@BahRamYou's banner p

BahRamYou


				

				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2023 December 05 02:41:55 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 2780


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
BahRamYou


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2023 December 05 02:41:55 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 2780


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Thanks for actually taking the time to actually think about the idea and run numbers for it, unlike @venqq who seemed to have wildly misunderstood it and then personally insulted me for no reason.


II will point out though, the numbers your using are based on the simplest type of cubesat, which is pretty much the worst possible case for solar power or radiation. small and compact, designed to fit into the unused capacity of larger launches, and usually not intended to last very long.


On more professional satellites, solar panels are long, thin, wide ones like what you see on the ISS, which makes over 100 KW of power. And all of that, plus the crew's body heat, gets radiated away. It's hype, it's not buzzwords, it's very real. It's 1970s science that I thought everyone was aware of by now.


Most things are hard in space, but solar panels really aren't. There's a reason those have been standard on all satellites since the very early days, even back in the 1960s when solar panels were far less efficient. They get something like 10x the solar intensity you'd get on the surface of the earth, and available almost all the time (only like 20% in Earth's shadow, and can be zero if you launch in a polar orbit)


Obviously the big stumbling block is the launch cost. These ideas all depend on having SpaceX, or something similar from China, massively bring down the cost from the current $50000/kg to something more like $500 or less. But yes, obviously there's the big "if" Starship or something similar really works.


But if it does... starting from you restimate of 5700 years... 100x decrease in launch cost, and 10x increase in power from simple optimizations to the design, it pays for itself in 5.7 years. Not bad.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's only a problem for the hot fleshy meatbags on the ISS. For a computer, adding some long radiators works great in space. And China is already doing this


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But like... is that actually a good thing? Obviously from the point of view of a corporation, being able to reduce the number of employees they need is great. Huge cost savings, even if it's just 1%. And a lot of them could potentially cut a lot more, like the ones who rely on big call centers.


But for the global economy, what happens? I know the traditional answer is that those workers then go find something other job and our overall productivity increases. But it's far from clear to me what a million laid-off call center employees are supposed to do instead. Work in the factories? Those were closed/offshored decades ago. Learn to code? Silicon valley isn't exactly yearning to hire one million junior programmers with no experience these days. In fact, they're also hoping to lay off programmers and make it up with AI instead.


It seems like a lot of areas will jsut end up with significantly higher unemployment from this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But not if we launch them into orbit ! (I can no longer tell if this is crazy bubble talk or the next logical step after starlink)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There have been many instances of palestinian settlements in the west bank being demolished and the people being evicted: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164971


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think they'll eventually succeed at taking over the West Bank. In part because they want it (it's good land and it's right there for the taking, not to mention the religious motivation to control jeruselum), and in part because they've found a way to successfully "salami slice" it, taking little bits at a time. The rest of the world expresses outrage and indignation but does nothing, and the Palestinian authority can't fight back. There seems to be no shortage of Israeli's volunteering to move in there, and not just soldiers but normal middle-class families. This might take multiple generations, but it'll happen.


I do not think they'll take over the Gaza strip that way, because the situation is totally different. Nobody really wants it, because it's an ultra-dense ghett of bomb-blasted buildings and unexploded ordnance. The people living there are highly motivated to fight back, and there's a ton of world attention that would make a huge outcry if Israel tried to adjust the borders even slightly. There's also no holy city there, no natural resources, limited water... it's not a place any sane person would want to live.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Would you agree that, even if in general CEO pay is not a major expense on their companies, there are particular cases where it could be, and Musk at Tesla is one of those examples? And it's interesting that he wa able to get it past the board and all sorts of normal shareholder protections, to the point where it required a court ruling to stop it. It's not some perfect elegant self-maintaining system.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


you can just choose not to invest in companies that you think overpay their executives.




Well, I can't, because I'm not a finance genius who has devoted my life to picking stocks. My money is mostly in simple index funds, because (a) that's what everyone assured me was the smart thing to do and (b) those are simple and convenient for me to use as a regular person. My company 401k plan never offered me a "basically the S&P 500, but avoid stocks that overpay their executives" fund. Most other normal stockholders are in the same situation as me. I don't even get a chance to vote on proxy votes, since my share votes are handled by the index fund managers. And even when I did own individual stocks in the past, and I got a proxy vote as a regular stock holder, my vote was so small (a few shares out of billions at a blue chip company) that it didn't seem worthwhile to even mail it in. I had less power to influence them as a stockholder than I do to influence the US government as a voter, and that's a pretty low bar.


And most other players can't do this sort of thing either. Rich people might have their money tied up in stock for the company they worked for. Finance managers have to convince the rich people they work for that they're doing a safe, normal strategy. Hedge funds have to follow rules that mitigate risk for their institution.  And most people just aren't interested in this sort of thing.


Ok, in principle there's room for some young Warren Buffet type to make his name by finding these companies, shorting them, and outperforming the market. But only to the extent that their excess compensation takes away from every other factor going on, and his efforts to short the stock would be countered by everyone else shovelling money into it. As long as the executives keep it below a few percent, it would be hard to notice.


But think about how far this has gone. It's no longer "the executives deserve this much money because it's what's best for the company." It's "they can pocket hundreds of millions without hurting the company in a way that anyone steps in to stop them." You could make the same argument for how a retail cashier could get away with stealing money out of the till, or how a middle manager could get away with embezzling from the accounting department, but for them it's illegal and there are protections in place to stop that sort of thing.


All of this to say- the market is not some omniscient, perfect entity. It's mostly efficient, but there are still plenty of efficiencies. I think there's a tendency among shape-rotator type people to assume that it's perfectly efficient because that makes for a much more elegant argument, but the reality is a lot more messy.


Also this:




It's the shareholders who are getting cheated here, not the general public or the employees




I would argue that the executives, especially the CEOs, are being disengenuous here. They're not just some shmuck working behind the scenes, they act as the public face of the company, for both its employees and the general public. Their personal life reflects on the company just like a politician's personal life reflects on his country. When the CEO tries to make himself seem like a moral paragon when he's obviously just there to grab as much cash out of the company as he can get away with, that's going to demoralize every single employee and tank their performance far beyond the actual cash impact of his salary.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I grew up in a town that used to be a streetcar surburb 100 years ago. Looking at those old photos, it's almost like looking at a steampunk fantasy. All the streets that I know as sort of grungy, run-dow stripmalls, are full of very dapper gentlemen and their elegant female companions. They must have had to walk a bit to get there, but that's no problem since they were all (apparently) quite thin and fit. They don't seem to have any concern at at all for crime.


I would dismiss this as just some historical quirk, except that I've also experienced the same thing in real life- in Japan. Pretty much the same thing- low crime, low stress, low car ownership areas with mass transit, high trust, and lots of people walking in fancy fashions. They have other problems too of course (getting groceries every day with no car in a declining economy is no joke), but they still manage to make it work.


Conversely, I've experienced the opposite, living in a somewhat wealthy neighborhood in Mexico. There, razor-wire fences and private security guards are the norm. Plenty of cars and material comforts, but absolutely no social trust.


I feel like (economic wealth) and (social wealth) are almost two independant variables, with very little relationship to each other. In the US, we've gained the former at the expense of the latter. It didn't have to be this way.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think your response actually supports my point. In theory "we" the stockholders could cut their CEO's pay, or "we" as voters could pass a law limiting all CEO pay. But in practice, no one is organized enough to actually be able to do anything about it. The CEOs get their pay not because some perfectly efficient market is finding the correct value for them, but because they have more political power where it counts.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Why do you think the board is any less incentivized to cut staffing costs than managers? They're the ones applying that pressure!




It's a bit different though. The pressure to cut expenses comes from the top down. But there's no one above the board of directors who can hold them accountable- they're already at the top! Many of them serve on multiple boards at once, and rotate in and out of CEO or other C-level jobs at other companies, so they have a strong "class interest" in pushing up CEO pay in general. They might get some bad press or worker grumbling about unfairness, but there's no one that can actually fire them for setting the CEO pay too high. In theory I guess the general stockholders could all come together to do it, but they're so disorganized that it never happens. The only practical way to force them out is for some corporate raider to do a hostile takeover, and even then there's golden parachute clauses designed in part to preevent that sort of thing.


also worth noting that the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay has massively increased over the last few decades. So it may well just continue to increase until they're taking home some large fraction of the company's total revenue as their personal salary. Or maybe the CEO ends up with all of the company's stock (making it harder and harder for regular shareholders to oppose them) and they become a private company, like SpaceX already is.


edit: most of the starbucks board members are current or former CEOs of other companies. They directly benefit from raising CEO pay, since that sets a higher baseline for themselves to justify their own pay. This isn't some abstract "class consciousness thing," there's a very small group of CEOs and board members who are tightly connected.




Stanislav Petrov




I wonder if he was awarded 1% of all the USSR's money as a reward for his services? That should be fair, right? Or did he not get anything at all? Our intuitions for what's fair really fail at this kind of scale.
(edit: he was not rewarded. it was seen as an embarassment for the entire Soviet system and was quietly swept under the rug)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
i mean, i'm happy to take my salary in the form of corporate stock if that would 10x my compensation... but regular employees don't seem to get that option.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Then you should also consider that part of his high pay is also in keeping expenses low, so there is in fact an antagonistic relationship there. If starbucks was forced to use all of their profits to pay employee salaries, the board would probably expect to pay the CEO a lot less.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This feels like a Pascal's Mugging type of argument though. Or more specifically the petersburg paradox


Is there any specific reason to pay the CEO $95 million? It's not like there's a standard market rate for CEOs. It varies wildly and depends heavily on the subjective opinions of the board members. Why not go out and find another CEO for $200 million? A $200 million CEO should be even better than a mere $100 million one, right? Starbucks makes about $36 billion in annual revenue right now, so even $200 million is (like you said) a drop in the bucket. A mere 0.5%. If the new, better CEO can increase performance even 1%, he's worth it.


But then you can play the game again, and again, and again. There's no upper limit for CEO pay! Where does it stop? Their stock is kind of struggling right now- would a $10 billion CEO lead them to greatness? Or should they just cut costs and try to remain in their nice, small, profitable niche? Most sane people would say they should just stick to selling coffee, but you could do the math and imagine that even a 1% chance of becoming the next hot tech stock is worth gambling the entire company on.


Starbucks is admittedly a weak example for this. They have a lot of part time hourly employees, and they all get health benefits, so their biggest expense by far is already employee compensation. It just doesn't go as much to salaries.


For a different extreme, look at Tesla. 125,000 employees right now. Market cap 1.3 trillion. Elon Musk right now earns about 8$ billion a year under current conditions, but it goes up by 1% of Teslas total market cap for each additional trillion in their market cap. If he hits just the easiest goals, he gets $36 billion a year. If it goes up to 8 trillion, he clears an eye watering $878 billion in 10 years, almost $90 billion a year. (yes that's in stock, not cash, if that makes a difference)


Doing the same math as you, that could be ($90 billion)/(125,000 employees) = $720,000 per employee, per year. Is that still just a trivial cost? I dont' think so. In that case he's being given a large chunk of the company as his compensation. (And that's just the CEO, non including any of the other executives who also get paid a lot)


You could argue that in that situation he deserves it since the stock went up so much. But like... how do you know? How does anyone know? If some Tesla employee delivers full self driving while the government decides to tax gas cars and promote EVs, does Elon really deserve that much credit? Surely there should be some limit where we decide that a CEO is just too expensive, but there doesn't seem to be any mechanism in corporate America to limit it. Meanwhile, managers are very much incentavized to cut expenses, which heavily includes limiting employee salaries. There isn't any mechanism in the corporate structure to say "OK our stock didn't grow much. But on the plus side, we were able to consistently raise salaries for all our employees every year."


in history they sometimes talk about "the great man model," where history is heavily shaped by a few exceptional individuals. They mostly bring it up to disparage it, saying how history is far more complicated than just what people like Caesar and Alexander did. They'd be laughed out of the room if they tried to give all credit for an entire country to just one person. But apparently corporate leadership still believes in this line of thinking- they value the CEO far more than anything else. I can't help but worry that our largest corporations are under the control of middlebrow business majors who vastly oversimplify everything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
anecdote but when i worked as a cashier 20 years ago, we were told to always keep one $2 billa the bottom and never give it out. That way, if someone robbed the cash register, it was relatively easy to trace the $2 bill. Maybe there's a lot of small businesses keeping them around for that purpose?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Apparently most $100 bills are used in the black market: https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2017/11/12/cash-is-king-but-100-bills-are-for-crooks






Returning to the present, why is 90 percent of the U.S. increase in circulation accounted for by $100 bills?
...
To put it simply, most of the U.S. currency in circulation is almost surely being used by criminals.






Which to be fair, could just as easily be things like non-licensed garage sales and used car sales skipping sales tax. But that's still a crime, and you can see why the government isn't eager to make that stuff easier. But hey, maybe if inflation continues, the $100 will soon be as practical for normal purchases as the $20.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'd say it's sort of like the way women sometimes talk to their friends. Talking about their "girlfriends," "gal pals," and "hey it's your girl x here..." It's fine when they do it between friends, it shows intimacy and comfort. But it's considered impolite when an adult man talks to them like "hello girl," or calls them his girlfriend when they're just a regular friend. It shows too much intimacy.


Modern American English tends to be pretty casual, we don't have like a formal "you" the way some foreign languages do. And we tend to call everyone by their first name with no title. But when random news media or campaign strategists start calling me "dude" it feels like going a little too casual, it makes me want to push back and be like "um you don't know me well enough to call me that."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
yeah like the other guy said, it's not really something you'd see as a tourist, and it's not at all common for younger generations, but used to be common for older generations. Apparently it was just banned last year, but I have no idea how effective that ban is. I'll be the countryside still has places for it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Quality Contributions Report for September 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Nice, my first ever time getting a comment into this! Apparently the trick is for me to be just loose enough to rant on the internet, but not loose enough to start trolling and flaming...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah that's what i figured. Still almost no chance of getting a good job there i think (mwaning tenured and working on something interesting)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Kind of. Compare "life" to a game though...


    

  • You only get one chance to play, with permadeath. That means you have to be really, really careful and avoid taking risks.
    • 

  • No fast travel. It takes forever just to get anywhere
    • 

  • There's only one server and way too many players, so all the best stuff has massive queues
    • 

  • It's been running a long time, so a lot of stuff is dominated by powergames and guilds who started long before you were ever born
    • 

  • Completely OP, some stuff is just way better than other stuff, and if you choose wrong you're screwed
    • 

  • Tons of trolling and toxic players who never get banned
    • 

  • Most of us never get to fight or rule anything. We're just stuck grinding at a boring job
    • 

  • Tons of random luck
    • 



I don't know, someone needs to revamp this "life"


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, as someone who once wanted to be a professor but gave up on it because I'm a white male with some non-woke beliefs and the whole thing seemed hopelessly rigged against me... is there any chance for me to go back into academia now and get a position? or is it still just clogged with way too many grad students chasing way too few tenured positions, and the whole system rigged in favor of woke types?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That sounds like a nightmare. I've had much better experiences with healthcare in 3rd world countries that don't use apps.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm kind of worried over what I'm supposed to do to support my parents in this stuff as they age. They've never been great with consumer tech, especially smart phones. I'd be perfectly willing to drive over and help them occasionally to fix something or install something, or just show it how it works. But it increasingly feels like a never-ending battle. The apps, like you said, just get more confusing and more malicious. My parents are not at all senile, but increasingly at that "i'm too old for this shit" phase where they really don't want to bother learning new tech. I don't want to bother, but I feel like I have no choice.


It used to be the case that you could always opt out by calling a place on the phone, or driving to their physical store, or paying someone in cash. Increasingly it feels like we just have to use the app, which will constantly change without warning. That feels really predatory and impractical, and I can't believe it's being allowed in our society where the average US senator is 65 years old and heavily weights the opinions of old people.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 29, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, does God wait for the Mormons to elect their president and then start sending him messages? Or does he privately message someone first and then that guy uses his secret divine knowledge to become president? Either way seems a little suspicious to me, but then I'm just a dirty heathen.