should have said most people, because that's true. it's the dire state of things. even now only 49% disapprove of the current admin, after seeing their own country men shot while protesting, little kids born in the US kidnapped and sent to foreign countries. if you think those 51% of people cared about government employees getting fired or allies being alienated, you'd be mistaken.
> So we agree, including that there is a difference.
No, that's a distinction without a difference. I mean, it doesn't matter in the slightest if at some point in time certain powers weren't abused, if they're being abused now the situation cannot be tolerated.
Arguing about how it's possible not to abuse the system is a waste of time at best and a diversion at worst.
I'm not arguing that it's possible to not abuse the system. I've recognized abuses for quite some time, regardless of which political team has been in power. The point is that we need to avoid normalizing our current situation by pointing to previous abuses.
It's worth pointing out that "criminals" are generally "people at the margins"... If for no other reason than to point out that pithy comments like this are often so vague as to be worthless, or even counter-productive!
It's also a good thing that antisocial behavior is often isolated to "the margins", so your statement can even be considered a good thing, by the same metric!
There's certainly some flukiness to being the only major country on the planet that hadn't been shelled and bombed to smithereens in the preceding decades. That's not the whole story, but it's certainly part of it.
We can't return to a place where America is the only manufacturing country in the world, where every other country is in ruins and rebuilding and taking loans from America. That was a very weird set of circumstances that gave America unprecedented tailwinds that no other country has ever had.
> total compensation will be set based on the market value of your labor.
No, you do not want that.
The market value of most people's labour is very close to zero.
Left to the market most of the population would live just below starvation, a very small group of owners would live very well, and a small group of artisans would do OK supporting the tiny group.
The USA is very corrupt, true. But getting rid of the "huge administration" and burning tax receipts is not going to solve that. How could it?
One of the roles of the state in a modern society should be to ensure no one is left behind to starve, wither and freeze amongst the incredible resources we (as a society) have accumulated.
That takes administration. That takes resources. That is what your taxes should be used for.
I agree that far too much is used to give aid to the powerful, but the solution to that should not be to condemn the weak.
Burning taxes and de-funding the administration is exactly that: condemning the weak.
It will be a cold day in hell before Americans stop assuming everyone on the internet is American or talks about the US government.
The government's role is whatever the people voting for it decide it to be - maybe to defend the borders, maybe to educate everyone, maybe keep everyone fed, clothed and sheltered.
The issue is, again I don't really care about the US or your government, some governments come to power on a platform of welfare. As long as they keep giving people "welfare" they will continue to be voted in power. As such, they will distribute wealth created in that country towards the goals of staying in power.
Myself, without being special, I never found myself having the same needs as this majority. Unfortunately, since I'm a minority (middle class), without the means to avoid being coerced into contributing to this plan (not super-rich), I'm left without recourse.
The weak are intentionally condemned through poor education and by voting idiots that promise them bullshit to get elected, not because the government doesn't have enough tax money. This cycle will never break by allocating more money, and the last 100 years have plenty of examples in that sense.
I think OP is talking about decoupling tax and government spending, Modern Monetary Theory-style.
In this model government just prints all the money it needs in order to function. Taxation isn't used to fund government, it's used to give your currency value, and to stop inflation running out of control. Metaphorically, you might as well pile all that tax take up and burn it, because once you've collected it it's performed its function.
This is a very simplistic take on MMR, and I don't think it would work in the real world, but spending does precede taxation.
Why do you think that LLMs would do any better than monkeys throwing darts?
I am raining on your parade but this is another in a long succession of ways to loose money.
The publicly available information in markets is priced very efficiently, us computer types do not like that and we like to think that our pattern analysis machines can do better than a room full of traders. They cannot.
The money to be made in markets is from private information and that is a crime (insider trading), is widespread, and any system like this is fighting it and will loose.
Our initial goal with this project actually wasn't trying to get an edge in terms of better evaluating information, but rather, we wanted to see if an LLM can perform similarly to a human analyst at a lower latency. The latency for the market to react to catalysts is actually surprisingly high in biotech (at least in some cases) compared to other domains so there may be some edge there.
Appreciate the comment though! I generally agree with your sentiment!
I like PostgreSQL. If I am storing relational data I use it.
But for non relational data, I prefer something simpler depending on what the requirements are.
Commenters here are talking "modern tools" and complex systems. But I am thinking of common simpler cases where I have seen so many people reach for a relational database from habit.
For large data sets there are plenty of key/value stores to choose from, for small (less than a mega byte) data then a CSV file will often work best. Scanning is quicker than indexing for surprisingly large data sets.
I do not think that is true!
reply