prev <-> next
[2020-09-28 16:59:00] - "Unlimited wealth seems in contrast to the public good" i think i agree here, but i would totally disagree on how to address the problem. there is an easier way. ~a
[2020-09-28 16:58:58] - a / (whoever): Do you think wealth concentration / wealth gap is bad? Do you think an income tax is able to address that issue? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 16:57:56] - daniel: "there are practicalities to be addressed" moreso that many of the practicalities are unaddressable. that you're setting yourself up for a low or negative ROI (enforcement could cost more than you'd get back in taxes? maybe?). ~a
[2020-09-28 16:56:33] - daniel: "properties were accounted for?" i'm not talking about real properties. i'm talking about trade marks. the "brand". the "name". not physical objects, but non-physical concepts. ~a
[2020-09-28 16:53:53] - So finding a spot on the spectrum where creators still create but that public good is still accounted for and addressed seems like a good goal. Unlimited wealth seems in contrast to the public good. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 16:53:19] - On a higher level I understand the point that there are practicalities to be addressed but I think the concept of there being a point past which I don't think people need money. The far end of the spectrum is communism which I think has been shown to not wrok well but I think the other end of unfettered capitalisms has been shown to have its problems too. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 16:50:21] - a: Didn't you already say properties were accounted for? How do you know that the trump brand is wroth 500m? It seems like someone already figured it out? If we limited it to only certain asset classes your concern would be that people would just hoard things in the non taxed classes? Like Bezos could just buy a warehouse full of picaso's or w/e as a way of avoiding taxes? Could he buy enough random stuff? Maybe? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 16:42:57] - (semi-related-aside when my dad was our age, like 40 almost exactly, he told me about the concept of a wealth tax.
) ~a[2020-09-28 16:39:01] - i wonder if jeff bezos has any sperm in a sperm bank. ~a
[2020-09-28 16:35:59] - problem #3, (ok just a stem of problem #2) what about things where nobody can agree on what its worth? "the trump brand" (the trade name) is worth something like $500m. but who decides that? without selling a thing, deciding what a non-physical one-of-a-kind object is worth is next to impossible. ~a
[2020-09-28 16:32:37] - i bought this 500m skyscraper in downtown manhatten and the manhatten real-estate market has done really really well. its now worth 10b. in your way i only have to pay taxes on the 500m? alternatively, there was flood damage and it is now worthless. i have to pay taxes on the 500m? ~a
[2020-09-28 16:26:50] - "Is that a terrible system?" yes its a terrible system. property taxes always include a (fairly) updated price. why would wealth tax be any different? but moreso, how would your system even work for things that change drastically in price? ~a
[2020-09-28 16:02:36] - a: that seems to go both ways? Art appreciation doesn't' count against you but you can't claim depreciation either? Its just worth the last sale price? Is that a terrible system? You seem to say yes because while people could think its worth less you still have to pay tax on it as the og price but you think the "truth" is that its less? So you are paying taxes on an 'untrue' value? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 15:58:22] - daniel: income always has a dollar amount (yes i know you can hide it, but it has a dollar amount). things often do not: its really worth what someone will pay for it, so in many ways it doesn't have a worth until you sell it. (one great reason why capital gains are only levied only when you sell) ~a
[2020-09-28 15:56:32] - daniel: its not just that things can be hidden, its that things can (drastically) change in value. ~a
[2020-09-28 15:56:16] - "have to go into your home" seems to be making assumptions that I'm not sure I agree with. I get the point that if you want some version of the truth that it would be required but we already have fuzziness around income as well where its just on what has a paper trail why would it be different for wealth? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 15:55:07] - Also though if you buy a 100m dollar painting at auction doesn't that make a paper trail? I get your point that things could be hidden but that also just seem analogous to under the table cash payments for things in order to hide income. So you just pay taxes on whats declared / known without having to go assess things in your house or whatever. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 15:51:41] - daniel: wealth tax, the assessors have to go into your home every year. ~a
[2020-09-28 15:51:30] - a: It would be funny in a absurd way if art suddenly all jacked up in price as a means of 'storing wealth' to hide from the IRS. That makes more sense than burying gold to me. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 15:51:06] - daniel: property taxes you have to assess what something is worth, but houses you can often see the outside of without disrupting you too much. ~a
[2020-09-28 15:50:17] - daniel: luckily, with income tax and capital gains tax, you don't have to assess anything, because it's already assessed. ~a
[2020-09-28 15:48:29] - daniel: would IRS cops now be allowed to go everywhere always if they think you're hiding anything ever? seems like we need to de-de-fund the police in a major way? ~a
[2020-09-28 15:47:33] - daniel: so, new additional problem! how the heck do you agree on what something is worth? with houses that is hard. with art that is hard (and already has tons of corruption). but, you're talking about an assessor assessing everything in your house every year. everything on every part of land you own and everything on every part of land that you DON'T OWN but have access to, or know someone who has access to. every year. ~a
[2020-09-28 15:40:59] - a: I'm not convinced it would be a bad plan yet though I do get your point its a new class of enforcement. I'm not sure how much the burying gold argument holds sway with me currently but I would definitely agree that there could be ramifications / implications that I haven't thought of yet. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 15:37:42] - daniel: thinking about is fine with me, obviously. it seems like a bad plan, and i'm not sure how to repair it: unless someone comes up with a brand-new idea, i'll be for increasing the top-tax-bracket. maybe even making some new ones? . . . i'd definitely be for increasing the funding to the IRS, but not for something that will have a bad ROI. and i think a wealth tax will have a bad ROI. ~a
[2020-09-28 15:34:29] - Also even in conceding its not the most feasible I don't think its not worth thinking about. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 15:32:52] - I would be willing to concede that a wealth tax isn't the most feasible option of available options but would still be interested in something like it being pursued / thought through by people smarter than me. Maybe wealth brackets for tax instead of income brackets for some taxes? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 15:30:36] - a: Bitcoin I'll give you wouldn't really work or would fall into that same category as like gambling income currently where you are supposed to just self report. I'm still unclear on how you buy enough gold to hide a billion dollars without a paper trail. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 15:29:15] - a: " who will want to drastically increase funding to the IRS?" me? Voters would want better tax enforcement? I guess its baked in that in theory an increase of IRS spending would net a gain for the gov. If it didn't then over time that it could end up being a poor choice. But if tougher enforcement over time led people to try and avoid / cheat as much that might be worth the investment. Would be tricky to quantify though. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:58:25] - daniel: who will want to drastically increase funding to the IRS? ~a
[2020-09-28 14:57:59] - daniel: i have bitcoins that i bought over 10 years ago. i guarantee nobody knows about them. i bought them on a website that no longer exists. (obviously i don't hold 50b worth, but please just follow the example anyways) nobody knows about them. and as long as i don't blab to anybody (on a public message board) nobody will ever know about them. could a police force find them? sure. but it would require a lot expensive work. ~a
[2020-09-28 14:53:34] - daniel: i'm not saying it would be impossible to prosecute, but that it'd be significantly harder to prosecute. ~a
[2020-09-28 14:53:26] - daniel: it depends on how you buy it, you can get gold without a paper trail. regardless, gold is just one example: you can hide ANYTHING that you have a lot of and nobody knows about. anything easy to bury or hide. my point is that hiding things would become illegal, and its not illegal today, and it'd be much easier to do than hiding a whole business (hiding income). ~a
[2020-09-28 14:51:32] - Heres little Jimmy - he gets to eat bread and have milk today because you paid taxes. Here's veteran Frank who gets to walk because taxes paid for his medical bills. Here Gina who went to college. I dunno. Maybe everyone already knows that but getting more people to think about it. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:50:11] - Maybe we need a marketing campaign for taxes? Everyone seems to just take it for granted that everyone hates taxes and that all these rich people will just try and cheat and avoid and everything. Maybe we need superbowl ads (lol) on what taxes actually pay for so people won't hate them as much. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:46:41] - a: For the gold bars I still there would be a paper trail though. I don't think you get to a wealth tax threshold an an unbanked. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:46:12] - a: Sure. I don't want to argue against an income tax. I support that. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:44:31] - hiding income means you'd have to bury a whole business. you agree that's much much harder, right? ~a
[2020-09-28 14:43:44] - just imagine burying a few dozen 1k gold bars in 100 acres of private land. you don't have to pay taxes on those gold bars because nobody knows they're there. and literally nobody will find out. saying we should be aggressive on tax cheating is a drastic oversimplification of this new CLASS of problem you'd be creating. ~a
[2020-09-28 14:42:14] - a: I do agree. I just think it could be more. I do agree that tax cheating is an issue that I think the gov could be like 1000% percent more aggressive in dealing with. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:41:14] - daniel: here is my least favorite part of a wealth tax. it's much much much easier to hide wealth than it is to hide income. tax cheats will be tax cheats, and they'll go to jail. but if you create a brand-new tax law that's 100 times easier to cheat than any other tax law that has ever existed, you're taking an age old problem and making it much worse. why can't we all agree that increasing the top-tax-bracket is a good thing?
~a[2020-09-28 14:40:47] - Even with F35's (or whatever) though an increase in the education budget seems more likely if there is increased revenue. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:40:19] - F35's are kind of a black whole into a whole other topic. I don't know that they love F35's specifically but love directing funding towards their base and seeming patriotic. Maybe those idea's could be funneled into a different venue? Maybe not. I'd like to think with voting it would be possible. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:35:50] - daniel: agreed. but, most of the people i vote for love f35s. mainly because all politicians (almost all of them) love f35s. ~a
[2020-09-28 14:35:07] - a: So that again seems like a reason to vote for people who would spend it on the right things rather than just give up on having better schools and public institutions. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:34:59] - daniel: "That money is better in corporations than being spent on the public?" sometimes yes and sometimes no. but, most importantly, a wealth tax won't fix that. it might actually make it worse. ~a
[2020-09-28 14:34:12] - daniel: you forgot f35s. most of what the government spends its money on are things that we all wish they didn't spend money on. and a big new tax is going to make that worse. (less important, but you're assuming they'd decrease taxes on the middle class, but they probably won't.) man, i sound like a republican talking to you. ~a
[2020-09-28 14:33:15] - a: I'm not sure what point you are driving at. That money is better in corporations than being spent on the public? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:32:35] - a: Yes to pay tax to the gov so that they can spend it on roads / hospitals / schools etc. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:32:23] - daniel: 1.5b every year? ~a
[2020-09-28 14:32:09] - And that him selling 1.5 billion in a 23 trillion dollar market is going to make it tank? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:32:00] - daniel: yes and that he'd be selling from stocks held in american companies. ~a
[2020-09-28 14:31:20] - a: I have no idea how much cash or not he holds. Is the idea that he would have to sell stocks in order to pay the bill? -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:28:45] - daniel: if you levied the tax today. bezos would owe 1%*(200-50) = $1.5b in 2021. do you think bezos holds $1.5b in cash? ~a
[2020-09-28 14:27:19] - daniel: well, lets not go there for simplicity.
100% seems crazy to me, but if you want to make it more "real", lets say you pay 1%/year of all wealth you hold over 50b. is that a fine (less simple) situation? ~a[2020-09-28 14:26:26] - brainlessness seems harsh. I don't think it seems brainlessness. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:25:28] - a: Cap is just extreme example of the tax taken to 100%. I just went there for simplicity. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:24:51] - -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:24:49] - Oh is it once they hit the cap they stop? Maybe. I thought Paul was arguing they wouldn't even start in the first place. Maybe some would stop but I don' think all would. I think there comes a point where status / respect are more important than the money. I honestly don't know the mechanics of it but that seems like an implementation detail that a solution could be found for. Phased in over the next twenty years or something? /shrug.
[2020-09-28 14:23:33] - daniel: your idea of a "cap" shows the brainlessness of your plan. even if there was a wealth tax, it wouldn't include a cap! you'd just pay a percentage of wealth you have over a certain amount. and THAT is crazy, but less crazy. ~a
[2020-09-28 14:21:56] - daniel: i don't think its bad faith at all. i think creators would stop creating if they hit 20b and you wouldn't "let" them hold larger balances, but the totally crazy thing to me is the mechanics of it. how are you going to even take their wealth over 20b? you are forcing them to sell from the US stock market and you're underplaying the realities of that: not only amazon would be totally hurt: but so would the entire US market! ~a
[2020-09-28 14:20:22] - When Bezos was just a young lad, he would have worked just as hard to start Amazon even if he knew that he would "only" be able to earn 100 billion. Like this is crazy that he somehow would have been deterred. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:19:21] - The notion that somehow creators wouldn't create if they could earn only 20 billion or 100 billion or whatever is just completely ludicrous to me and seems like one of those bad faith arguments Pierce was talking about. Like its so ridiculous to my head that I can't think you are serious. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:18:25] - Paul: The idea that Amazon would fail if Bezos had a cap to his wealth doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what Blue Origin is but maybe he wouldn't have done it? But do you really think Bezos is operating on a maximizing his profits still? You think the WaPo part is profits oriented? I think Amazon would be just fine if Bezos had a cap. -Daniel
[2020-09-28 14:12:32] - https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/190866856624668672 there's a trump tweet for every situation. "only pays 20.5%", wtf? he wrote this in 2012. what is wrong with his head? ~a
[2020-09-28 13:29:20] - paul: ( 54.5e6*3.09e3/205e9 = 80% ) ~a
[2020-09-28 13:29:15] - paul: yeah no, i'm assuming it's not 99% held in amzn, that would be a financially stupid decision. most company founders sold lots of their stock for other things. that's sort of the point on an IPO (the capital generation is secondary, imo). regardless, this is public information, bezos holds ~80% of his wealth in amazon. which is still higher than i guessed. ~a
[2020-09-28 13:22:59] - a: "you're assuming he holds 100% of his wealth in amzn?" I am assuming something close to 99% of his wealth is in Amazon. What else would it be in? I guess maybe real estate or something? Sure. Maybe it is 40%. I also don't know what percentage Daniel is talking about taking. Could be 50%. Could be 80%. Could be 20%. -Paul
[2020-09-28 13:20:40] - Daniel: On the flip side, would Bezos take on projects like Blue Origin or buying the Washington Post if his wealth was cut in half? Maybe? Who knows? -Paul
[2020-09-28 13:20:12] - "that basically means he has to liquidate half his Amazon shares" you're assuming he holds 100% of his wealth in amzn? why. anyways, i'm on your side . . . but you should probably change "half" to "under half". ~a
[2020-09-28 13:19:56] - Daniel: So maybe he gets ousted by the Board at some point. Do we see stuff like AWS? Or Fire tablets? Is Amazon resilient enough with their own logistics network to weather Coronavirus and serve people? Who knows? -Paul
[2020-09-28 13:18:48] - Daniel: So let's say 10 years ago we decide that Bezos is too rich and take 50% of his wealth. Well, that basically means he has to liquidate half his Amazon shares. Besides the havoc that would wreck with the stock as so many shares are sold off, that would perhaps put him in a position where he no longer has strong control over Amazon. -Paul
[2020-09-28 13:17:09] - Daniel: Because Bezos' wealth and the creation of Amazon are too inexorably linked, in my mind. The vast majority of his wealth comes from Amazon and I believe an incredible amount of Amazon's success has been due to Bezos. -Paul
[2020-09-28 00:19:19] - its supposed to be an actual space combat sim a la <a href=“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_TIE_Fighter”>TIE Fighter</a>. - mig
[2020-09-28 00:12:15] - is there any interest in star wars squadrons? its coming out friday and I believe it has crossplay. - mig
[2020-09-27 22:42:37] - daniel: yep! super fun. my first time playing and i think i've finally learned the map . . . now aaron tells me we're going to play with a different map in two weeks. make sure aaron gets you on the invite. ~a
[2020-09-27 18:18:40] - aaron / a: Did you guys play? I'd be interested to try it some night but not sure when I'd be able to. -Daniel
[2020-09-26 01:12:06] - paul: it was your analogy, man. if you aren't allowed to use income to decide how much people pay in taxes, then i think you've ruled out the current progressive-tax and you've ruled out the flat-tax. if you are allowed to use income to decide how much people pay in taxes, then you can tax people with a high income more. ~a
[2020-09-25 21:13:29] - I don't think I can claim authority on how all entrepreneurs think but I would bet most of them get into business for millions and not many start off thinking about billions. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 20:53:50] - Creating things and doing well isn't he immoral part. Its the continual accumulation past a point where one can even conceptualize how much money he has and that there are many people who can't pay for doctor visits. Or food. Or education or whatever else we as a society that we deem important. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 20:52:31] - I think I don't understand the link between capping Bezos's income at some level and Amazon failing? not functioing? not being started? If your contention is that somehow he wouldn't have started or run the company if he could only get to 100b then I would disagree with that position. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 20:31:03] - So, I guess in short, I want a lot more Jeff Bezos' out there, not a lot less. He is wealthy because he has created something which has benefited a lot of people And I don't see anything at all immoral about that. -Paul
[2020-09-25 20:30:24] - Along with all the different ways so many people benefit from what he has created. There's also his Day One Fund and this isn't even touching on what kind of benefits humanity might see from stuff like Blue Origin. -Paul
[2020-09-25 20:24:55] - https://blog.aboutamazon.com/policy/statement-by-jeff-bezos-to-the-u-s-house-committee-on-the-judiciary I think this statement that Bezos released before his recent testimony was pretty inspirational. I know it's long, but it really highlights both the incredible risks that Bezos took launching the business... -Paul
[2020-09-25 20:23:15] - Daniel: So have many of Amazon's employees. I also think it's hard to argue that customers and the rest of the world isn't better off as well, especially in the wake of COVID. I won't go so far as to say Amazon was a life-saver, but I do think it made life a lot more convenient for people when we had to stay locked in our houses but still needed to get supplies. -Paul
[2020-09-25 20:20:58] - Daniel: And likewise it's hard to make the argument that by becoming wealthy, Bezos has somehow taken from others. Wealth and prosperity is not some fixed pie where if somebody gets more wealth then others have to be less well off. The investors who invested in Amazon (which indirectly have lead to much of his wealth) were happy to do so and have been richly rewarded. -paul
[2020-09-25 20:18:50] - Daniel: That's fair, but I also think "immoral" is the wrong word to use as well. I think it's hard to make the argument that Bezos has made any of his money by some immoral way. He didn't steal from anybody. Quite the contrary, Amazon is built off of consensual transactions and an obsessive focus on customer service. -Paul
[2020-09-25 19:31:47] - so many needs that it would be better / good to use that money in a better way than to make a select few individuals wealthy. And a potentially good way to go about that could be to tax them so that the public could then vote / have input on how that $ was utilized. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 19:30:39] - paul: I think demonize is not the word I would use. I think that while the idea of excess wealth being immoral probably isn't brand new I don't think it was (or really is) mainstream so I don't think that Bezos or Buffet or whoever is inherently evil for having a lot of the money the same way a murderer is but I do think there is something the argument that its so much past what is needed and that there are so many others who still have...
[2020-09-25 18:11:55] - aaron: Ah, okay. I went into the specific answers for the first few, but then just rushed through and chose one of the top two from then on... -Paul
[2020-09-25 18:02:06] - paul: the question was about abolishing the electoral college, but among the more specific answers was an answer about ranked choice voting - aaron
[2020-09-25 17:49:37] - Oof. Apparently Ron Paul just suffered a stroke while live streaming today. -Paul
[2020-09-25 17:45:52] - a: It wasn't supposed to be about taxes, but are you implying you are for a race-based tax system?
-Paul[2020-09-25 17:37:54] - paul: "It's hard crafting a law that will help minorities, but not Asians" "No, it isn't, just say the law excludes Asians!". if we don't use asian-ness to figure out how much you owe, then all progressive and flat taxes are right out. ~a
[2020-09-25 17:37:53] - aaron: I didn't get a question about ranked choice voting.
I feel cheated. -Paul[2020-09-25 17:37:18] - a: How am I arguing against a flat tax? -Paul
[2020-09-25 17:35:54] - daniel: know your audience. deamonizing elon musk to paul is a non-starter
~a[2020-09-25 17:35:40] - paul: i took that 'isidewith' poll and got Howie Hawkins 1st and Joe Biden 2nd... apparently because Howie opposes mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders (yay) and supports ranked choice voting (yay) - aaron
[2020-09-25 17:35:15] - Daniel: "the idea that its immoral to have SO MUCH gains traction with me over time as the wage gap increases" Yeah, I think this is the root of our differences. I'm sorry, I just can't at all fathom how it makes sense to demonize Jeff Bezos (or Steve Jobs or whoever) for having made something which has made life better for so many people. -Paul
[2020-09-25 17:34:23] - paul: the top 10% only pay 70% of the taxes. you can say that's too high, but it's very low compared to the history of the united states. ~a
[2020-09-25 17:33:34] - paul: now you're now arguing *against* a flat tax because its too progressive. ~a
[2020-09-25 17:33:33] - a: "maybe you have a misunderstanding of how little the richest people actually pay?" I think it's more just we haven't really defined what "rich" is. I think the only number I saw thrown out was by Daniel ($100k) and I don't know if he intended it to be a definition of "rich" -Paul
[2020-09-25 17:32:54] - paul: "No, it isn't, just say the law excludes Asians" jesus. so income should be a protected class? ~a
[2020-09-25 17:32:10] - paul: "I would think any kind of tax cuts would involve some kind of cuts to the people who pay 90% of taxes" i would think that too, but that's because something like 1/3rd of the nation is needed to get to the 90% of taxes. so, we agree only technically. ~a
[2020-09-25 17:32:02] - a: The logic that something is easy to do because all you have to do is craft a rule specifically saying that thing.
Like: "It's hard crafting a law that will help minorities, but not Asians" "No, it isn't, just say the law excludes Asians!" -Paul[2020-09-25 17:30:12] - mig: I guess I'm not sure about the state of 'most' of the rhetoric but I think its pretty easy to make a case that isn't about jealousy and hatred but just about helping your fellow man and being responsible towards other humans. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 17:29:55] - paul: you have to expand the group very large (the top 10% only pay 70%) to get a group of people that pay 90% of our taxes. maybe you have a misunderstanding of how little the richest people actually pay? ~a
[2020-09-25 17:29:46] - a: So it annoys me when tax cuts are fought against because some of it goes to the rich. Of course it will! They pay most of the taxes. It seems very distorting to me to craft tax cuts that target like 10% of the income coming in. -Paul
[2020-09-25 17:27:42] - a: "this is by design, not because it was the only option!" And that is what I was trying to get at. Unless your sole goal is to just help out people in a specific income range, I would think any kind of tax cuts would involve some kind of cuts to the people who pay 90% of taxes. -Paul
[2020-09-25 17:25:20] - I'm against wealth taxes primarily because a lot of the rhetoric is rooted in jealously and hatred. To me, it's not too far removed from something like stoking hatred of immigrants because "dey took our jobs." - mig
[2020-09-25 17:24:28] - Paul: You use the phrase "evil greedy wealthy people" sarcastically but I think that the idea that its immoral to have SO MUCH gains traction with me over time as the wage gap increases, as the CEO salary continues to rise while lower end wages don't. At some point the state of living for the masses does matter in regards to how much to top x% have. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 17:16:54] - which logic? (i don't doubt you, i'm just trying to make sure this logic that is going to get me into trouble wasn't dumb logic
) ~a[2020-09-25 17:16:14] - paul: recently its been only Rs setting the tax plans. that's why "there's the criticism that X% is going to go towards the rich". this is by design, not because it was the only option! ~a
[2020-09-25 17:12:08] - a: Anyway, I am going to use that logic against you one day. Mark my words.
-Paul[2020-09-25 17:10:56] - a: Every time there is any tax reform that is up for a vote, there's the criticism that X% is going to go towards the rich, and that's ultimately what I am trying to speak to. It's really hard to have any kind of broad based tax reform (or, Heaven forbid, tax simplification) that won't in some way potentially lower taxes for even those evil greedy wealthy people who pay the most. -Paul
[2020-09-25 17:10:22] - paul: nope. its only a cheat because you want it to be a cheat. changing the tax brackets is something we do like twice per decade. we increase and decrease (but recently mostly decrease) the top tax bracket *super* often. ~a
[2020-09-25 17:08:33] - a: I mean, it feels like a bit of a cheat. It's like saying, "It's almost impossible to craft a tax change that would increase taxes on Jeff Bezos but not Warren Buffett" and the response being "No it's not, you just write a law saying Jeff Bezos' tax rate is not 90%" -Paul
[2020-09-25 17:06:55] - "do you see any indication the federal government is ready to get out of welfare?" no. but i also don't see any indication that the federal government has gotten behind ubi. i think most ubi plans depend on snap/foodstamps going away. otherwise its a HUGE money loser (problematically so). ~a
[2020-09-25 17:05:54] - paul: all (most?) economists suggest taxing the rich vs pretty much every other form of getting-around-taxing-the-rich-but-taxing-the-rich (like higher corporate taxes, etc) ~a
[2020-09-25 17:04:58] - a: Why not? I mean, do you see any indication the federal government is ready to get out of welfare? -paul
[2020-09-25 17:04:55] - "explicitly involve income based tax cuts" aaaand? ~a
[2020-09-25 17:04:08] - a: You can't just cut sales tax, because that helps the rich. Can't cut capital gains. Can't cut income tax. You have to craft a law which says, "Low income gets a break, rich doesn't". Is there any other way? -Paul
[2020-09-25 17:04:00] - "we wouldn't be able to get the federal government out of welfare altogether" foodstamps/snapcard? why not? i'm fervently against ubi if we plan on also keeping foodstamps/snapcard around. ~a
[2020-09-25 17:01:55] - a: Okay, how about this? The only kind of tax reform that works the way you want (not helping the rich) almost certainly has to explicitly involve income based tax cuts. What I mean by that is we can't do something like increasing the mortgage deduction (disproportionately helps the rich) or child credits or something. -Paul
[2020-09-25 17:00:15] - a: Well, I can't think of a realistic example involving people trying to make less money.
-Paul[2020-09-25 16:59:35] - a: I almost said Okay to UBI on the poll, but it threads too fine a needle. It assumes the government would do exactly what I want in terms of getting rid of all other forms of welfare (and the bureaucracy associated with it), yet we wouldn't be able to get the federal government out of welfare altogether. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:59:10] - its also backwards
this isn't expenses, it's incomes. so you're confusing us out of the gate. ~a[2020-09-25 16:58:30] - in your situation, sure. cut 200 from the 300 without touching the 700 might be hard, but that's clearly not the real situation with taxes today. ~a
[2020-09-25 16:57:53] - its strictly not hard. ~a
[2020-09-25 16:57:27] - a: But do you get my point? I go back to my family budget: If a family has to cut $200 of their $1,000 budget and $700 is being spent on one thing... It's kinda hard for them to cut that $200 without touching that $700 category. Sure, it can be done, but it is hard. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:56:00] - not sure if i'm for or against ubi, but i'm probably for it. ubi has the potential for being a replacement for food stamps that would actually be CHEAPER. ~a
[2020-09-25 16:55:23] - paul: ubi? yeah ubi would count. ~a
[2020-09-25 16:54:58] - Whoops, cut out that "either". I decided my second option wouldn't work. Or would it? Giving subsidies to low income? Would that count? -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:53:39] - "you have to really distort the cut to not give the rich some of it." so be it. historically the cut is usually more "distorted" (or less distorted depending on how you look at it). ~a
[2020-09-25 16:53:27] - a: The assumption is that taxes are getting cut. The federal government is (miracle of miracles) deciding to make due with less income tax money. If they wanted to cut taxes like 50%, then I don't know if you could do that without either giving cuts to the rich (depending on how you define it). -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:50:45] - a: "the top tax bracket is generally never been lower than it is now" I'm not sure how that's relevant? I'm not saying it is impossible to raise taxes on the rich. I am saying if we reduce the amount of money the federal government taxes people, because the rich pay the majority of it, you have to really distort the cut to not give the rich some of it. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:49:50] - i'm against a wealth tax, sorry daniel. ~a
[2020-09-25 16:49:22] - arguing for paul here: also all of his investments would tank as he was forced to sell all his equities. his money is probably like 99% invested in the US stock market. ~a
[2020-09-25 16:48:20] - Daniel: "I don't understand why bezos's couldn't lose 75 billion to the gov and have amazon just keep trucking like normal?" Because Bezos is using his money to do other stuff? I mean, sure, Amazon would still function, but Blue Origin probably wouldn't exist or whatever else Bezos' next project wouldn't exist either. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:46:55] - a: Heh, sorry, I meant to direct it at daniel, you are right. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:46:38] - Daniel: "I proposed schools / hospitals / roads not F-35s." Sure, but you don't control the government. Regardless, sure, let's use Medicaid since it is a federal program that is related to hospitals. We can take all of Bezos' net worth and pay for like a quarter of a year of Medicaid spending. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:45:25] - oh lol. thanks, title. ~a
[2020-09-25 16:45:07] - i'm adrian. ~a
[2020-09-25 16:44:57] - paul: that was daniel. ~a
[2020-09-25 16:44:31] - a: "we shouldn't do things that benefit the masses because it might make the rich people move away" I mean, sure, you can phrase it that way. I think of it more as being responsible vs irresponsible. We could also just cut taxes to zero and double spending and go more into debt. Have a problem with that? You don't want to benefit the masses because it might make economists upset?
-Paul[2020-09-25 16:43:08] - paul: "I think the general idea is still spot on" its not spot on. the top tax bracket is generally never been lower than it is now (the few times it has been lower was for a few years right before the 1929 stock market crash, and a few years right before the 1987 stock market crash, huh that's a weird coincidence). ~a
[2020-09-25 16:42:54] - I'm also not sure why Bezos having his wealth directly affects Amazon's ability to function. I don't understand why bezos's couldn't lose 75 billion to the gov and have amazon just keep trucking like normal? I'm not sure I understand the point or relationship you are trying to make there. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 16:41:43] - Paul: So that is moving to a different topic (though related) of implementation. So if we magically got to a point of decidign that the gov should spend money then we would need to debate what we spent money on. I proposed schools / hospitals / roads not F-35s. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 16:41:07] - a: "that's clearly wrong" Point taken, I guess maybe "nearly impossible" was a but hyperbolic, but I think the general idea is still spot on. If a family budget was like $900 spent on vacations and $100 spent on groceries and the family said "we need to cut our budget", it's probably easier to cut that $900 vs $100. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:38:38] - And he's pushing forward on space travel and revitalized the Washington Post. What would the government do if they had his entire wealth? Pay off like 1/5th of the F-35 program? (https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/09/14/the-evolution-of-the-f-35s-unit-cost-infographic/#5d2efd6d7501) -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:38:05] - Which would then leave a hole in the budget. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 16:37:51] - Also, for the record, since we brought up Bezos and his wealth, I would much, MUCH prefer him to have his wealth to use vs having the government spend it. His wealth came from Amazon, and Amazon has been an incredible positive source in so many ways for so many people's lives. Look at how helpful they were during the lockdown... -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:37:46] - Paul: So to rephrase that in my words it sounds like we shouldn't do things that benefit the masses because it might make the rich people move away? -Daniel
[2020-09-25 16:32:46] - paul: I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but you told daniel "it's almost impossible NOT to lower them on the rich at this point" and that's clearly wrong. the top tax bracket is lower than it's ever been. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-federal-income-tax-rates-work ~a
[2020-09-25 16:32:28] - Daniel: The simple (and yes, admittedly extreme) example would be if we had 100% of taxes paid by Bezos, Gates, and Buffett. That might be great for the millions of Americans who aren't them, but the government might be in trouble if one decided to renounce citizenship and move to Canada. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:31:18] - Daniel: And if you keep shifting a higher and higher percentage of the tax burden on fewer people, then your tax base gets more fragile, and if a handful of them decide to up and move to another country you start to get in trouble. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:30:39] - Daniel: Once the majority of voters are at the point where they are paying no taxes, what is their motivation for voting against any increased spending? They are incentivized to vote for all sorts of free government programs. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:29:31] - Daniel: "And that without that sense of 'skin in the game' then you think people will vote for unsound financial policies?" That's one way to think about it. Basically I believe, in general, that the tax base is more robust when you have more people contributing vs less and you hopefully get more responsible governance when more people have skin in the game. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:25:12] - a: Sure, you can. But it gets harder and harder the more skewed you make the tax code and I don't think it is a good thing to have the vast majority of the tax burden on a smaller and smaller base of people. It makes the incentives screwy and your tax base more fragile. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:23:44] - Daniel: Sure, Bezos is worth lots of billions, but I'm not sure how that is relevant? I'm guessing most of it is tied up in Amazon stock, which means he can't exactly just liquidate it all to give to the government. As for if it could help with school, sure, and he is doing that (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/13/bezos-launches-day-one-fund-to-help-homeless-families-and-create-preschools.html) -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:21:32] - And that without that sense of 'skin in the game' then you think people will vote for unsound financial policies? -Daniel
[2020-09-25 16:21:08] - paul: That same logic seems to imply why not just lower the taxes for the masses if it doesn't actually matter for the gov budget. So it seems like a goal (the goal?) of taxes should be to give people a sense of a stake in the spending of the gov? That because they are "the ones paying for it" they should want it to be good / efficient? -Daniel
[2020-09-25 16:13:55] - paul: and leave the last person at $5? ~a
[2020-09-25 16:13:46] - paul: why? couldn't you cut the next 4 to pay $.90? ~a
[2020-09-25 16:13:16] - Daniel: So if you lower taxes, it's kinda hard not to cut it for that guy who is paying the $5. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:11:56] - Daniel: "I'm not sure what you mean here cause it seems obviously and easily demonstrably false" Okay, say you have a population of 10 people: The 4 with the least income pay no taxes. The next 4 pay $1 each. The last person pays $5. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:11:22] - "using that logic, doesn't it make sense for the government to have all the money?"
~a[2020-09-25 16:08:18] - To an extreme but lots of positions taken to extremes get silly. But we are definitely far from that given Bezos's (checks internet) current wealth of 175 billion. Could an extra 75 billion spent on schools or roads or hospitals be better served for the masses? I think so. Now there are questions of how that would work but thats then dependent on voting for politicians who want to spend money in a way to benefit the masses. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 16:03:56] - Daniel: "I mean to some degree if people are voting for increased spending in order to benefit the masses isn't that a greater good?" There's a lot of assumptions baked into there, chiefly that increased spending is better and that it would be spent on the greater good. I mean, using that logic, doesn't it make sense for the government to have all the money? -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:03:03] - I'm not familiar with the tax system of long ago. Was it just a wealth tax instead of income tax? They had to get $ from somewhere right? -Daniel
[2020-09-25 16:02:13] - "So if we were to lower taxes, it's almost impossible NOT to lower them on the rich at this point, because they pay most of it." - i mean we just lower the marginal rates under 100k by 5% and bam accomplished. I'm not sure what you mean here cause it seems obviously and easily demonstrably false. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 16:01:53] - Daniel: Honestly, I would be thrilled if we could find a way to go without a federal income tax at all. The country did it for something like 100 years. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:00:52] - I mean to some degree if people are voting for increased spending in order to benefit the masses isn't that a greater good? -Daniel
[2020-09-25 16:00:15] - Daniel: So if we were to lower taxes, it's almost impossible NOT to lower them on the rich at this point, because they pay most of it. -Paul
[2020-09-25 16:00:01] - Paul: Is that bad if they don't make much? Do you think there should be a minimum tax for everyone no matter how little you make? Taxes I think are tricky cause they get at questions of income/wealth inequality and questions of "fair" and fair is a complicated word. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 15:59:14] - Daniel: So we're getting close to the majority of the population feeling no effects of the tax burden, which I think is dangerous because it means we're getting close to the point where the majority can just keep voting for increased spending (and taxation) and see no downside to it. -Paul
[2020-09-25 15:58:15] - Daniel: "What about lowering taxes for the majority of people offset by some definition of "super rich"?" I mean, that's pretty much what we have now and have been doing for decades to the point where I think it's gone too far. Something like 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax. -Paul
[2020-09-25 15:56:17] - In addition to against the wall and for taking in refugees, I also voted pro-choice, let criminals vote, redirecting funds from police to social and community programs, decrease military spending... This hardly seems like a huge match to Trump (and non-match to Biden). -Paul
[2020-09-25 15:55:57] - Paul: I think I would define it as a wealth tax? Though as we get into details I'm going to be more shaky since this is a fully thought out policy
But something on the idea of the cap of money you could control would be 100 billion (or whatever) and after that its 100% to the gov. -Daniel[2020-09-25 15:54:48] - Daniel
[2020-09-25 15:54:46] - paul: What about lowering taxes for the majority of people offset by some definition of "super rich"? I'm not super expecting agreement on the subject just curious. Partly I think the idea of there being some relationship with excess wealth and immorality inherent with it I think has grown on me. Like being well off doesn't seem terrible but does already come somewhat at the expense of others but like Bezos has so much its hard to justify
[2020-09-25 15:53:09] - Daniel: For your $5 billion question, are you talking an income tax or wealth tax? -Paul
[2020-09-25 15:49:43] - Daniel: Well, I'm for lowering taxes in general, so that's part of it, but since the "rich" (which I agree, is not well defined) already pay the vast majority of taxes, I feel like that's strike two for the question... -Paul
[2020-09-25 15:47:57] - Daniel: I guess it's confusing because I voted NO on the wall and YES on refugees from Syria, which seems to go against two of the biggest Trump things (since they didn't ask about a trade war with China). As for my answers being "pretty R"... I guess? Part of it feels like the "D" answers have moved pretty far left... -Paul
[2020-09-25 15:44:09] - Like starting at 5 billion we just started ramping up taxes a lot so that at like 100 billion you were capped out. You think that would still mess up peoples economic incentives? -Daniel
[2020-09-25 15:43:25] - paul: you’re literally hitler. - mig
[2020-09-25 15:43:22] - Paul: From skimming through your questions I'm curious why you don't think we should raise taxes on 'the rich' which isn't really well defined. But there is no line at which you would be ok raising taxes for some level of 'rich'? -Daniel
[2020-09-25 15:39:00] - Paul: Skimming through your answers they seem pretty R to me so Trump seems like the right match? Deregulation / Extreme Capitalism seem like the R train. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 15:36:17] - Normally I feel like isidewith gets things generally right, but the results for Trump and Biden seem pretty off base for me, at least. -Paul
[2020-09-25 15:26:21] - Also... what is up with the description for Biden having "Sense of Humor" first!? -Paul
[2020-09-25 15:24:05] - https://www.isidewith.com/profile/4408857621/ballot/2020-presidential Does this work? These are my (quick, I didn't spend a ton of time going into "other stances" for most of the questions) results for isidewith. I was kinda shocked the gap between Trump and Biden for me. Will my (apparent) high match rate with Trump get me canceled here?
-Paul[2020-09-25 15:21:52] - Daniel: Makes sense. I sometimes think I should focus on a single race instead of playing random all of the time. -Paul
[2020-09-25 14:59:40] - Paul: maybe? Mostly I feel like I still have lots of room for improvement with zerg so don't want to mess up progress to learn a whole new race. -Daniel
[2020-09-25 14:14:59] - paul: sure! you can play in the same room, just don't look at each other's screens - aaron
[2020-09-25 14:09:45] - Daniel: Random question: Do you think you'll ever switch away from (almost) exclusively playing zerg in SC2? -Paul
[2020-09-25 14:08:43] - aaron: I'll talk to Gurkie. It might be easier for us (in terms of logistics) to play on android just because the only computer where I easily have a mouse and keyboard is my desktop in the office, which might not be ideal to play in. Is there a problem with two players in the same room physically? -Paul
[2020-09-25 14:06:00] - you can get the app for Android/iOS and click "freeplay" to try moving around and doing stuff - aaron
[2020-09-25 14:04:42] - paul: cross play is allowed -- i watched some talented players on Twitch yesterday who were playing on mobile, so maybe it's just personal preference. you can definitely play on a tablet or phone without a problem. i like a mouse and keyboard though. - aaron
[2020-09-25 13:10:16] - I'm game for trying, and can plop down a few bucks on steam if that's the preferred method of playing (and crossplay is allowed). -Paul
[2020-09-25 12:18:09] - a: okay! i sent out an e-mail for among us. pass it on to anybody i missed! i stole one of gurkie's old lists - aaron
[2020-09-25 04:09:37] - I say evening (either day this weekend). ~a
[2020-09-25 00:58:30] - but, it's still a popular game on mobile devices too so it's definitely playable either way. i'm free all weekend if there's a specific time that works best for you -- i can send out an e-mail to see who we can get - aaron
[2020-09-25 00:53:42] - it's $5 on steam or free on mobile https://innersloth.itch.io/among-us but, i think you'll have the best experience playing with a mouse and keyboard since sometimes you want to do two things at once which is hard (maybe impossible?) with a touchscreen - aaron
[2020-09-25 00:52:47] - a: it works best with as many as we can get (up to 10) so, we should plan out an evening when we can all play together - aaron
[2020-09-24 20:30:33] - so i presume (i've never played) you're good with one or more of android, ios, windows. ~a
[2020-09-24 20:29:48] - daniel: according to the internet, crossplay is allowed. ~a
[2020-09-24 20:29:00] - Does among us support cross platform or would we all need it on the same type of device? -Daniel
[2020-09-24 20:28:37] - Paul: Probably depends on the podcast. If its Hannity's podcast that dude is probably getting fired. If its on BLM Nightly (i just made that up) then probably not. -Daniel
[2020-09-24 19:53:07] - i just installed among us on android. now what. ~a
[2020-09-24 19:50:23] - paul: if any of my coworkers had either one on their public profile, i wouldn't fire them. but i'd think less of them. maybe i'd ask them to change it, but probably not. ~a
[2020-09-24 19:49:11] - aaron: i've been watching all the memes on reddit. i'd love to play. ~a
[2020-09-24 19:33:34] - have any of you guys been playing/following among us? it's blowing up on twitch, i've been playing about a month now and it's pretty fun - aaron
[2020-09-24 19:29:52] - a: I've got another "fireable offense?" question for you: Somebody who produces podcasts (not on-air talent, but they do get name-checked every episode and occasionally weighs in "on-air") has "ACAB" as part of their twitter name. More or less fireable than tweeting "All Lives Matter" in response to a question about BLM? -Paul
[2020-09-24 18:23:57] - paul: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates . . . chances are high they'll add people, but maybe not. ~a
[2020-09-24 18:22:57] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_debates Do you know what the reason for having a "Non-invitee" label for the debates if they aren't going to use it for the Libertarian and Green party candidates? -Paul
[2020-09-24 17:32:23] - a: Ha, I have not seen him before, but that one is pretty good. -Paul
[2020-09-24 15:50:18] - not sure if you guys have seen this guy on the internets or not, but every time i see his stuff it's pure gold. it's always RIDICULOUS. but also original, well thought out, and well executed. ~a
[2020-09-24 14:36:26] - a: " it won't only be software they have to update." Right, I know that's the popular opinion that Tesla can't achieve full self-driving with just the cameras they have, but according to Musk (who, I fully admit could be wrong here), they shouldn't have to update the hardware from what they have now to get there. -Paul
[2020-09-24 14:24:33] - i'm not sure why over the air even matters. is it because there won't be a run on the only vehicles that can do higher levels? ~a
[2020-09-24 14:23:09] - paul: also the two price points are 20k and 30k. ~a
[2020-09-24 14:22:36] - paul: no, not exactly. it won't only be software they have to update. (i know tesla does hardware updates to their vehicles, and you can get modular hardware updates, but some of the hardware required, like lidar, might be hard to retrofit) ~a
[2020-09-24 13:51:17] - a: Well, the self-driving software can get updated over the air to existing models. So if Tesla can get to level 4 in 5 years (which I think is reasonable) and can also develop a $25k car in 5 years (which I am a little less confident in, although Musk seems to think they can do it in 3 years), then that is all I have to hit. -Paul
[2020-09-23 19:34:48] - i guess he could release a new model. ~a
[2020-09-23 19:34:37] - "As of April 2019, most experts believe that Tesla vehicles lack the necessary hardware for full self-driving" yeah. musk can talk all he wants, your best bets (imo) are 20k, non-ev, or non-musk. ~a
[2020-09-23 19:33:10] - the problem with the original level 4 "The vehicle performs all safety-critical functions for the entire trip, with the driver not expected to control the vehicle at any time" is that some situations are unbelievably hard for computers to handle. AI has only gotten us so far! i'm not sure even musk can crack that nut. but . . . i have been surprised before. ~a
[2020-09-23 19:30:59] - paul: well, plan C should be non-ev OR non-musk. though that might be an even longer-shot. ~a
[2020-09-23 19:30:10] - a: Maybe. I think I have a better shot at level 4 / $30k than level 3 / $20k. Not even Musk is talking about going below $25k right now, whereas he keeps talking up level 5 autonomy in the near-ish future. -Paul
[2020-09-23 19:24:47] - paul: yeah, but unless they change a lot of stuff, i think the price point you'll need to hit is 20k, not 30k. ~a
[2020-09-23 19:23:39] - paul: are you sure its ***only*** legal? if there was no law about keeping your hands on the steering wheel, would tesla allow it? ~a
[2020-09-23 19:23:31] - a: Oh, I don't think it's a sure thing at all for me. I just think there's a slightly better chance we hit that cost point now (previously I was worried a lot). -Paul
[2020-09-23 19:22:42] - a: Right, but I think the requirement to keep your hands on the steering wheel is a legal thing more than anything else. There have been Tesla enthusiasts who have (illegally) shown how you can do stuff like sit in the back seat / watch a movie / fall asleep / etc and the car does fine (except, obviously, for the times it doesn't). -Paul
[2020-09-23 18:35:35] - paul: i voted by mail (mail or an attended deposit box). in arlington, my ballot arrived on saturday and i voted on sunday. ~a
[2020-09-23 18:33:47] - paul: i don't think you'll lose for sure, i just think the bet isn't as for sure either way as i once thought it was. ~a
[2020-09-23 18:33:26] - paul: regarding the model 3 and level 3, i don't think it does "The car senses when conditions require the driver to retake control and provides a 'sufficiently comfortable transition time' for the driver to do so". level 3 you're expected to keep your hands on the wheel at all times. maybe that will change. ~a
[2020-09-23 18:32:43] - paul: 5 years is a long time, but both levels are going to be hard for you, because of where we are now: the model 3 does neither level in my opinion, but especially not the level 4. level 4: " The vehicle performs all safety-critical functions for the entire trip, with the driver not expected to control the vehicle at any time." ... level 4 can be unoccupied. ~a
[2020-09-23 18:30:02] - a: Wait, you voted already? In person? I haven't gotten my mail-in ballot yet. -Paul
[2020-09-23 16:37:28] - a: "what do you think?" I need to read up more on the topic (including your link). I can say I am cautiously optimistic? At the same time, I kinda assume any potential solution is going to eventually get abused as well (somehow). -Paul
[2020-09-23 16:36:36] - a: "i'm like 90% sure the model 3 does not do this" Hmmm, based on what you wrote, I would think the Model 3 does. What do you think it doesn't handle? Regardless, I think my best bet for winning the bet is the level 4 for under $30k by 2025. What are the requirements for level 4? I'm also hoping the self driving capabilities get better in the next 5 years. -Paul
[2020-09-23 14:59:00] - also, i already voted, so this conversation won't change the outcome of my ballot
~a[2020-09-23 14:54:27] - link ~a
[2020-09-23 14:51:55] - paul: there are high-profile virginia democrats on both sides of the issue. for instance tim kaine and donald beyer (my us representative) are both FOR it. but a number of virginia democrats are AGAINST it, like the whole fucking "democratic party of virginia". also, republicans are on both sides of the issue too, but mostly for it? "Virginia League of Conservation Voters" is FOR. what do you think? ~a
[2020-09-23 14:46:09] - paul: (regarding the original level 3 definition = $20k) "The driver can fully cede control of all safety-critical functions in certain conditions. The car senses when conditions require the driver to retake control and provides a 'sufficiently comfortable transition time' for the driver to do so." just confirming, you think the model 3 currently does this? i'm like 90% sure the model 3 does not do this. you have an uphill battle, imo. ~a
[2020-09-23 13:26:57] - a: I got something in the mail about the gerrymandering thing just yesterday. It's the first I've heard of it. I know next to nothing about it. Do you know anything? Thought it was interesting that it apparently came from the Republican party... -Paul
[2020-09-23 01:26:13] - a: Ironically, it might be the "EV" part that makes the $20k price tag hard to hit, despite the fact that the bet itself doesn't specify it has to be an EV. -Paul
[2020-09-23 01:24:57] - a: https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/22/tesla-says-its-battery-innovations-will-deliver-its-goal-of-a-25000-mass-market-electric-car/ "We’re confident we can make a very, very compelling $25,000 electric vehicle, that’s also fully autonomous" It's Elon (he of the missed deadlines), but there's hope for my bet yet. -Paul
[2020-09-22 18:00:13] - Thats why a machine learning ai where we literally don't know all the factors its using might be best. Just run enough tests with it so that it stops giving wildly terrible ones and have the requirement be that the human selection committee actively must choose one of its options maybe through some ranked choice type thing. -Daniel
[2020-09-22 17:58:13] - a: I'm not entirely sure how to answer that. I don't think political or racial makeups should be used but I'm not sure how that can be enforced. I'm ok on some level with communities being considered but that to some degree is just a backdoor potentially into the first two. Density makes some sense to consider but I don't know that it can be the primary without just relegating all rural areas. -Daniel
[2020-09-22 17:41:12] - daniel: honestly i'd be fine removing the geographic boundaries entirely, but i still think people need to be close to their polling places and geographic boundaries can help with that. to be clear, though, you don't think racial or political or community boundaries/densities/makeups should be used to determine voting lines? ~a
[2020-09-22 17:39:05] - I agree that fair is a hard word. I don't think anything would ever be completely fair partly because defining fair is just a matter of perception. I don't think I particularly care about geographic boundaries. I'm not sure. Maybe give a machine learning AI the responsibility to come up with 5 choices and a committee of humans is required to choose among them? Then let the AI see which ones get picked over time and refine itself.-Daniel
[2020-09-22 17:22:23] - a: ultimately, I think it's pretty important to get a definition of fair. Because if you don't, it just gives people a license to complain when there are legitimately anomalous results they don't like. - mig
prev <-> next