There are way more people who can attempt a hack than can attempt to break in.

To an extent, institutional inertia. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Adopting new systems brings in a layer of uncertainty, sure maybe there is some upside to the new system, but does it outweigh the risk and cost of overhauling all the dependencies of the old system? Can you be sure that all the relevant stakeholders and partners will be onboard with the new system, or will some reject it and insist on the old system, thus requiring everyone to maintain two standards.

It’s much easier to adopt a new system when the old system is clearly non-functional and untrustworthy, or when there just wasn’t an earlier system that did that function in a given economic environment. The more important the institution, the more issue it causes if it fails, the more this applies.

I saw a take that was just “he has no attention span, the only way to get him to care is to make it feel engaging and exciting”

And thus the idea of the attack was crafted to get him re-invested in the war. To make him see it as important and not just an annoying thing he wants to go away. And… given that kegseth went with him… yah… feels like a stunt.

They rebranded “Economic rent” to make it trendy. Adam smith is creating a vortex in his grave.

30% of the country are stuck in isolated suburban hellscapes where their main source of information is Fox News, talk radio, and online echo chambers full of people who do the same. Another 30% are also stuck in isolated suburban hellscapes but they’re not stuck in the same dis-information loop.

Using solar energy directly is also always an option, a fresnel lens or convex mirror are great for heating things. You can even make things cold using an absorption cycle cooler (the kind of things used in “propane powered” camper fridges)

No, it’s not a start, it’s what we’re currently doing. It’s just a rebranding of the currently non-functional system.

It’s not good, it’s actually deceitful to suggest this nonsense in place of an already compromise solution. An income tax being branded as a wealth tax is just nonsense distraction from people who want the appearance of being progressive without actually supporting anything that might bother their wealthy donors.

He’s wrong about his proposal actually doing anything, his suggestion is an income tax, not a wealth tax.

His proposal isn’t actually a wealth tax though, it’s basically just an income tax only applied to people with billions of dollars in wealth, which means nothing since people at that level of wealth don’t make incomes that can be taxed meaningfully.

Windsock, toothless proposal. How can anyone trust this guy given how often he reverses his positions to chance headlines?

He’s not even proposing a wealth tax, his suggestion is literally toothless because it focuses on taxing income of billionaires more, which we already know doesn’t work because they don’t make an income.

His proposal is basically just to tax income at a higher rate on people who have a billion dollars of wealth, which is not a wealth tax, it’s an income tax.

Which is meaningless because people with a billion dollars in wealth don’t really take taxable incomes, they take out loans against assets, or dump enough money in to a money loosing enterprise to counter the income they take from their assets, or they donate all their income to a “charity” which they’re on the board of and basically pays for their lifestyle. Or a million other things you can get away with assuming you have enough money to higher a good tax dodge specialist. Says he wants to patch those loop holes, but there will always be more.

The whole point of a wealth tax is that it’s supposed to create a passive downward pressure on their accumulation of wealth, which income tax doesn’t do, because people don’t build wealth through income, they build wealth through assets.

I think that it’s not that people refuse to use new tech, I think it’s more that most of what is coming out is just worse in terms of usability and functionality in a lot of ways. Not so much a rejection of innovation, but a rejection of the priorities that major industry players have decided on. Like, “improvement” is relative, and what people care about isn’t being improved or actively being regressed.

They’re making bad products, and people don’t want them.

I mean, NYC has a fairly healthy level of pedestrian traffic in most areas. Times Square is mostly just full of tourists. I’m not as familiar with Tokyo but my understanding is a a lot of the more dense areas have a sort of 2/3 level layout of commercial, but there is level interconnects or they’re set up in conjunction with transit. So like, there are fairly large underground commercial strips at subway level, or sky bridges between blocks for 2nd story commercial.

Yah but you’re gonna need a lot of escalators and they’re gonna be very congested. Like, I’m sure it can be made to work, I just question the wisdom of having the commercial be separated out like that.

I mean, that’s kind a huge issue in Hong Kong, like, how concentrated the commercial areas get. Creates a lot of unnecessarily long travel from housing to commercial, culminating in a lot of pedestrian congestion along stairways, elevators and escalators.

I don’t think that the first level would be enough TBH. Like; it would probably have to be 2 or 3 stories of commercial to serve just the bare minimum needs of that volume of people, and now half your commercial is off street level, complicating pathing from public transit.

Also, it’s tennis, what I assume is racket ball, a swimming pool and a couple basket ball court, so I think it’s actually a pretty good variety of activities, but still, not enough space for the volume of people, if all the blocks around it were the same density and had different varieties of activity, there still just wouldn’t be enough recreational space for the volume of people, even if the variety was absurd between them all.

Like, maybe the density is warranted somewhere like hongkong where the government is largely funded by land sales, so maximizing the density is important for making the land sale valuable enough to fund social services, but like, there’s just not enough visible recreation and comercial, maybe they’ve got a strip underground by a subway station or something. I’d be curious how they make this work.

Not gonna lie, I don’t think that’s enough recreation space for the number of units there.

And I don’t see any commercial space at all. That’s got to be enough units for several thousand people. Like, think about how much store space would be needed to make sure they could get all their groceries.

I mean, he still won a significant majority even with the vote split. And he won a majority In precincts that trump won In the election.

A more interesting question is, if there had been a been serious candidate to the left of Harris in the general election, would she have polled more like coumo did?

I don’t think it’s safe to assume that she would have won more votes than mamadani did in the same situation. And comparing the outcomes of a national 2 candidate race to a local 3 candidate race is not really telling you anything unless you introduce the counterfactuals and do polling to fill in those gaps.

Right now we’re seeing a lot of polling showing democrat socialists candidates outperforming corporate democrats in a lot of battle ground and purplish red states. Arguably attempting to appeal to coumo type voters damaged Harris’s chances In battle ground states by alienating unaffiliated voters.

I mean. They do pay them in the form of taxes. And also in the form of small donor donations to campaigns.

In some campaigns the large donations from rich donors are more significant than the total from small dominoes, but that’s not always the case.