I think we will still have charlatans even if we solve all societal problems because people are fundamentally not built to reason, and they will always be vulnerable to those who prey on the ignorant for power.
Thus, we need to build society as if people are stupid to prevent the worst abuses of power.
In terms of harm, almost everything will be several orders of magnitude less than lead.
PFAS and Microplastics might be bad, but they really aren't on the same level of bad as lead, which is known to cause severe societal harm due to its impact on the neural system.
Our intelligence was not evolved for too much thinking. Most of our brain is wired towards feeling, and for the overwhelming majority of human existence, our feelings were well suited for small, cooperative, communal existence as small tribes/bands/clans. We don't "think" for most of the decisions we make in our day to day lives, nor do we try to learn from all the possible sources.
IMO religion is "needed" in order to shortcut our feeling brain to help make us make the correct collectivist decision. It's like writing software on shitty firmware and limited hardware so that it can still function in modern society.
Try to get the Wi-Fi node to a better place using Ethernet.
Get a Wi-Fi “repeater” or better yet, a mesh network, where the second access point is placed in between your computer and the router to “rebroadcast” to the router.
If you look at the rental market in the United States, it’s cheaper to rent than it is to own if you take into consideration the opportunity cost of money when it is not invested in the higher growth equities market from a purely financial perspective.
Farming isn’t a charity either but it’s usually more efficient for people to not work as farmers tilling their own land.
I do think it is an effective hedge against increased cost of living in your particular area, and swapping that out for other risks such as natural disaster, long term climate and political disaster, and increases in interest or insurance costs, but I don’t think most people see it that way from a financial perspective.
From a market average perspective, your earnings in the market will far outweigh normal increases in rental cost in the long term. Property tax, insurance, and cost of home maintenance are also going to increase as cost of living increases.
I do 100% agree there is a psychological benefit to home ownership that might even extend to the foundation of American middle-class democratic values.
I’m not sure if this is something that’s helpful, but I do want to give the advice that real estate really isn’t the best way to build wealth If you are very disciplined. Renting can be an even better way of building wealth.
If you treat housing a service you pay for, buying a house has a higher overall cost if you include mortgage, taxes, insurance, repairs, and etc. Remember, mortgage is the least you'll pay, while rent is the most you'll pay.
Imagine if your mortgage was 2k/mo, taxes, insurance, and home maintenance is another 500/mo, you can almost certainly find a house to rent for under that cost (let's say 2k/mo for example) unless you live in one of the exceptionally cheap places in the US where the price-to-rent ratio is low <15.
Now also consider how you most likely needed a 20% down, and most of your payment goes towards interest initially for a mortgage.
The tricky part is having the financial discipline to put away that extra 500/mo into investments. Mortgage FORCES you to save into an appreciating asset, most people will just blow that extra 500/mo onto other items. It sounds like you already are by maxing out your 401k, and I would also looking into maxing Roth IRA if you can. Home ownership isn't the only path towards wealth, though it is a means by which many people (conscious or not) force themselves into "saving".
But with the rise of AI, what if it destroys our institutions of “knowledge” by removing the role of schools as a source of teaching not just charge them to glorified babysitter centers?
YouTubeTV carries network channels that directly charge YouTube TV carriage fees. Those channels charge a pretty hefty fee regardless of who you get the channels through.
It actually does get higher revenue for content creators for the majority of your creators. Average per view is something like 5-10x vs non premium views.
It’s based around your watch time and something like 50%? of your subscription split across the channels you watch.
Until you realize overwhelming majority, (70+percent) of the tax deduction is on commercial property (hence California strip malls because you’ll never get updated tax when you never upgrade your commercial facility) and luxury residential property over 2mm and that’s why we have to have income tax in California.
shanghaibebop @ shanghaibebop @beehaw.org Posts 1Comments 91Joined 2 yr. ago
That talk was quite nice, I really enjoyed it, thank you