cornell532

Nah. What’s good is giving lots of money to the GOVERNMENT who wants to subjugate you.

Then they’ll take your money and piss it away because A) it doesn’t belong to bureaucrats; so they’re spendthrift

B) bureaucrats are not gonna use what they buy; so it’s shit

This post is rage bait. Your experience is the modal outcome

Only if software broadly has “zero financial payoff”

For their own personal interests. Not for those of society

SimpleLogin.io is a great disposable email service I’ve been using for years.

I have no association with the company besides being a happy customer.

Do you have Open Tofu recipe for this? Sounds really cool

People arguing against parent are Property Thieves. see 5th amendment which requires "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation".

It's your property. Do what you want with it. In a free society, the public isn't compelled to buy your books.

Why? The Beatles really wrote and performed Strawberry Fields.

Why are you entitled to it for gratis? It’s a taking for public benefit.

Ancient writings like Plato or Marcus Aurelius somehow feel different. But high-fidelity live recording feels like it shouldn’t go into the public domain. It’s someone’s commercial work product

Don’t be so nasty about w2 workers. Incredibly unbecoming.

Also see comparative advantage re best roles for each actor in an economy

“Explicit is better than implict.”

—PEP 8

I like Elestio for managing devops of self-hosting. I don't want to do backups, monitor and fork git repositories for updates, etc. It's non-trivial. My time is scarce.

However, I'm extremely reluctant to give my password database hosting to ANYONE. I feel like this is something I need to "own" myself. Perhaps on Coolify, Dokploy, or on a Raspberry Pi with regular backups hosted at my home or office. This is extra work that I'm not eager to do; and frankly, it goes against my philosophy of outsourcing "commodity" work to which I'm ill-equipped to add substantial value.

On the other hand, password managers are the most sensitive software I can imagine.

Lastly, Sharing passwords with my wife, coworkers, etc is genuinely very valuable. Either of us can update, maintain etc our shared set of passwords. Last I looked, Keepass and its ilk cannot replace that functionality

Mine shuts off because of conditions regularly. It's very annoying.

FSD is a better driver than me 99% of the time.

You mean “getting dangerous people off the streets who’d kill if they had the means”?

Where does all of the money go?

New York City is spending nearly $30,000 per student this year.

You sound like a great parent doing right by your daughter. She's lucky to have you.

The point of school is to learn to think + learn to face adversity & failure....

Why not just let them be a permanent liability on the business?

Are you worried about claims in bankruptcy court or something?

"_*Permanent liability*_" Are you insane? You have the cash in-hand. The customer has made an interest-free loan to you. You're ACTIVELY trying to *DISCOURAGE* positive cashflow!?!?!?!?!?!

You should execute the exact opposite pricing scheme: provide discounts to your most loyal customers who are willing to provide you cashflow long in advance of your incurring an expense to provide services to them in order finance your operation.

Just signup for Shifter (https://www.getshifter.io/) and call it a day.

The point of static hosting is to simplify things, not feed into developer fever dreams of complex systems.

Plus, Wordpress is established, mature ecosystem that can provide almost any mainstream feature you could imagine.

I went to them after losing a weekend trying to stand-up my company's website after some ill-advised changes to my Wordpress instance (bad plugins caused Wordpress server to crash).

I haven't looked back since. Wordpress-based static hosting Just Works + makes sense

ps HardyPress was a similar alternative I evaluated. It had an issue failing to render some of my webpages to static....but maybe it's become better

Long distance calls cost a pittance now. Service is better. VoIP is a big innovation.

Lack of competition in cellular is another story....

How is money not speech? Jeff Bezos is able to buy the Washington Post (or multiple TV stations if he wanted) and can say anything he wants under the guise of free speech.

I don’t have Jeff Bezos’ resources, but if I buy a single television ad to advocate for my position I should be regulated?

I don’t see a difference between media companies publishing material and overt partisans buying advertisements.

The right to petition the government is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

This is exactly what we do using Shifter (http://getshifter.io/).

#1 was great. This is a joke right? You do know the US Treasury is the safest financial instrument in the known universe, right? I'm sure you also know that French debt is denominated in Euros a currency which may or may not exist in 10 years... Also, even if it does exist they don't fully control the currency.....you know what? this isn't worth debating. This is like a comic performance.

A long time ago, the French decided that quality of life, and taking an easier path was simply more important than the economic, military, and to a lesser extent cultural dominance of the US. As a result, French people live generally better quality of life, but the very ambitious don't get as rewarded as in the US. You will find French of all stripes in the US who seek to live in the US because they can be rewarded more than in France.

It is a cultural choice. But let's not deny the effect.

In France you have 35 hour work-week, siesta, lots of vacations, health care, bloated government. But there is very little entrepreneur ism. The French fell in love with the large corporation and large government.

Move to France.

You'd find their backwards, less competitive economy to your liking.

Brilliant response.

Economic ignorance encountered here can be stupefying.

This is an idiotic argument that ignores/sidesteps the main point of the parent.

No matter what you think of China's economy, it is leaps and bounds better than what it was 20 years ago and provides a dramatically superior quality of life for its citizens.

Is the answer cars, cheap land, big houses?

By your logic, pharmaceutical companies are exploiting cancer patients.

Patients with horrible, painful, fatal diseases are certainly miserable. Pharmaceutical companies are certainly looking to further their own goals through the development and sale of life saving drugs.

By the way, as a separate issue; if people were allowed to bid for organs. And assuming you're right that rich people horded them, then wouldn't the supply rise up to meet that new demand? Wouldn't more people sign up to be organ donors? Wouldn't we reach equilibrium where the supply side matched the demand side? If poor people were getting fabulously wealth from committing to donate organs, and more lives were saved, wouldn't we eventually reach equilibrium? The 1% only need so many organs.... Poor people with money in their pockets and less organ shortage wouldn't be a horrible scenario. Maybe it would force the real hard work of cloning organs and improving a unsatisfactory system.

I must say, if it became an outright bidding system some people who society might say are less deserving than someone else might benefit. But that happens already! Look at Mickey Mantle who received a liver after a lifetime of alcoholism (and died soon thereafter). Or Steve Jobs who shopped around for the best region to receive a new organ (he's not FROM Tennessee after all...).

So please tell me, how would a MORE market based system be significantly worse? It seems like we have the worst of everything right now in our pursuit of the idealistic fantasy that the system treats everyone equally and that organ donation should be a purely altruistic gesture.

I agree with everything you're saying (except the part about hording) perhaps....

My expectation is that donors would be paid based on expected value, which is how (I believe), the issue is being framed in debates.

ie assume there's a 1% probability that potential donor will be a.) young enough b.) die under right circumstances.

Then we should offer that potential donor 1% of the expected value of his/her organs (ie if organs are worth $100k then we should offer $1k).

Obviously these are all made up numbers. But the idea of paying up front based on expected value makes sense to me in theory.