gusgalarnyk @ gusgalarnyk @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

386

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think you're right, I just think you're tying together two concepts under an a assumption of forced inflation - which again is correct because we do force it every year but I think the distinction is important. We could reduce or increase inflation at the government level because it's inherently controlled by the government.

But maybe this isn't as helpful of a distinction as I think it is.

Is that how inflation works? Cause I don't think it is. Inflation is caused by creating more money than you're removing from the system - having no effect on actual resources in an ideal setting. So they're completely decoupled. You could have no growth and no inflation or no growth and tons of inflation, depending entirely on how much money is in the system (which is not the same thing as more houses or food, etc).

Crawl - technically pvp, arcade game Overcooked - try to manage a kitchen together Duck Game - completely pvp, ducks with guns, very fun

Why does this website claim DOGE saved any money?

That makes sense. My point isn't to tax the property it's that the property is taxed, if that makes any sense. You tax based on the property, it traces to the owner, the owner gets taxed based on the property. If the owner lives in Beijing or Antarctica the property is still here and gets taxed, they can't avoid it by moving unless they can take the property.

So in that case, an exempt amount is fine. I'd just want it to be steep up to a point where it's 98 or 100%.

No one gets a third house before everyone gets one kinda thing. And also no one is allowed to have enough wealth they can destabilize democracy or even a city.

I mean if the billionaires own the houses and factories and land it's the same thing right?

Although I appreciate the thought here, and I think the investment idea may even be good regardless of what I'm about to say, that's not exactly how this works. If you tax the assets the rich own, where they own them, it doesn't matter where they go. And they can't live in Germany and not get taxed, so they can change citizenship all they want if they live here they will get taxed here. And based off of the most recent studies/reports I've seen (but not read) rich don't actually move when taxes go up - which makes sense. People have lives, family, friends, favorite restaurants and hobby spaces.

The rich will try to dodge the taxes, they may even succeed but we don't have to legistate a bullet proof solution we just have to agree:

1. the rich need to be heavily taxed (I'd even say out of existence)
2. taxing the rich is possible via various methods
3. taxing the rich would solve and/or reverse most of societies problems so everyone should talk and support it.

But yes, I'm a big fan of no outside investment. I'm also a fan of government investment requiring ownership purchases. I'm also a fan of requiring companies to be partially or totally owned by their workers. And I don't think anyone should have a net worth over let's say 50 million.

Merz is predictable and a traitor to the German people. He will usher in the fascist power grab through conservative policies - the AFD will grow in popularity as conservatives protect the 1%.

Die Linke's tax plan would have paid for the yearly debt of the government and then some; their secret - tax the wealthy.

We can afford all of our costs, we can improve society, we can provide a thriving economy for all Germans if we simply tax the ultra wealthy out of existence. No one should have a billion euro net worth, nor 100 million nor 50 million. No one need own 3 houses while others go without even a flat.

We have enough wealth in this country, it's just in the hands of the hoarders. Don't look towards conservatives or the right for change, look towards those that address the root problem!

/thread

This is a common misunderstanding, to the point of it being propaganda pushed by oil companies to cause confusion, but electrifying everything is always better long-term than not. From a monetary stand point but most definitely from an environment perspective.

Your area will not always be powered by coal. It is already some degree powered by green energy, it will only get more green over time - and rather quickly with the price of green energy and battery solutions plummeting. Even if it stayed coal powered for a significant amount of time, the reality is gas takes energy to drill, energy to refine, energy to transport, energy to store and deliver the last few miles (km), and then some (or most) of the energy that reaches your house is lost in conversion.

Electricity is increasingly becoming free to generate, there is no refinement, no energy cost to transport, less energy to store and deliver the last few miles, and then most of the energy that reaches your house is used for it's intended purpose. Pure electricity is highly efficient and it's only getting greener.

As for cost, again I'm not wise to everyone's situation, but gas has a constant cost that will always be higher over the long-term compared to electricity that - if I had to make a bet - I'd say will pay back the upfront costs on the order of years and not decades at worst.

That being said, yes, we are all getting poorer and housing is one of societies big failures right now and there's no shame in not being able to afford the healthy, optimal items right now. That's late stage capitalism, we need to tax billionaires and multi-millionaires out of existence.

But the reality is gas is worse in every metric, and it is definitely worse for the environment regardless of the power generation sources your local area currently uses. It's fine if you have to use it, it's fine if you can't afford the alternative (although please calculate long term cost to likely save yourself money), just don't believe gas is better or cheaper or more environmentally friendly.

I mean this isn't a discussion about what stove you should use if you have one stove. This is a discussion about which is superior and which you should pursue if given the opportunity.

There are a painful number of Americans (and now Germans) who still prefer gas over induction for one reason or the other. A large portion of the Americans in my experience think this way because of the lobbying campaigns of gas companies to make gas seem better or safer than it is.

So ya, if you rent (increasingly most people because late stage capitalism) I'm not talking about how much worse your stove is compared to induction to shame you. I'm talking to everyone who has an opportunity to change someone's mind on it, buy a new stove for a new construction, or replace their stove when it dies (or sooner if you can swing it).

And there's no way the gas stove doesn't cost more over even it's first couple of years compared to induction. The price of gas will only go up with time, electricity will only go down with time.

Good point, thanks for adding those! I forget how hard my gas stove was to clean now that I'm on induction.

Induction is far superior to gas which is far superior to electric.

Gas is problematic for a lot of reasons:

• the infrastructure leaks from the supplier to your house
• the infrastructure is expensive to build and maintain compared to electricity
• the infrastructure is dangerous compared to electricity
• gas stoves leak harmful chemicals into your house
• using them reduces the air quality in your house
• they transfer a relatively small amount of their output heat into your cookware compared to induction (which also means they heat up your kitchen more)
• they're less responsive than induction
• every moment of their use is furthering climate change significantly more when compared to induction, and paying for that infrastructure to a home locks that house into that decision for decades at a time.

Gas has some benefits to induction, but if it was invented today very few people would use it because it's so much worse than induction.

This comment isn't to say "people who use gas are bad or in danger", it's just saying at the technical level and from a societal perspective there's no meaningful reason to use gas as your main heating element's source of power.

I haven't played in probably 6 months, that's why I said it. It was a fantastic game but I wanted to wait for it to be closer to complete to sink too much time into it.

This patch is gonna get me and my mate to check out how things have progressed in the last ~6 months. Exciting!

This looks kinda bad but I can't place my finger on what it is. I think it's the like clay like textures and mobile phone like graphics.

This isn't giving next gen to me and the trailer felt was less put together than they usually do. I guess I like the more realistic or hyper realistic style the cinematics have always pushed in my heads.

That being said, I hope it slaps. I miss a solid dawn of war that my pals and I can play. Nothing like Dark Crusade LAN parties back in the day.

Merz sucks, the conservatives suck, and I hope Germany can survive this corporate illness long enough to vote in people who care about improving Germany and the world. The CDU will worsen this country until the AFD win unless the people push back at every level.

We can have a better life in Germany, if we don't vote for the defenders of the rich and wealthy.

Well I haven't read his biography or even really followed him so... I came in with this new watch, have experienced very few things from them as a company, and a couple of the experiences were just a bummer.

I've got nothing against the guy, maybe everything you said is correct, I don't wish him ill - just pointing out some things I experienced with this redesign announcement.

Did you watch the video where the creator talks about adding more features? I also got the ick from that lol. He talked about throwing in a cheap compass module and not being able to promise how good it was and then said "you're welcome". Maybe I'm being a Karen lol (oh god I should have died a hero), but I didn't like that whole exchange. If I recontextualize it to "a friend of mine shooting the shit about his project" it's not bad at all - just my lazy friend complaining about some feedback. But the fact that it's the founder making his supposed baby and having no interest in making the most jam packed, high quality product, makes me a bit upset.

There's that Kickstarter knife going on right now, and watching their video where they're obsessed with putting a whole bunch of bullshit into this knife and doing it elegantly - idk... Felt like a stark contrast from that to this "your welcome for a cheap compass module" attitude.

Idk. I buy things based off of vision and belief in execution right now and this guy makes a slim epaper watch vision feel like a vision of money bags instead. And now the execution misses the mark for me. Vibes are all off. RIP, might get one after reviews now but ya writing this out has convinced me to cancel.

I hope it still slaps for everyone and it's successful. I want more epaper everywhere - love the tech.

Oof, I actually really liked the square screen design of the preliminary images. It had a much cooler retro sci-fi vibe to me previously, now it looks a bit forgettable and basic.

I want to know the thickness, because I might just cancel based off this redesign. Which is unusual for me but ya, I'm not digging it.