but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.

Can you talk about what are those effective alternatives that have been suppressed you are referring to as a replacement for the current IP scheme?

The new thing is being able to have unlimited growth starting at birth, not capped at $35k like 529 rollover.

But yeah he didn’t think up some grand new idea haha as if that would even be possible

I doubt trump came up with anything at all. This was likely someone else’s idea the knew they had a good chance of getting it into law by polluting it with trump’s stupid name on it.

It is a delicate balance posting detailed information here on Lemmy. I’ve been downvoted for posting too much info so a level of brevity is a necessity to communicating here. I assumed everyone knew that inflation occurs over 65 years of life. I gave one example of calculations to show the impact on saving early these accounts allow. Further scenarios or depth are left as an exercise to the reader.

Do you want kids watching it too? How about Bluey throwing Nazi salutes or Paw Patrol using racial slurs? Even worse if you were looking to buy a legitimate cartoon for your kid, there would be nothing to tell you which you were buying. Anyone could claim full ownership of these characters and sell them doing horrible stuff and nothing you do as a parent could protect your kids unless you first bought each, then watched it yourself, before your kid watched it.

Which, by the way, is achievable with a 529 account, which has been around for a long time. Any funds not used for education can be rolled into an IRA in adulthood.

Thats incorrect.

First, rolling unused 529 funds into an IRA was only achievable with the passage of the SAVE act in 2024 (just 2 years ago) this function hasn’t been around for a long time. Second, the lifetime maximum dollars you can roll in is capped at $35k. I don’t think many would consider that enough for retirement. source

He does nothing for altruistic reasons.

I completely agree with this statement.

if it appears to benefit others, it is either a side effect, or a useful illusion.

Side effect in this case. He gets to put his stupid vanity name on something, and his buddies in the investment industry get a new channel for investment funds.

The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.

Intellectual property is a term that wraps a whole bunch of things (copyright, trademarks, patents). Are you fully aware of the impact how abolishing all IP would negative affect society?

Copyright prevents the KKK from producing and selling Pokemon cartoons with Pikachu supporting stupid shit like white supremecy propaganda. Are you sure you want that protection gone?

Information and ideas intrinsically accrue value the more they’re known and used, and the incentives provided around their collation and attribution should embody that, not punish them with imaginary locks that provide ownership.

Lets just take the patents portion of IP for a moment. The first part of what you’re asking for here is exactly what patents do. To have something patented, the patent holder has to fully document the machine/process/method to create the patented item. This is that mechnism that enables the “more known and used”. Society gains this knowledge because the owner fully shares it. A design patent can last for only 14 or 15 years (depending on filing date). The longest type of patent (Utility) lasts only 20 years. After as few as 14 years everyone can use this knowledge without any fees/restrictions/payments.

This is a be-careful-what-you-wish for situation with what you’re asking for here. There are companies choosing NOT to file patents anymore and simply keep their methods secret. Since they methods aren’t patented they are under no obligation to ever share them publicly. There is a very real chance that many of these technologies/methods may be unknown to society at large for long after the term of normal patent protection would have expired and society would have been able to use the knowledge.

EDIT: I was trying to think of a good example of a company that agrees with your stance about not patenting and I remembered one. Elon Musk is choosing not to patent SpaceX rocket engines because it would force him to document how they work. Instead they are just keeping the designs secret. So your desire to not have patents used are advocating for what Elon Musk does.

I hate the trump spilled his whole stupid name across these IRS tax law supported accounts, but the accounts themselves are an incredible resource for kids future.

Here’s an example. Age 65 is when many retire. Lets say these accounts existed when our example retiree was born. If there was a single one-time deposit of $1000 in the year of their birth in 1961, those funds were put into a boring S&P 500 fund, and never another contribution besides that first one for their entire life. The retiree would have $687,502 in retirement savings today in 2026. That’s three times the median of most retirees, and all with only a single $1000 saved for retirement.

CBS News is now equal to Fox News in my mind. Both are worthless and the best action is to ignore them.

Just one:

Commodore 1701 Monitor 13"

Carbon-free energy.

This is a yellow pages which lists things by subject, category, or type of site. If you can tell me what category/subject/type would zombo com be, and I’ll look it up and let you know.

“The 90s” is too large a time for a single answer for this. I’d divide it into 3 different answers:

1990-1993 - This is the Pre-World Wide Web. Yes, the internet before web browsers! Internet access was the easiest and most accessible for university students and those in academia. You would have a “shell account” which would get you email, FTP, Telnet (which could offer real-time chat), and Gopher (which was the Betamax of the Web). Those not at university could access parts of this through paid online services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, or America Online (AOL). BBSes of the day also had access to a type of Internet email called Fidonet, which allowed BBS users to send and receive email (with huge batch delays) to internet users.

1993-1995 - The web is born! The web was now a thing, however it was being bolted on to the existing technology of the day. For home computers Windows 3.1 was the largest OS in use and MacOS had a smaller following. Linux had just entered the public consciousness at this time with the release of the first Linux Slackware release. This is the first time most people had ever bought a modem for their computer and dialed out. This era had some horrible teething issues like IRQs being shared or exhausted (if you had too many peripherals) where you could stop your printer or soundcard from working by using your modem. The software was equally bad. Windows didn’t come with TCP/IP. One common example was Trumpet Winsock to bring TCP/IP functionality to Windows with a SLIP or PPP connection. The first web browser NCSA Mosaic was release! The web is born! Netscape Navigator, initially release free, then became a paid app. Yes, you had to buy your web browser.

Many regular people would purchase their software tools to get online with this product (IP support, dialer, browser)

1995-1999 - The internet age is upon us! People were buying computers for the first time just to get online. Windows 95 (with the sold separately Microsoft Plus pack) was released which was the first version of Windows to include all the software parts needed to get online (OS, dialer, browser). “Surfing the internet” and “Computer hacking” had now enter the popular vocabulary. BTW, almost no one who hobbied at computing called it “surfing the internet”. That ended up being a type of anti-shibboleth. If someone said it, you knew they were a poser. Since regular people were now getting online you ended up having some weird cross-over products like this book. Again, no one that was a regular user would buy this, but when I was working in a retail computer store in the 90s, I can’t tell you how many copies of this I saw go out the door with a cheap Packard Bell computer bundle

Decades later I bought an old copy of this. In its pages is a time capsule of what the internet looked like at the time.

We had a small wedding with just the bride and groom. We spend $1700 CAD ($1,275 USD) for ours and that included the photographer and his assistant. The agreed time was only 60 minutes. However our wonderful photographer spent probably 2 hours with us. He kept taking us other places at the venue for more pictures on his own. He took amazing pictures!

If you have a larger wedding party, or are planning on having travel time necessary between pictures, your $3000 sounds reasonable to me. There is likely a large regional pricing variation though.

This is what we did and we really liked the outcome.

What I hadn’t considered was that photographer that normally works that venue knows all the best places for photos, and for any time of day that your event happens. You have a limited amount of time with the photographer on the day of the event so you can’t spend time on a new photographer learning whats available or where the best light is. A photographer that normally works the venue also usually has a good relationship with the staff there. We got access to places for pictures in the venue normally off limits to the public because of the photographer and who he knew.

Our venue had 3 different photographers they recommended and we asked those photographers for examples from their portfolios at the venue. It was great to see the different styles of each one and be able to pick what style matched our preference for photos.

We knew we picked right when the photographer show up not only with his assistant, but brought his own sled for pulling all his camera and lighting gear through the snow at the venue. If your photographer can get some shots of the married couple at dusk while it is gently snowing with a backdrop of frost capped mountains and a river in the valley below, I recommend doing so.

This is “open” source and it was the main reason it got forked (lots of proprietary bits included as binary, impossible to send a PR, obfuscated code)

Wasn’t this methodology the whole reason GPL 2 evolved to GPL 3 because Tivo was doing this exact thing? They used the underlying open source free work of others, but then wrap their own contributions in priopriatry binaries not distributed with source code. This method wasn’t in violation of the letter of GPL rules even though it was clearly a violation of the spirit of the GPL rules.

How are they able to skirt the GPL 3 rules this time?

I certainly understand why folks don’t what that in their backyard. However, that sounds like a really great source of free heat to tap for commercial scale greenhouses in the winter time. I see theres a small deployment of this in Paris.

Why did they think they could do crime to procure a signature on a contract which will be binding in the eyes of the law? Did they think the contract was a spell, and the signature a magical incantation to break the spell?

Prosecutors allege rapper Pooh Shiesty, born Lontrell Williams Jr, led the ambush under the guise of a meeting, holding Mane captive inside a recording studio and forcing him to sign papers releasing him from his contract.

Wow, not smart to do this at a recording studio which likely has cameras all over the place.

“Within hours of leaving the Dallas studio, a number of the defendants were on social media displaying some of the items that appeared to be the jewellery that had been robbed from the victims,” Raybould said.

So self incrimination too, nice.

Huh. So you weren’t answering my posted question, but picking out the first sentence in my post. Thank you for clarifying your statement.

Okay, we have nothing further to talk about then.

First, thank you for posting sources to support your claim. I looked at most of them.

Democrats are on the hunt for their own Joe Rogan from May 2025

The tagline on the article says: “Party leaders and mega-donors want to counter MAGA’s online momentum by recreating a digital right-wing ecosystem for the left”

Okay so Party Leaders and megadonors want this right? But the article continues…

“As Democrats plot a return from the electoral wilderness, a growing chorus of party figures has begun to push for a liberal-leaning alternative to the right’s digital dominance.”

So gone are the megadonors now, and we’re down to “party figures”. What happened to the megadonors? The article actually tells us…

“That belief has led to party mega-donors being ‘inundated with overtures’ to open their wallets for the development of an ‘army of left-leaning online influencers.’”

Okay, so the megadonors aren’t asking a Demo-Rogan, someone is asking megadonors to pay for a Demo-Rogan. But so far we still have no names of any of the cited “party leaders”. However we do have a named Democrat figure that is against a Demo-Rogan:

“The notion that victory is possible if they ‘spend enough billionaire money’ to create a Rogan equivalent ‘speaking in Democratic talking points’ is ‘laughable,’ said Emily Jashinsky at UnHerd.”

This supports my statement.

If you do run across the unnamed party leaders, I’d be interested in knowing who they are.

Democrats seeking to buy the ‘next Joe Rogan’ of the left after 2024 election defeat also May 2025

Sorry, I don’t consider Fox News as a news source. I skipped this one.

Could This 20-Year-Old Be One of the Democrats’ Bro Whisperers? from December 2024

I don’t have a NYT subscription so I couldn’t read the whole article, but the part I could read was talking about a young man with a politics driving youtube channel. I don’t consider that a Democratic Joe Rogan.

Can Democrats win back podcasting? We asked 6 popular show hosts to weigh in from November 2024

The article author openly says he’s not asking for a Demo-Rogan.

“Also, the idea of a ‘liberal Joe Rogan’ has been floated a lot since the election and I don’t want to just parrot that since it’s not really what I mean”.

Note: The “the idea of a liberal Joe Rogan” is a hyperlink to yet another article. I read that one too. There’s no claim of a Demo-Rogan there either. The closest the author gets to is this:

"If liberals ever hope to compete with such a successful messaging apparatus, they’re going to have to do more than create clones of Crooked Media. They will have to elevate, or build from the ground up, captivating public figures who connect with vast audiences including, but not limited to, disaffected young men—and entertain the hell out of them. "

Lowry: The Left can’t create a new Joe Rogan

That last article actually supports my position, not yours. It says this:

“Progressives are correct about the power of Rogan and his cohort of bro podcasters, but they don’t understand how thoroughly anathema their ideology and cultural sensibility are to this kind of programming. If Left did manage to create a progressive Joe Rogan in a lab, as soon as he said something controversial out in the wild, he’d be subject to cancelation.”

It’s definitely been a topic for a couple of years now.

At least from the articles you posted that is more of a incorrect statement than correct. Yes, I see how you came to that conclusion and in some very narrow readings there are pieces of truth but, I think your premise is disingenuous to claim to be generally true. Keep in mind, I’m not attacking you as a person. I’m not calling you a bad person. I just disagree with your conclusions.

The idea of Demo-Rogan messaging is a repeat of the 1990s where Al Frankin and others created [“Air America”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(radio_network) to counter the Republican mouthpiece of the day Rush Limbaugh. Air America failed there too for the same reason a Demo-Rogan would today. Democrats don’t tune into radio for half truths and empty open ridicule of the GOP even though the GOP richly deserves ridicule, especially with trump in office.

I stand by my original statement.

Democrats spent the last year asking where their Joe Rogan was.

I have never once heard anyone say that before reading it here. Rogan is an ill-informed person that uses his significant audience to spread misinformation and modern day mysticism against actual science while at the same time gives a platform to some truly horrible people.

Why on Earth would Democrats want that for themselves?