For years, I’ve heard people say, “What? You want to outlaw wealth?”

This level of wealth? Yes. Tax it at 99% above 1bn.

You won the money game. Stop playing it. Help society.

Billionaire math

Average USA billionaire has about $7b in wealth.

2026 * 365 ‎ = 739,490

$7,000,000,000 / 739,490‎ = $9,465.98

You would need to make $9k per day, for 2026 years, to catch up to the average billionaire wealth right now.

It’s estimated in 2026 that it would cost $37b to end world hunger until 2030.

Also note that Musk, Bezos, and other extreme billionaires are up to 100x of the average here ($700b for Musk). Who is making $900k per day?

This is not natural, it’s not rational, and it’s completely bullshit. You can come up with whatever distraction you want (“wealth & income aren’t the same”), but we should be taxing every dollar above $1b at 99% or higher.

30 years * 365 day = 10,950

$1,000,000,000 / 10,950 ‎ = $91,324.20

I could easily live off of $91k per DAY for 30 YEARS.

If you put these numbers against a human time scale we can understand, I don’t see the argument for this level of wealth, especially not as people go hungry, without clothes or food, and children die.

Agreed here. Why bring in gender at all?

Spotify performs as one of the worst when it comes to creator royalties and appropriate pay.

It’s not THE worst, and these numbers have shifted since 2022. The general sentiment (that Spotify stiffs artists) is still shared by the general community.

We keep sinking lower and lower on the bar for civilized society. It was already bad in the US. It feels like a new low every day, either in competency, in malevolence, moral depravity, or all three. We’ve gone from “it’s the season of giving” to propagandizing fascist Santa, complete with passive aggressive Merry Christmas.

In the CECOT video, the president & warden are like, “Oh yeah, we fuck people up! Humans rights don’t matter here.” They are gloating to try and remove the shame of their lack of morality. Same thing is happening here. Shock & awe, flood the zone, & it never ends.

A lot of people are saying there isn’t a rights argument, which I think is true.

Considering this through the lens of a video game, is it morally bad if I pay a hooker in GTA, use their services, and then kill them? I don’t think there is harm. I don’t think there are rights. It wouldn’t matter if everyone was cruel to GTA NPCs.

Having said that, from a behavioral position, I don’t think it’s morally good. Put another way, this sort of behavior isn’t a good thing to emulate. I don’t think it’s a good idea to cultivate a habit of emulating cruelty.

As others have said, there’s still the risk of AGI in the future as well.

With where we are right now, I don’t think it’s a big deal, but I’m not interested in entertaining new slurs, fictional or real.

That’s called Unitarian Universalism.

If you didn’t want help, and someone showed up and started doing stuff, saying, “Hey I’m helping,” I doubt most people would want that help. Tl;dr you can only help those that want help or those that are open to it.

I think the best thing you can do is be supportive, invite them out, and showcase the positive aspects of your life & the life you’d want them to have. It’s not showboating / gloating, but it’s including them & offering them what a wider life might look like. When they want to change, you can be present for them in that moment.

Trying to change people can be such a fool’s errand. I’ve tried to do it with a bunch of friends over the last decade. You can’t move people who don’t want to be moved. You can maybe inspire them for more.

The illegal part is how capitalism works, bud. It’s not the paperwork preventing slavery & poverty wages; it’s the exploitive system.

Here’s 2 faults:

1. Most people push a build once a week, because making a stable build usually has an engineer combining people’s work, and sometimes there’s conflicts in the merge.
2. If you have a lot of bugs, you may need to patch more frequently.

Either way, it’s a bad look. Doing stable daily pushes is good in development, not in a live environment like this.

This is such a joke to anyone in tech. It’s like a Silicone Valley skit.

There’s a term in art called “authorial control.” Roger Ebert used the term to attack video games as art, saying they lacked “authorial control” and hence invalid for art.

The claim I hear in this is the AI taking away the control of the author. Yes, videos are edited, but there’s a bunch of choices made in that process. If some robot came in & started mucking around with my edits or lighting, especially without my knowledge, that’s a major red flag. YT, as a platform, already has enough problems. Invisible robots “enhancing” videos is perhaps one of the worst features they can add. Unwanted help is not help.

Somewhat irrelevant: omg, this is peak “corporate art sucks.” It’s like corporate art combined with fascist content, more than usual.

New England is distinctly different from Nomansland.

100 homie. Sorry if it sounded like I implied that. Not my intent.

Sounds like gender affirming care.

Sorry to be snide. I don’t take TRT, but everyone should be able to do this sort of stuff without judgment. You only got one life.

http://www.thelastquestion.net/

The God of the Gap will always live at some level.

Let’s say you’re arguing in good faith. What if I offered you a different conception of God?

You’re reading the Torah. Have you read the Gnostic gospels? They are early Christian texts & beliefs, some that run roughshod over the beliefs in Judaism. Some Gnostics believed YHWH was a false God, because why would God say, “You must believe in me?” Or why would he genocide the earth with a flood?

Other people have said it, but religion is made by humans. However, what if God was more like the Dao/Tao? Maybe it’s not a person (that’s a human notion), but more like a spring or fountain? Like a source of goodness? Or it’s a foundational substrate for metaphysical realities?

You say, “Why has no holy text predicted what science has revealed?” To me, it sounds like, “Why hasn’t a pig flown?” I think the critique misaligns religion with a goal.

Science reveals the physical world to us. We know there’s an inherent gap between what we observe and some sort of capital T Truth. We could be brains in a vat, a demon could have us hostage, etc. Religion lives in the gap, and I’d say it can reveal things. What it reveals isn’t about the physical world, though.

When I read a Bible verse, a Buddhist Sutra, or hear an Islamic Surah, it connects me to our species. I go to church for the people, the community. The values resonate with me, and I think my family & kids are better off because of that environment. I have science to explain the physical world.

I’m a Unitarian Universalist, so I look at religion in my own way (was an atheist for 20 years prior). Have you tried reframing God as not “old man in the clouds?” If you have, does that framing change how you read the Torah?

P.S. Check out some of the discussion of quantum science and consciousness. Some are arguing that consciousness is the metaphysical reality. Everything may be conscious, but certain conditions may need to be met for the emergence of it in physical reality. Some people have also theorized that all electrons are the same. Some fun theories out there.

Vranyo – Russian for when you lie and everyone knows it, but you don’t care