aberrate_junior_beatnik (he/him) @ aberrate_junior_beatnik @midwest.social

Posts

2

Comments

334

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is a paper about it by the same guy: https://archive.is/AQhiC#selection-3573.66-3573.67. I found it while reading an NYT article about AI consumption.

This is a specific (and probably the most well-known) case, but for details about how the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index is calculated, you can hit https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption and look under the header "Energy consumption model and key assumptions". There is a summary and a link to a paper detailing their methods. Skepticism about science reporting is super important! And I'm certainly willing to have my mind changed, but it looks like there's a lot of substance to these claims.

The problem Fox News have with Taylor Swift isnt her carbon emissions, it is her hypocrisy.

I mean, no. If she didn't fly on a private jet, they'd find something else to ding her on. Their problem with her is that she's not entirely on their side.

Y'all already have the uncritical support of corporate news media and basically every US politician. I don't think there's any risk your propaganda won't be able to spread, you can relax.

Who gives a shit. This isn't news.

I heard of a Canadian trying to exercise their fifth amendment right. Really unfortunate to try in a place without such a right.

About 30% of the population here are like this, yes. And the cool thing is that it's been spreading to other countries. For instance, QAnon spread to Germany. They thought Trump was going to come save them from Merkel.

So I searched a few of these names. One of them did run as a democrat, but lost in the primary. Otherwise, so far as I can tell, these are just random black people who are calling themselves democrats. So I'm unsure why this is terribly surprising.

[Edit: should have read the article, one of the people is a Democrat lawmaker]

But sure, keep thinking you understand the issue better than people who have studied everything about the issue and are actually paid for their knowledge.

Actually, looking at the source, they openly disagree with you. Here is what they say:

“We now have a credible prospect that inflation will return to 2% in 2025. The only piece that’s missing is the conviction that wage growth will adapt to that lower inflation”, the Dutch central bank governor said in an interview with Dutch TV program Buitenhof.

They are saying inflation is going down, but wage growth may not be. In other words, they aren't keeping interest rates high to combat inflation, they are doing so to combat wage growth and wage growth alone. The only person here who thinks wage growth and inflation move in lockstep is you.

If I might add, what do you think costs are?

I am intentionally using a somewhat loose term; costs are uses of finite resources. This could be labor, or it could be a physical item, like the iron ore you say I think is retrieved by putting cash in a box. And I'll pay you the same respect you've paid me by asking: do you think workers simply will iron ore into existence? Or make food, independent of the presence of fertile topsoil, water, and sunlight?

Money doesn’t disappear, it goes into someone’s pocket eventually, either through wages or through corporate income.

Yes, and the point is I want more of that money go into workers' pockets through wages than into owner's pockets through profits.

If costs are going up it means that someone somewhere is getting richer, meaning he has more money to spend, meaning things get more expensive.

You literally just said that money doesn't disappear. Someone is getting richer either way. She'll have more money to spend regardless of if she's an owner or a worker.

It is true that wage growth does generally cause inflation. That's one reason you can live in the global south so cheaply. It's also why workers are so bad off there. Another example is Europe compared to the US: prices are higher in Europe, but workers get paid more and are better off than workers in the US. The whole point is that when workers' wages go up, they have a bigger portion of the total amount of money, and thus are better off. This inflation fearmongering is all a distraction from that.

Companies like profits, so they’ll keep raising prices as long as people keep paying them.

This is of course true whether or not wages go up.

If people don’t have money to spend on shit, they won’t, and thus the prices will have to go down or at worst stagnate.

No, the prices don't have to go down or stagnate. Products don't become cheaper or easier to produce because there are fewer people who can buy them. In fact the opposite is true. Cost per unit is higher as total units produced goes down.

keep thinking you understand the issue better than people who have studied everything about the issue and are actually paid for their knowledge.

Oh, I do think they understand this, and they are paid, but not necessarily for their knowledge.

1. Wage growth does not imply higher inflation. For one, employers don't print money, so the money in circulation does not necessarily increase as you claim. For another, prices are not determined by money in circulation; they are determined by costs. Plenty of things get cheaper to create over time.
2. The current spate of inflation has been driven primarily by corporate profits and supply chain issues.
3. Even if wage growth were to cause inflation, it would still mean workers would be getting a bigger slice of the pie, and they would do better relative to owners.

God forbid workers get a bigger share of the pie.

Ah yes, threats of abuse, famous for always having the outcome they intend

[edit: especially when dealing with children who are still developing their ability to speak and comprehend speech]

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

I had really hoped that by time we would finally have got beyond good & evil.

Headline has real "you want to improve society yet you participate in it" vibes

Basically do what Europe does. Government regulators actively monitor companies and stop them from misbehaving, rather than waiting for them to misbehave and then sue them. If they don't follow regulations they get disbanded. It's not perfect but it's better than what we have here.

without jailbreaking ... thanks to the 2 coretrust bugs

I think you do not understand what these words mean

The US has this bizarre setup where we "regulate" companies through the courts rather than directly through government agencies (this is not always the case, but it often is). The problem is that even when this "works", i.e., the court punishes the company, they get a fine. So it becomes a financial decision: if we can get away with this, does that outweigh the risk that we might not? Sometimes it ends up profiting the company regardless.

Related to this is that prosecutors have total discretion in the realm of plea deals. If you do a crime here, it becomes a negotiation with the prosecutor. What can you offer them to get off the hook? Sometimes it makes sense to do a crime, because the advantages you gain become leverage to negotiate your way out of punishment.