sagarm

This is not the answer to this problem. Instead vulnerability researchers should share their findings with potential victims so they can sue rather than reporting to Republican state governments that will simply sue them.

Regular people own stock.

The biters are just a line item in the spreadsheet. Early players might build a wall with an ammo belt, for example. There's lots of options that don't involve responding in real-time.

Though these days I just manually clear the pollution cloud with a pocket full of turrets. The forward deployed engineer model, if you will.

Have you read Ian M Banks or Asimov? People have had utopian expectations of AI long before ChatGPT 3.5.

It's just that now, it's gone from practically fantasy to hard sci-fi.

It's more tax efficient for investors to sell stock than receive dividends. A myopic focus on dividends is economically illiterate.

If an outgoing Democratic president had used his platform to undermine free and fair elections, they should not only be denied the megaphone they used. They should be prosecuted, imprisoned, and barred from any future office.

Coincidentally, ~75% of PG&Es costs are from the grid and not generation.

If you're "independent of the grid" go off grid. You'll pay nothing at all.

Most people are not willing to make the tradeoffs that entails but still want free access to the grid.

They all fail the means test. They own beach houses!

Hell no. Those beach houses are owned by the relatively wealthy; why should the general populace bail them out?

All that rambling to say what, exactly? What vague "outcomes" have "both sides" been trying to achieve?

You still decorate the interior. It's just more of a blank slate to work with.

Are you trying to argue that finance, insurance, healthcare, tech, utilities, and mining don't produce anything? That's a pretty out there opinion.

Georgism calls out land because the supply is essentially fixed, so there's no economic cost to taxing it. In addition the value of it collectively created.

Every industry you named above absolutely responds to price signals.

The Republican way:

There are those the law protects but does not bind.

And then there's us.

I think we're deep into a post-law environment at this point, though. People who weren't bound by the law will not be protected by it either.

Rooftop solar costs 3x more per watt than utility scale. The only reason it would pay off is that you're able to avoid grid maintenance costs built into per-kwh pricing.

The video does test against a "saver" player that keeps a buffer. They perform badly.

This was tested in the video. Players that don't trade lose. Refusing trades where the opponent gets a better set underperforms always trading to complete your sets.

Have you considered walking or biking? If you live in a car dependent area, that's a choice you made.

How would shared walls, roofs, elevators, lobbies, etc be maintained without a HOA?

Why only for 0 passengers? If you want to reduce congestion, price it.

So we should never change anything?

Safety and reliability without security? Tell me more.

Not even SpaceX. They're retiring the Falcon 9.

Yeah, cars are the #1 of quality of life problem in cities.

All that requires _effort_. A stunt where you AI-translate a library into multiple languages is clearly not a context where you'll see that kind of effort applied.

Do you really have to ask why someone working earns their returns, while someone whose property appreciates through no effort of their own -- and yes, it's just the land appreciating the vast majority of the time -- did not earn the windfall?

They could choose a different lifestyle, but they value the one they have. That's fine, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to subsidize their preferences.

Owner-occupiers can and do refinance to turn their wealth into cash. It's routine.

People refinance all the time.

"Forced out" meaning they choose to sell rather than spend their unearned windfall.

They could always borrow against their massively appreciated property, after all.

It'll make it so new construction tends to be condos rather than apartments, since the first is heavily preferred by tax policy. This reduction in supply will mean higher rents.