There’s a broader thing here. Trump is not `pro’ a particular policy or agenda, just that he wants markets to swing wildly. Why? Because you can make a fast buck by day-trading with just a smidge of future information.

This means all the things the US can easily make unreliable will be unreliable. Which means that everything around it will become more robust/stable/hard to perturb (if it can, if not it will break). Energy is a clear place where we can build it robustly and widely distributed, so Trump is helpful. Other things (like, say, global finance, borders, and trust in institutional experts) are probably not easily patched.

I admit to hoping it was more… nix?

well, note that property taxes are present in plenty of other countries. They just don’t get spent the same way.

Toy model economics wise, you’ll note that consumption tax means less consumption means fewer jobs means less consumption means even higher consumption tax, until you’ve got no city.

Tax on capital isn’t great, in that people choose other capital or avoid keeping + improving it. But tax on land is the ‘least bad tax’, see georgism (by the guy who invented monopoly!).

I was curious, so I looked up a couple large cities. New york has a long budget document that really lacks charts, but talks a lot about schools. Somebody made this visualizer (which lacks pie charts! Why?!) for LA. Montreal has some reasonable pie charts for where their tax dollars go.

Weird headline given his more recent writing, Schneier on his blog makes it pretty clear that both things can be true: Anthropic has an excellent marketing team, and security is soon going to be an issue in new ways.

He also worked on a ‘you should get your security team functional ASAP’ paper that just dropped, which is riddled with AI hype, here

The line is no longer there in such comedic fashion; the paragraph is just:

In 2002, John Paul II requested that the media stop referring to the car as the “popemobile”, saying that the term was “undignified”.[1]

ending there, afaict.

link to video about this song in particular is attached to the OP (repeated here)

good bot

Sorry but such a screencap requires a source. This is almost surely misinformation.

Administrative costs are high in health care and education (which are not really the US federal government), but I can’t find data on this for the labor costs to administrative professionals in government. Source?

Labor costs are high for the federal government, but I thought a lot of that was pensions + regular raises. I don’t think these things should be attributed to capitalism run amok.

Idk if we want to be in a state that can only write ~1000 characters to regulate AI, and that will take at least a 2 month lag?

My gut reaction is exhaustion. I would like this if folks had the time, resources, and politicians weren’t so tied up in party politics.

If you have a functional legislative arm of government, then it produces too many bits of text for the average person to keep up with it, and it’s not terribly efficient for them to try. I don’t need to know the particulars of industrial zoning policy, but I do want it to be sensical.

And if the politicians decide to bundle things together, lots of wedging becomes available. This seems less common for single-issue policy juries (one could even constrain their range on creation).

But in RCV and good support: sure. I think it could be made to work.

I like this! I do prefer physical ballots (we’ve already had a few scares with new tech being hard for folks of certain generations), but that can totally be implemented.

I’m too many levels in and I can’t tell which combination you’re talking about XD

Administration in non-profits and schools mostly.

I think I disagree that each group needs to know the full constitutional law. Politicians often have aids for this, and this proposal doesn’t need to remove the courts. Let them summon a judge and negotiate the final language, or contract out multiple versions and take public comments.

Similarly for the teachers: in court rooms and congress, they aren’t permanent hires. They’re brought in by choice of the group (or someone organizing/arguing to the group). In most areas it is not so difficult to find well credentialed experts, who may in turn suggest other people to talk to (or, should any of them seem sus, may inspire a sortitioned member to suggest a critic). If data is bad, congress can get folks to go and collect the data they want in the way they want. When your job is to understand one issue, I think you have the time to consider multiple views and sort through the claims.

This is very similar to how we do it with juries; a body of the people to stamp/implement the laws written by congress and rules for reading them from judges. I think it’s an improvement.

But I do want to vouch for how teachable people can be. And I think it really changes how we fund/run/manage education when ‘functioning in the senate’ is a mandatory skill.

I worry that a lot of it comes from scale. It’s expensive/tricky to scale up human flexability; I think I’ve seen well meaning people design systems they intended to be human, and got much worse results than the lawyers and bankers. There’s some skill here.

Just logging that this doesn’t match any data I’ve seen, unless you take Nazi to be an obscenely broad tent. Sources + definitions required.