The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
It was largely not true in the housing crash associated with the GFC; many of the half-finished exurbs ended up simply being destroyed (before or after being scavenged for parts). And the risk-aversion it generated, along with allowing the anti-growthers to take political control, depresses housing to this day. I would not expect an AI crash to do this.
Most of it is basically GPUs with a lot of memory, and good for any massively parallel problem. Google's TPUs are more specialized, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could use them for something else.
Not really seeing it. The AI boom could fail, but I wouldn't expect a 2008-tier crash from it. The datacenters which were built will still be there and still be useful for 'conventional' computing. So more like the dot-com bust which left a bunch of dark fiber which became the foundations for a new boom.
People hate finance bros, sure. But they don't think it's unreasonable for them to have money; those who have this "wealth by profession" idea never think it's wrong for finance people to have money. It's often blue collar people (for an old example of this attitude there was an episode of Frasier where the title character was upset that his plumber had "the big Mercedes"), professional sports players, surgeons, or tech people.
And of course I knew BC was a finance bro too.
By law the IRS is not allowed to refer you to other law enforcement agencies based on your tax return. I'm sure they do anyway at least sometimes, though, but going after whores probably isn't worth it to them.
The people who don't normally riot, rioted on January 6. They were stopped, arrested, given long prison terms, fired from jobs and disqualified from public office, no flashpoint.
Civil disobedience is about violating an obviously unjust law and willingly accepting the punishment
That trick only worked once. Now the penalties are so high that unless the government is already on your side, you simply get buried under the jail if you try this. All modern civil disobedience is either counterproductive or theatrical.
Once in my life I told a cop a homeless man was on verge of attacking people. He told me he has "a patrol to do" and would be back later to check up on the insane homeless guy lunging at people. He drove away. They just don't feel like helping; so they don't.
Just don't fight back if the guy does attack you, unless you think you can defend yourself in jail as well. As Chief Wiggum once said, the police are powerless to help you, not to harm you.
You can't do it in the US as a single non-elderly man either... unless you commit disability fraud. Which turns out to be ridiculously common.
No, a midwit is a term for a slightly-above-average intelligence person who is fairly good at learning things... but isn't smart enough or curious enough to actually consider why the things they learned are the way they are, or if in fact they are not. Or what @erwgv3g34 said.
The flashpoint happens when people who don’t normally riot riot.
That happened in the US. State capacity was quite sufficient to put those people down for the forseeable future.
If we had angels in the form of "highest types of people" to rule us, what would they need money for anyway?
Funny no one ever says this about finance bros, eh? (Who appear to prefer the 11/10 Russian hotties)
Pogroms happen when the hated group is unable or unwilling to defend itself and the authorities are at least willing to look the other way. Neither condition holds here.
In New Jersey if you don't have your paperwork (especially insurance), the cops tow your car and leave you by the side of the road, any time, day or night. They did this even before cell phones were common.
The law is on the store's side, as I described below. They only have a valid lawsuit against the original storeowner, if he hasn't actually declared bankruptcy, and he's likely insolvent even if he hasn't. The law allows a consignors goods to be lawfully taken by the lender/repossessor in this case. So extralegal measures are all he has.
Seems to be mostly anti-immigration types trying to cut off social security. Immigrants seem to be generally for all gibs.
Certainly not, and it's ridiculous to say so. Capturing a few of the photons bouncing off your body and clothes does not affect your bodily integrity in the slightest; if you have a reasonable objection to being filmed (in public), it must be something else.
The IRS allows you to declare "other income" without giving its source. The catch is you can't deduct expenses against it.
The repossession makes their case stronger; they repossessed the store, which extinguished the junior security interest of the consignor, because he didn't file a UCC-1.
The people who want to cut off Social Security for "boomers" (really Xers) and who want to take the houses of old people because they aren't using them appropriately are pretty much the same. The group which thinks old people's money is no good and if you aren't working now, you shouldn't be able to pay for things is a subset of them. You can't appease them (or anyone, really); victory anywhere would only embolden them. Otherwise I'd be more open to cutting off SS.
The "deal" is older than the Boomers. And any cutting-off won't fall on most of the boomers; the reality of numbers and the speed of politics means it'll be Generation X which is cut off, plus maybe a few of the youngest boomers.
Old age social security benefits in the US are not means tested. This is a weight-bearing component of the system -- it's funded by a special tax on all workers, and provided to all those who paid into it. That's what keeps it from just being considered plain old welfare, and what makes it the "third rail" of politics.
As for occupied houses literally rotting in Australia... isn't the country generally rather dry for that? Even in my wet area of the US, if you avoid being flooded from below and keep the roof from leaking, and don't set it on fire, the house will be OK structurally for a very long time.
Also, a couple holding onto a house to keep the health care system from getting it rather than their children goes against the narrative of greedy elders who don't care about their children.
Downgrading from a 3 bedroom suburban home with a quarter acre of property to a 2 bedroom condo in a lower cost of living area can finance a hell of a lot of health care.
No, it really can't. You'd think so, but transaction costs are high, condo fees are high, and healthcare is hellaciously expensive.

But it wouldn't be allowed to spread like that.
More options
Context Copy link