neilwilson

Oh to C9 to those days...

It appears to be deterministic in a static structure. If your program adds and deletes actors, then LF has problems. It tries to get around this with modes.

Sim-Diasca is an Erlang simulation system that implements the superdense time step mechanism used in LF via distributed time managers and a global barrier which gives repeatable results.

You got a computer in that era because you thought you talked to them and they did what you asked them to do.

Then you got the computer and when it started up you got a flashing K. It was a bit of a disappointment. But you flicked open the hefty manual, started reading and before long you were hooked.

One career later, I now have a computer that is very, very close to what I wanted all those years ago but with a significant and irritating genie attitude to granting my wishes.

Now if we can just tone down the genie stuff…

"If your argument is that AI-generated writing eases the pain then I will make the opposite argument: reading AI-generated slop increases the pain 10x"

Then you didn't bother to read, or understand, my argument.

In particular this bit: "remembering that like code it is write once and read many. What the reader needs should be at the forefront of a writers mind - both for code and prose."

Are you sure you haven't got to the stage where you don't read anything properly at all?

The Tour de France is an elitist operation that filters out the majority of people. So you've rather made my point.

"I suggest reading up on and understanding the history of the Luddites"

Are you from West Yorkshire? I am.

I went to school in Batley and I've been past the steeple at Cooper Bridge many times.

Given much of my family were mill workers, the Luddite tale is very much part of who I am.

Because not everybody got A* in English.

What we are seeing here is a Luddite reaction from artisans. A skill has been automated and those that have the skill are not happy about it.

For many writing is painful and the machines ease the pain. And like all machines it takes a while to use them skilfully. In particular remembering that like code it is write once and read many. What the reader needs should be at the forefront of a writers mind - both for code and prose.

Nobody gets on a motorbike and wins the TT in the first weekend.

Everything is and always has been “here’s a pig owe me one”. Humans trade by promises.

And there is little hierarchy required if a bunch of people are tasked with stripping you of your assets and your liberty unless a specific type of token is delivered at a particular time.

Well there’s always the priesthood.

That branch of religion has better uniforms anyway.

Only in the secondary market. In the primary market they require different types of money for settlement.

If you buy an AI issue, then the AI company has the bank deposit and the bank still has the matching reserves needed to buy government bonds in the primary market. All that changes is the ownership tag on the bank deposit.

That assumes the new lenders have an aggregate alternative.

If you follow the accounting in a floating exchange rate system you’ll find they don’t.

Find me a banker that will turn down free basis points and I’ll show you a pink unicorn.

I make $100 of loans, that creates $100 of deposits which move around.

The capital ratio is 20%. I sell $20 of capital in exchange for $20 of deposits which are deleted.

And then I do the same tomorrow.

All ratios met. No limit on loans.

Loans create deposits, deposits are used to buy bank capital issued by banks.

There’s no hard limits. They are ratios which are preprepared because a bank knows how big its sales pipeline is and that takes time to complete.

Nothing is limited in quantity. Even the silly SLR they have in the US is a pricing limit, not a quantity - as we see every time somebody moans about how much the deficit has gone up.

If you work for me and I owe you, that’s money.

You can sell that debt on to somebody else in exchange for goods and services.

That’s all money is - a circulating debt.

They don’t constrain the quantity of lending. They only change the price.

Liability side controls don’t work.

All debt is money. Anybody can create money, the trick is getting other people to accept it.

Nvidia is vendor financing its output.

An ai company order $100m of GPUs. Nvidia delivers and holds onto that debt as an asset - like a bank loan.

The production company uses AI to create better plant and purchases $100m of AI tokens to do so. The ai company hold that debt like a bank loan

Nvidia requests $100m of production based on its $100m of orders. The production company holds that debt like a bank loan.

You now have a monetary loop. Take a single $10 bank deposit and Nvidia pays the production company, who pays the ai company who pays Nvidia. Run that round the circle a few million times and everybody has been paid.

Rinse and repeat.

Almost like the concept is complete bunkum.

It’s been zero in the UK for hundreds of years.

There is no such thing as fractional reserve banking. The multiplier is a myth.

Quite why this persists when the Bank of England debunked it in 2014 [0] is anybody’s guess.

Just another of those concepts that is neat, plausible and wrong.

[0]: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...

Copyright is a legal grant from the public to the individual.

Perhaps it is time to recognise that this literal Mickey Mouse law needs to be rebalanced more in favour of the public than the monopolist, as that creates better societal outcomes.

"You can of course trot out the point that oh, in 12 months this setup will be extremely outdated! "

But interestingly still extremely valuable on the second hand market.

The capital expense isn't the amount laid out. It's the rental cost of obtaining that capital, less the depreciation on the fixed asset over the period in use.

Going back to the OP, Apple gear is well know for having good resale values, which means the capital outlay isn't anywhere near as much as some people think.

“Most economists” haven’t the faintest clue how money works. Relying on their pronouncements is why we’re in the mess we’re in.

The LVT doesn’t work for the fairly simple reason that value is in the eye of the beholder and requires a bureaucracy, tax is paid from income and rich people have power and therefore just put the prices up to recover the extra cost, which they can do because there are fewer jobs than people that want them.

Legal tax incidence != economic tax incidence

Taxation by estate agent is a non-starter in any democracy. Nobody likes real estate people to start with.

The US can’t become insolvent. Those who say it can are just hard of accounting.

It’s scaremongering nonsense.

All treasuries will be swapped back into dollars on maturity and interest settled

The rich own things. They collude. You hit them with costs and they put the price up which is validated by the extra money given to the poor, or by wage suppression as there aren’t enough jobs to go around.

Taxes on the rich are like increased power bills. Businesses pass on costs at a markup.

They can do that because you need a job to eat and they only need to hire if there is a profit to be had.

The poor will then give it back to the rich in higher prices for the same amount of stuff.

The only real way to tax the rich is to ensure that the rich have to compete for workers by paying competitive wages

It’s not even honest on the tax trade offs. Total tax take is not a constraint on public provision in a floating exchange rate economy.

Except that revenue doesn’t crater in a floating exchange rate system. Revenue from them craters but the money moves elsewhere and revenue improves there - including an increase in total transactions. Total revenue will always be Total spend less what people decide to financially save rather than spend. Because tax are percentages and the process is a geometric series.

Having said that if you have no source of iron ore and no self sufficient energy production you’re stuffed anyway.

The UK ran out of both a fair while ago

It’s not a matter of profit. It’s a matter of costs.

From the graphic the insurers take in $371.6b and pay out $241.9b in medical services costs.

That’s $130b on a pointless activity that uses up physical resources that would be better deployed elsewhere in the economy.

Healthcare needs to be provided as a matter of course, and “competition” won’t improve it or control it because there is always a supply side shortage of provision.

That’s a difficult problem to solve, but solving it by forcing a huge bill on expectant mothers and cancer victims, etc in a futile attempt to control demand is not the way.

Which is why the rest of the world charts a different path.