Hopefully instead of turning into a bunch of e-waste, a bunch of “useless” desktops flood refurbishers, and refurbished desktops become even cheaper. I wouldn’t mind replacing my dying media server.

https://youtu.be/i8ju_10NkGY

I wouldn’t be surprised if this backfires a bit. The reason most publishers/IP holders don’t go after videos on youtube and twitch is because it’s basically free advertisement for your game.

If this behavior leads to people holding back on making nintendo based content, it could fuck them over in the long run. If you were a streamer or youtuber, would you feel particularly comfortable making videos and streaming nintendo games?

I know I wouldn’t. There is no guarantee that nintendo actually puts effort into determining whether you are using an emulator or not. And even for the people who do use emulators, they may not be looking to continue making nintendo content.

A land value tax is a good tool to help ease the transition away from landlords, but it alone is not enough.

Regardless, we definitely should be primarily relying on LVT for government income.

property managers are taking care of all that for you, and if that’s not a job I honestly don’t know what is.

Nobody is saying property management isn’t a job. But that property manager probably works for a real estate company, owned by the rich.

It’s that last part that’s the issue. The residents should collectively own the housing, not the rich.

There is a finite amount of hotdogs that can be sold and we are selling FAR FEWER than that.

You’ve missed the point.

And you claimed GDP is irrelevant twice without any argumentation.

Then you didn’t read:

https://lemmy.world/comment/9410104

If sustainable survival is your only goal, go live in a forest.

I’m saying it should be the goal of the economy instead of the current situation in which the only goal is everlasting, ever growing profit.

And I would go live in the woods if I could, but I can’t afford to do that.

As for your ridiculous hot dog analogy, are you saying as it is now, everyone in the world has as many hotdogs as they want? If not, there is obviously value in making more.

I am saying that there is a finite amount of hotdogs that can be sold per unit of time. Therefore it is a zero sum game. Therefore acquisition of wealth means taking away wealth from others.

Also, I don’t care how many times you say GDP is not a good metric because it is not fitting your narrative. It is a good upper bound on how much value is produced. You can’t wish it away just because it proves you wrong.

It doesn’t prove me wrong. You’ve seen the above graph. You know the wealth is allocated in the hands of the rich. The GDP is irrelevant.

I’ve explained it to you twice now, and if it is beyond your graph then that’s on you.

So you are explaining why the rich get less than what I calculated

No. Not even close. I’m explaining that GDP is a terrible metric to look at this problem. You need to look at wealth holdings. And the rich own basically all wealth.

The whole point is people are obsessed by the rich having ridiculous wealth on paper because of owning companies, but them owning companies does not take anything away from society.

So this is wrong in two ways. The first bit with “wealth on paper” is wrong, because the rich own the wealth. Loads of it are tied up in stocks, sure, but it is still wealth. And they use it like we use other fiat currencies, so to them stocks are just as “real” as USD is “real”.

The second is that the economy is a finitely expandable pool that is itself finite. So it is ultimately a zero sum game.

There is a limited number of hot dogs that can be sold in a year. Every hot dog sold by vendor A is a hotdog that cannot be sold by vendor B. You can advertise and brainwash the population into buying more hotdogs, but there is a limit to how many people will buy hotdogs. Every stock that is owned by rich asshat A is a stock that cannot be owned by worker B.

So yes, the rich owning all the wealth directly takes away from the rest of us.

The factories produce goods for people and who receive the goods is determined by who buys the goods which is determined mainly by income, not wealth.

“Who is able to buy X” isn’t a relevant question to the problem of wealth inequality/hoarding.

Or let me put it in different words: Let’s say you and I have the same wage across our lives.

This analogy immediately falls apart, because I earn about $40/hr.

Bezos collects the equivalent of about $8,000,000/hr.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-made-over-7-172628289.html

That is grotesque. It is not the same wage. The stock market, the economy, and all the wealth is owned by the rich.

We need to fix this.

Should I be taxed more then you?

The only taxes we should have should be a land value tax, and a pollution/carbon tax.

It helps everyone become richer by increasing the overall economic output.

The stock market doesn’t increase economic output, not do I care if it does. Economic output should not be the goal. Sustainable human survival should be.

I agree that the specifics are important, but it is honestly just tiring trying to keep track of the countless loopholes that the rich use. The end result is that I know there is horseshit going on, but I just don’t have the time to always give a thoroughly researched answer every time.

That’s the exact kind of shit we need to end.

Ok, lets do some math. The GDP of the US is $28 trillion.

You shouldn’t be using GDP for this, as GDP is a notoriously bad metric for understanding the flow of wealth. If I pay you $100 to wash my car and you pay me $100 to wash your car, the GDP of our actions is $200 even though both of our wealth is unchanged. GDP is simply a measure of how fast money is circulating.

You need to be looking at that actual allocation of the wealth, as the rich like to use a myriad of loopholes to obfuscate their acquisitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Second of all, some of the biggest traders on the stock market are pension funds of common workers, appreciating their retirement money.

“The rich now own a record share of stocks,” Axios reported on January 10, noting that the top 10 percent hold about 93 percent of U.S. households stock market wealth.

https://ips-dc.org/the-richest-1-percent-own-a-greater-share-of-the-stock-market-than-ever-before/

You’re being misleading, or have been misleading about the allocation of wealth within the stock market.

Retirement should be a public service, not a form of gambling within a system set up for the rich.

Why are we somehow better of not having a stock market at all instead of fixing it to fulfill its purpose?

Because it would be one less way for the rich to obfuscate their wealth growth, because the original purpose of distributing ownership through shares is an inherently flawed idea.

Do you regularly throw away things without getting a replacement when they stop working?

“Why would we get rid of the orphan killing machine!?!?!? We would have to replace it with a new one.”

Original intention isn’t relevant when the current purpose is to fuck over anybody who isn’t the rich.

Why should we have a stock market in the first place? Seems like all it does is act as a means for the rich to shuffle their wealth around, funnel it to the top and claim they have next to no liquidity.

We also need to end bullshit loopholes like that. Bonuses, benefits, stocks, everything and anything in-between needs to be counted as income.

Doesn’t matter if your employer pays you in bananas or bitcoin, everything the employer does to reward an employee must be counted.

Given that multiple other commenters in the infosec.exchange thread have reproduced similar results, and right wingers tend to have bad security, and LLMs are pretty much impossible to fully control for now, it seems most likely that it’s real.

Jammers only work against remote controlled drones. Autonomous ones have no such issue. And jammers are never a problem against civilians, which tech like this will eventually be used on.

If I had to guess, the government has had this tech since at least the early 2000s. The CIA has been doing shady ass shit since their inception, and shit like that is probably only the tip of the iceberg of what they currently have. Though they’re probably using something closer to grenades than in that film, as 1 drone to 1 kill probably isn’t enough.

That short film is one of only a few that has stuck with me.

And for those uses they aren’t getting phased out:

Surprisingly, there is a whole slew of exempt special-purpose bulbs that will continue to be manufactured, according to the Energy Department. Here’s what manufacturers can still build and stores can continue selling:

Appliance lamps, including fridge and oven lights

Black lights

Bug lamps

Colored lamps

Infrared lamps

Left-handed thread lamps

Plant lights

Floodlights

Reflector lamps

Showcase lamps

Traffic signals

Some other specialty lights, including marine lamps and some odd-sized bulbs

Exactly. From this particular article/policy:

Similarly, it projects that the rules could cut carbon emissions by 222 million metric tons over the next 30 years.

If the death penalty exists and corps are people, why aren’t companies being executed?

Imgur seems to be around still at least.

For now

You don’t owe reddit anything.

Here is my current setup. It’s an old Ender 3, has a BLtouch, direct drive dual gear, all metal hot end, and an extension cable for the control panel. I have an adapter as well to use it as a plotter.

As with most 3D printers it seems, it is currently broken lmao.