Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)F
Posts
1
Comments
690
Joined
3 mo. ago

  • You haven't really explained how Musk could ever be poor and homeless?

    Any billionaire could discard their wealth "state side" or in a bunch of countries and still be obscenely wealthy.

    If you could press a button and instantly delete all of his wealth the world over, he could land a well paid board position with any number of large companies who would pay him many millions just because his name would increase share holder sentiment.

    He could just call any multimillionaire who has benefited from his association and say "hey I'm destitute, can you give me a place to stay and some pocket money" and they would gladly agree.

    Musk will never be poor and homeless.

    Tldr:

    You seem to be arguing against a claim that you imagined I made, and / or seem to exist in an alternate reality with dragons and guillotines.

    Logically I don’t understand how I can help you understand this, and that’s the only way I know to explain things, I’m sorry.

  • Sure. I didnt say musk couldn't be assassinated or otherwise disposed of. Im responding to the commenter that wanted him homeless and poor.

    Regardless, things have changed somewhat since the French revolution. A population cant simply rise up and start guillotining billionaires. They can literally just fly away.

    Not to mention they effectively control the minds of the population that would take up arms against them.

  • No i think the comment is less direct than that.

    For much of government, the underlying objective is to contribute to GDP. For example, funding healthcare means a healthier population who can be more productive.

    So by saying "this policy won't contribute to GDP" its a very general way to say this is not what's best for your population.

    At least I think thats what theyre saying.

    As an aside, savings dont directly improve GDP, by definition.

  • Sure but Musk will never be homeless and poor.

  • When people generally carried cash they would've been reluctant to pay with a card if it was 2% more expensive.

    When banks provide a business with a card reader, they want that business and it's customers to use it - if customers continue to use cash then the bank isn't getting 2% on those sales. So they did their best to avoid card charges being passed on to the customer. The business would pay the 2%, and just build it in to all their pricing.

    Depending on jurisdiction maybe the clerk could add a card fee manually, but my point is the merchants weren't encouraging it.

    Now that people generally don't carry cash, the banks / merchants are in competition with each other rather than competing with cash. About 5 years ago a new merchant / card facility operator emerged in Australia which gave businesses the option of automagically adding the charge to sales, so the customer would pay instead of the business owner.

    For a restaurant or something that's a pretty great deal. For even a relatively small restaurant with a half dozen staff, it might be a third or half of one annual salary in savings.

    The majority of restaurants in my area have changed over to merchant facilities offering this type of fee structure.

    In the long run, customers aren't really paying more. Restaurants are always going to charge as much as they can. If every restaurant is doing the same thing then everyone is on equal footing, charging as much as they can, just like before when everyone absorbed these fees.

  • Thats... not really on the cards.

  • This looks quite cool. We don't have anything like this here.

    Ours come in 2 forms.

    The first is just a designated shoulder - a line on the side of the road, no physical barrier, but formally designated with markings. These are meaningless to cars and I'm certain that almost all drivers (and cyclists) don't realise that there's any difference between this and an ordinary road shoulder.

    The second is really daft. It's basically a lane marked on the pavement in the right of this video. It stops at every intersection, so each section is only 1 block long and then you just become pedestrian traffic and have to negotiate intersections.

    No solution is perfect and I can see some potential issues here but it's pretty good.

  • Is it people who make money without a job

    No.

    I'm an accountant and spend all day every day looking at, thinking about, and talking about people's businesses.

    Keep in mind we're not talking about multinational conglomerates owned by billionaires, but real businesses that people have bought, inherited, or created because they thought they could make money doing it or because they're passionate about it.

    Firstly, most businesses are not successful, at least not monetarily. Secondly, those which are successful required loads of money, or effort, or rare qualifications, and luck.

    The thing you're up against is day 1 economic theory - everyone wants to make money with the least effort. Everyone. In that sense you're competing with everyone else on the planet.

    I suspect that the kind of entrepreneur you're thinking of started with many millions from Mum and Dad.

    You might be interested in the "Financial Independence / Retire Early" (FIRE) school of thought, but this basically involves working like everyone else but being smarter with your spare money.

  • Sorry chief.

    Its to enable them to see more patients in less time, and to sell bullshit additional services.

  • I went to visit my GP about a year ago and he said something like "We're trialling this AI thing that's going to listen to our conversation if that's ok".

    I like the guy and understand that most people don't really understand tech so I said something like "I'd prefer we disabled it if that's ok". He reacted as though I'd asked to finger his butt hole.

    I spared him the following rant but... I just don't understand why anyone would actually want that. I want a doctor that listens to me when I talk to him. If he actually remembered me and kind of got to know me over the years that would be a bonus but it's not really necessary.

    I just want to talk to a human and have that human listen to me.

    I do not want an LLM to listen in and prompt the GP to refer me to their in-house dietician because I mentioned I'm feeling a bit flat.

  • I feel like the libs had a car accident at the last election and have been on life support ever since, but they've just decided to turn off the machine.

  • Depends on the nature of the catastrophe and how long you want me to survive.

    I live in a regional area with loads of farms and produce.

    However, if the area is overrun with refugees then it gets much more difficult - a question of protecting a farm or something, and i have no skills or experience in that regard.

  • Someone needed a report to figure out that these people are vile?

  • You don't really.

    Skepticism is a practiced skill, rather than just "being skeptical", you can learn how to assess credibility of a source, and develop a habit of doing so.

    I quite like skeptics guide to the universe podcast. Although I admit I usually skip chunks of each episode.

    Another avenue is researching about cognitive biases. We all do it.

  • If you're happy then who cares.

    As long as you feel able to raise and resolve any issues, then you're fine.

  • Fantastic.

  • Internal combustion engines.

    If we only had the electric motor public transport would've been the norm rather than cars.

    We'd be in way better shape now.

  • The "as we know it" is doing a lot of work.

    In a nuclear war loads of people wouldn't die but would love unhappily ever after.

  • Good one. Mass religion with priests and offerings et cetera is responsible for a while lot of shit.