who won't let their own kids near social media.

Does Pion run Andon Labs autonomously?

This is a really bizarre take. Praying to the small, local spirits, like the one of the animal you are about to eat, is noble and beautiful, but praying to a universal god is worthy of mockery? ("sky-daddy myth")

I don't really care what people believe, but if you can accept and respect traditions that believe in the supernatural, which includes any spirit, surely beliefs centered around creator gods are no less plausible.

I don't expect them not to make big bets, but this was DOA from the start and everybody knew it.

Because people like Zuck think that because they're unimaginably rich, they must have gotten that way because of their own good sense, instead of getting insanely lucky at just the right time when his original product was primed to be well received.

Of course they're participating, even driving it. Notably there were large bets placed predicting imminent military actions in Iran and Venezuela. In at least one case it was verifiably placed by one of the individuals planning it. We've reached the point where our country's leaders can profit not by the outcome of the war, but even just by the very act of initiating it.

Last week I was at the bank in my hometown, a small rural community. The teller took a phone call, and I overheard her say "You have $1.53 in your checking account, and $150 in savings".

Presumably this is their total net worth. I think this is way more common than people on this type of forum realize. Most will work until they literally can't anymore, then scrape by on social security until they die. I think it's important to keep that perspective.

SQL Injection isn't even a problem of SQL, it's a problem of the applications those databases are connected to.

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Letting AI generate your image also dances around the issues of attribution and licensing, for better or worse.

These companies are never, ever going to make their money back off of retail customers. It's not even clear if those customers would be profitable at all, let alone enough to justify hundreds of billions in capital expenditures.

I want advice from the one questioning whether we should, not just whether we can.

Not only benefits from it, but the very one causing it to happen.

Didn't see it mentioned in the article, but Apple also had a program called "An Apple for a Teacher" which allowed teachers to purchase directly from Apple at a big discount for personal use. My dad secured a IIgs this way, which mostly found use as a gaming machine for myself. But it certainly helped to reinforce the Apple -> schools pipeline because teachers wanted to use what they knew.

This is true. It is also true that waiting until things bottom out will make things even worse. It will be more expensive and options will be more limited.

There will need to be a federal bailout to relocate everyone who needs help. The government should also probably announce a policy that there will be no future disaster relief that involves rebuilding, only relocating.

New Orleans will be the first, but not the last American city to collapse. Miami is probably next. Salt Lake City could very well run out of water, nevermind the increasingly toxic lakebed. Phoenix too. In the next hundred years people are going to learn why environmentalists use the word "sustainability" so much.

The difference is that schools, crime, etc., are all what they are right now. It's there, it's verifiable. Anybody buying in has access to the full information. They can walk around the neighborhood and see for themselves.

The flooding and inevitable destruction of the city is decades away. It's still abstract. Some people might even think it is preventable.

I don't think it's unethical to sell. People have their own motivations. Maybe a buyer just wants it for 5 years, who knows. Probably the risk will get baked into market price. What does need to happen though is the federal government needs to step up, because they're the only ones who can, and guarantee they will buy it for a certain percentage of appraised market value. I would imagine that percentage will decline over time until they declare the city a total loss, after which your property is declared worthless. If they do this now, they can make it possible for people to leave with some semblance of dignity and mitigate hardships.

"The solution is parlay style payouts"

I think you mean parimutuel payouts?

They say Silicon Valley was more of a documentary than a comedy, and now we have one more way life imitates art: A growing army of Erlich Bachmann's.

For those interested, Relisten is another repository of live concert recordings. It skews heavily towards improvisational music, ie jambands, but there's some indie rock on there as well.

https://relisten.net/

Because the "it'll create X jobs" implies it's ongoing. It's a disingenuous attempt to oversell the benefits because they know if they're transparent about it, suddenly it doesn't seem like such a great deal.

"If they require the datacenter to be a closed water system and pay for their own electricity..."

This assertion is doing a LOT of heavy lifting, and when it isn't true, it can cause huge externalities not just for the local community but possibly an entire region. It also does not address the noise problem.

Additionally, your jobs estimates are likely high and include short-term construction jobs which may not even go to locals anyway.