• 0 Posts
  • 476 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle

  • This one seems very equal to me. Its a usually a tragedy to lose someone of either gender. I’m not upset if a rapist or murderer commits suicide, however, irrespective of their gender.

    I don’t really get your point here, but there is something like 3x more men suicide than women suicide, and this is pretty much true everywhere in the world: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/male-female-ratio-suicides-rates

    My point is that neither men’s nor women’s suicide are dismissed. A woman committing suicde is an equal tradegy to a man committing suicide. I’m not aware of any social convention which dismisses men’s suicide. This is what I meant when I said they are equal. Society treats men’s and women’s suicide the same.

    I’m not following where this is a detriment to men. Statistically and my own anecdotal observation, women are much more negatively affected by job inequality.

    It really depends on the fields, you’re right in most, pretty much all, cases it is a detriment for women, but for example when it is about working with children men get less hired, and even when they get hired they have to be really careful about what they do, they quickly get called pedophiles.

    First, you’re right on your very specific example, but that is a very very very small representation of job inequality. However, even in the case of male and female elementary school teachers where you’re calling out discrimnation, it is men that are out earning women in the same jobs as elementary school teachers.

    Further, the scare around male teachers being around young children is a construct mostly from the last 20 to 25 years. Trying to use that as a statement to suggest that there is equal job (and pay!!) discrimination against both men and women would be disingenuous.

    I can’t say I see that reflected in society. What I do see are some calling out specific issues (at least one you’ve raised above) as recently negatively affecting men, while the same issue has been negatively affecting women far worse and for far longer and that it had been ignored. It comes off as lack of self reflection and disingenuous where men have allowed women to suffer for years (decades? centuries?), but as soon as men are experiencing it too, its a crisis now!

    When you complain about something happening to you as a men pretty much all the time either people tell you to “just man up” and/or they even just laugh at your face.

    What you’re describing is an example of “toxic masculinity”. I see a lot of irony in you citing it here as supportive of a position that would negate the argument of discrimnation against women vs men.

    In short, we both agree that “just man up” is a problem and that philosophy should be discarded, but it isn’t on women to fix that when its largely perpetuated by men.

    Certainly not all, but certainly lots and lots of bad things. Only 13 of the 193 UN member nations have ever had a woman leader of the nation. source I don’t see how anyone can say women are to blame for that, nor the policies those world leaders put into place.

    People in power are responsible for most of the bad things in the world, the fact that they are mostly men doesn’t mean all men are responsible for this,

    Strawman. I didn’t say because men are in charge that all men are responsible. Thats a common strawman on this topic. Please don’t introduce it here.

    women in power do lot of bad things too(Indira Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Park Geun-hye, Elizabeth Holmes to name a few), but it’s because of the power and individuals values they have not because of their gender.

    You’re straying pretty far from the topic here. This isn’t “women leaders good, men leaders bad”. The point you’re replying to is specifically in the context of defining public policy in which discrimination occurs. There have been so few women leaders, and their tenue in modern politics so short that I’m not sure if we can really measure very much impact (positive or negative) on discrimination yet.



  • but I think the realistic reading is it was simply a kickback to fortune 500 companies that got these politicians elected.

    If there were no legitimate geopolitical reasons, then the “simply a kickback” would be much more plausible. Also, if it was a single source company, then “simply a kickback” would look true. Additionally, if was perhaps just domestic companies “simply a kickback” would certainly be even more likely. Lastly, the Chips act wasn’t just about production domestically. It also blocked sales/exports of completed high end chips and chip making equipment to China. If the Chips act was “simple a kickback” you wouldn’t do all that other stuff, and you certainly wouldn’t allow foreign winners (like Taiwan’s TSMC).

    Was their rewards because of industry lobbying? Certainly. However, unless you’re in a purely communist system of government where all the companies are owned by the state, you’re always going to have private companies benefiting from government spending, tax breaks, and subsidies. As to this just applying to fortune 500 companies, there isn’t really a “mom and pop” semiconductor industry making handfuls of chips at a time except outside of engineering sample that are used in R&D for fortune 500 companies.


  • The worst of it hasn’t happened yet. The point where consumers can no longer afford to consume is coming.

    Its mostly already arrived.

    “As of June 30, the top 20% of earners accounted for more than 63% of all spending”

    source

    This means that the other 80% of Americans represent only 37% of the spending done today. If a company is looking to maximize profits the typical path is to do so by marketing to the group where they could earn the most money. That is less and less the bottom 80% of Americans.


  • The creator in that video seems to think the Chips Act subsidies were to benefit consumers by having affordable memory produced domestically. That wasn’t the goal. The goal was to derive drive GDP by having another source of domestic production, and drive job growth/tax revenue from workers working at the domestic facility. Lastly, it was to have strategic domestic production decoupled from other nations so we, as a nation, could not be held hostage by another nation (like we do to so many other nations) for crucial (pun very much intended) resources we need.

    Nothing about that is about making RAM cheaper for retail consumers.


  • The promise of “fiber to the home” is still mostly unrealized, but those trunk lines are out there with oodles of “dark fiber” ready to carry data… someday.

    Counterintuitively, I’m seeing “fiber to the home” deployed more in rural an exurb areas. My guess this is because its lower density meaning installing and maintaining copper repeaters becomes more expensive than laying long distance, low maintenance, fiber. Additionally its easier to obtain permits because there is far less existing infrastructure to interfere with right of way and critical services.

    We got fiber to the home in our exurb about 4 years ago here in the USA. Its really cheap too. 500Mb/s is $75, 1Gb/s $100, and 5Gb/s I think is $200 per month.


  • Again I get your point… but no reasonable plumber would make that mistake.

    To extend your analogy, agentic AI isn’t the “reasonable plumber”, its the sketchy guy that says he can fix plumbing and upon arrival he admits he’s a meth addict that hasn’t slept in 3 days and is seeing “the shadow people” standing right there in the room with you.

    I absolutely understand what happened here. The point is there is no benefit to these Agentic AIs because they need to be as supervised as a monkey with a knife… why would I ever want that? let alone need that

    I can see applications for agentic AI, but they can’t be handed the keys to the kingdom. You put them in an indestructible room with a hammer and a pile of rocks and say “please crush any rock I hand you to be no bigger than a walnut and no smaller than an almond”. In IT terms, the agenic AI could run under a restrictive service account so that even if they went off the rails they wouldn’t be able to damage any thing you cared about.



  • Hmm, by removing Piet and thus hiding the traditional racist representation of black people, or by whitewashing him?

    “because he has to climb through Chimneys to deliver gifts for Sinterklaas”. “Has to”?! Is Piet a slave to Sinterklaas? /s /ragebait

    Ending the conflict would end the attention.

    I recently learned that Mikey Mouse’s classic look was derived from racist Vaudeville blackface dress:

    Disney successfully evolved/hid/whitewashed Mickey away from his racist image roots, and few today would say Mickey is a reference to the racist past.


  • Creating electricity is surprisingly easy. Copper and Zinc were widely available for centuries before electricity and the only other item you need is an acid. Nitric acid was being made back in the 13th century. Arrange a copper bar and a zinc bar separated from one another with an insulator (glass, ceramic, or even wood) in a glass or ceramic jar. Pour in the acid submerging most of the bars with some expose above the acid. You now have a battery with the anode and cathode (positive and negative terminals) being the top of the bars.

    Barely slightly more sophisticated batteries than this powered telegraph offices for powering Morse code sending keys.




  • How would that work, even on paper? Not being a dick, just don’t understand. So it’s literally just, “you can never own this property fully?”

    Yes. The tradeoff is you have a property that is in your name (with a bank note attached), and if the property increases in value during the time you own it, when you sell, you pocket the difference. If you have a fixed interest rate, it also caps the growth of your payment for housing for the entire time you live there. There’s quite a bit of value in that.


  • One weird thing we have is that part of the interest you pay is tax deductible.

    This matches the USA system for mortgages.

    for this reason there is a type of mortage where you first only pay the interest, and slowly start paying off more and more of the mortage, which means your net mortage fee slowly increases over time, which is nice if you expect your income to increase over those decades.

    This sounds new to me. In the USA we do have amortized mortgages so a very high percentage of the monthly payment is interest with little going to principal. Over time that relationship flips where you’re paying more principal that interest. However, in our system the mortgage payment stays the same, only how much of that fixed payment goes to interest vs principal changes.


  • Balloon mortgages would be good in only two situations:

    • you’re not planning on living in the house very long, so you likely exit before the balloon payments hit.
    • you believe interest rates will decline in the next few years and you can refinance to a fixed low rate

    I don’t ever see myself using a Balloon mortgage. Worse, they are frequently sold via predetory lending methods. Unsavvy buyers are convinced to take a balloon mortgage not understanding the payments will rise dramatically in the years ahead. This can lead to eventual foreclosure when the owners can service the higher payments.


  • It an overall bad deal in my mind, but there are some upsides (not enough for me to take it). Assuming you get a fixed rate, you lock in your payment and your “rent”/mortgage will decline over time just from inflation eating away at it. I think most folks would love to have their rent decline by 3% every year. This effectively does that.

    Additionally, if you are the homeowner instead of the renter, if the real estate increases in value, when you sell, you pocket the increase. There’s nothing like that in renting.


  • Congratulations on your new home!

    Thanks for providing that info on the “afloasingsvrije” mortgages. It was a few years before 2008 when she bought, so that tracks with what you’re reporting.

    Here in the USA we have fixed rate mortgages, where you have a single fixed interest rate for the entire length of the mortgage, but I know that not all countries have that. From what I understand in Canada the rates fluctuate during the mortgage where you can get something like fixed for 5 years (maybe 10?) but then the rate can increase on the existing mortgage you’ve already got.

    How does the Dutch system work? Fixed for life of mortgage? Continuously variable? Fixed for a time like Canada? Something else?