This site has developed a lot of content without seeming to directly address the major concerns anyone coming from git flow will have. For example, their code review page does not really address how github and gitlab are both set up to support branch based review, and trunk based review is a lot harder when using those tools. Similarly, I poked around and figured out what they recommend for hotfixes, which is just fix it on trunk and cherry-pick the commit. That works sometimes, but anywhere with infrequent releases (like regulated environments or shipped software) may find that pretty painful. I suspect I could raise more issues if I put more energy into it, but it's hard to want to, given how the content is presented.
Overall, this site reads like someone who's so convinced they're right that they don't bother to take other viewpoints seriously enough to actually refute them.
Funding a ubi wouldn't be that hard if we only cared about the kinds of things that get cheaper with time. Right now our federal tax rate is enough to cover 10k/year/pp (though nothing else), but if actually taxed the wealthy as much as we tax the middle class (for example, if we had a higher capital gains tax on public share sales, reducing the amount earned by the class of people who produce no real value and just earn money from stock growth), we could bring in enough to give out 5k/year/pp pretty easily. If everything that matters in life were getting cheaper the way computers and food did over the last half century, 5k/year/pp would be a good start, and as we got richer we could afford more.
But some sectors of the economy get more expensive with time, and those are what are killing us now and what prevents the UBI from being a good idea (before we fix them). Housing, Healthcare, education and childcare absorb more money every year and faster than the economy grows. Give people more money and those sectors just find ways to charge more. If we can't fix the way they do that, we get poorer in reality no matter how much more money we earn.
I realize this isn't how a lot of folks view things. To see it through my lens, imagine for a moment how wealthy we'd be if housing cost less than it did fifty years ago. If healthcare did. If education did. That's the world Keynes imagined, where we could be working 15 hour weeks (probably actually 25 hour weeks, but still) and still feel rich.
What's your point? I think you're trying to argue that we tax the wealthy as much as the middle class, but this claim doesn't support that. The 10th percentile of earnings in the US is 190k. The 5th is 290k. The 10-5th percentile is reasonable to class as "upper middle class" in many high cost locales.
5th percentile plus might be a reasonable proxy for wealthy, but even if they pay half of income tax receipts, that's not proof that we tax their income as much as we tax the middle class's. Income for the top 5% is on a power law curve. The top 1% starts at 850k - if they contribute twice as much as someone at the top 5, (290k), their percent is still lower.
Meanwhile, capital gains are taxed lower than ordinary income, and the wealthy make most of their income from capital gains. And the most exotic loopholes for reducing taxes on wealth are most available for the ultra wealthy.
If someone earning 5m/year pays 1m/year in tax, they should fire their accountant. And also they're paying less in tax than most upper middle class folks by percentage.
I looked at these two systems recently and noted another crucial difference for anyone using them for a use case that included access control. ElectricSQL doesn't seem to (yet) support table joins in a way that would support standard web app access control design patterns. If you're replicating a table to a device, you're replicating the entire table, not a user-limited selection.
Supporting joins is in development, but I'm not yet clear on whether the current dev branch on it goes far enough to support access control use cases.
There's a hack in place that's supposed to help - you can define an electric_user_id on the table - but that isn't actually usable in the majority of use cases, because most ACL cases include records where multiple users can access it. I did explore using views, but electricsql doesn't currently support postgres views.
(if I'm wrong or missed something in electricsql, I'd love to be corrected, as it looks like an exciting project otherwise)
These are both in development and due soon. From your comment, I think you’ve seen the shapes branch with where clauses and include trees already working, for example.
In the meantime, the shapes API over syncs the full table. This is temporary and obviously suboptimal but it means you can develop today using the shape APIs and still filter data you display using local queries. Then when the proper functionality lands, the sync will become more fine grained and optimal without your app code needing to change.
Hope that makes sense. We’re very much not a full table sync system. Our role is to provide the best possible model for controlling dynamic partial replication (and to maintain integrity across replication boundaries).
I cannot imagine advocating for using shapes as they currently exist for an access control use case. Shapes may limit what the user can see in the app, but I've now put all of my other users data on this user's device! No way can I pass a security audit with that.
I think calling this reprehensible is a bit over judgemental. Melatonin is pretty safe.
For example, there's melatonin in both human and cow milk (more in evening milk, because infants don't have a day night cycle yet, and giving rise to the belief that smells like an urban legend that the old timey advice to drink warm milk if you can't sleep originally came from drinking night time milk fresh from the cow for the melatonin).
Also, you know what causes us to make less melatonin? Light. Blue light especially. Is it equally reprehensible to allow children to exist in houses with led light bulbs, which affects their bodies just as much as a pill?
It seems likely to me that the addition of a small amount of melatonin to replace that lost due to nighttime lights is a reasonable parenting decision. Of course there's uncertainty, but there's uncertainty about everything, can we please stop freaking out as much as we do, as easily as we do?
If you're going to make this argument, I really wish you'd make it more explicit. I think what you're suggesting makes cities unlivable. The homeless drug users have to exist in space somewhere. What do you propose to do with these people? There's nowhere to ship them to that's not owned by someone who objects to their presence.
It is just really expensive, it would be better if they didn't do drugs rather than just letting them do it and having society responsible for picking up the pieces. If society has to be responsible for paying for these problems, then its no longer a personal decision with personal effect. We as a society have to decide whether we are going to allow hard drug abuse and "pay the bill for that decision" or not.
You need to think of it as a system of feedback loops. If you don't stem the input of the cycle of drug abuse by investing a little, your problem gets worse.
It seems people take a moral or 'fairness' based attitude to these social phenomena and that's what causes things like the war on drugs as a form of justice. The idea that everyone is self determined, which in a small way is true of the individual. But if you look at people in aggregate things are more clear, the universe doesn't play by those rules...
The point others are making is that it appears to be a zero-sum game, i.e., we're paying one way or the other, so the more compassionate option with better outcomes should win out. As I have seen it stated, the options appear to be to pay for: (i) criminalization and its effects/expenses, e.g., court system burden, incarceration, etc.; (ii) de-criminalization (potentially with legalization/taxation) to offset the cost of keeping cities livable by mitigating its effects/expenses, e.g., treatment and housing for addicts that may become homeless; or (iii) de-criminalization without paying for mitigations, leading to unlivable cities. Your comment reads like you see some way of simply not paying to deal with addicts, while also not having the consequences of a bunch of (potentially homeless) addicts living in society. If that's an accurate description of your point, how does that work? If it's not, then what do you mean?
You can't get addicted to a substance that you don't have the ability to obtain in the first place, or that you could obtain but choose not to because you're afraid of punishment. That's the whole theory behind criminalization: that it's not a zero sum game!
I think you're probably right that the criminal justice system isn't the most effective way of dealing with people who are already addicted, but how do you propose we stop people from getting addicted in the first place if hard drugs are perfectly legal, and the government is actively working to minimize the personal downsides of being addicted to them? Why not become an addict if the only consequence is that it means you get free food and housing for the rest of your life?
> how do you propose we stop people from getting addicted in the first place if hard drugs are perfectly legal
There are shades of legal and illegal. There's "We're going to lock you up for years for simple possession" and there's "We're giving it away free to kids at the corner store!", and in between those extremes lies a whole multidimensional landscape we could explore.
With harder drugs like opiates, most people are not talking about them being available at the liquor store, but solutions like removing criminal penalties for possession while providing support services, maintenance doses and counselling for those who are addicted.
> Why not become an addict
Is that a life you want? Queuing up outside the medical centre every morning for a shot that keeps the pain at bay?
> You can't get addicted to a substance that you don't have the ability to obtain in the first place
If you're saying you can't acquire heroine, given 24 hours, I'm afraid I've lost faith in everything else you've said because it's just based on a flawed perception of what world we live in.
Honestly you're making my point. We (as in civilization) tried criminalization, and it is more expensive (and has other added downsides) compared with decriminalization/legalization + taxation and treatment. How do I propose to get people not to think drugs are their best option? Ha. Okay sure, in response to that straw man here's my stab at fixing human society to help reduce the number of people that go that route (since that's what it would take). UBI + free healthcare (including all procedures that may be used to either assisting with a miscarriage or causing an abortion) + free contraceptives + free childcare + additional assistance for parents + free school lunches + free higher ed + strong labor protections / unions (+ -- US specific -- constitutional amendments to allow for regulation of firearms, getting monied interests out of politics, lessening the influence of extremists in politics including ranked choice voting or similar, making public money available to third-parties, I'm sure there's more). I'm sure what I've missed could fill an encyclopedia. My point is that the problem isn't simple, so if you're going to try to "solve" it, you're wasting time debating whether incarceration is better than legalization.
> My point is that the problem isn't simple, so if you're going to try to "solve" it, you're wasting time debating whether incarceration is better than legalization.
Okay, but that debate is what this entire thread is about. I don't think it's a waste of time. We don't have to fix all the world's problems at once.
> We (as in civilization) tried criminalization, and it is more expensive (and has other added downsides) compared with decriminalization/legalization + taxation and treatment
Personally I think the jury's still out on that one, particularly once you ask yourself whether legalization is likely to result in less drug addiction overall, or more. But time will tell.
So is your theory is that the drug war was a success, and nobody could get drugs when they were illegal? How do you propose to make them go away? That way was tried, and failed.
I understand this feeling, and feel it frequently with other comments, but don't see the comment you're replying to as the best example of that. Their list of reasons are mostly not overcomable with "great engineering achievement" - they're mostly economics. If you don't see a path to overcoming the economics, then you can engineer all you want and it won't succeed in our society.
So maybe a better contribution would be to ask what would drive successful economics of battery swapping? It seems like one critical piece which could happen on its own and would then potentially enable battery swapping is battery standardization. Yes, standardization reduces engineering options, as the parent suggests, but it also makes consumer lives much much better. I've got some non-standard batteries on my ebike and it probably puts a much shorter time limit on the bike's life than I'd prefer.
Standardization doesn't have to reduce engineering options as much if there are a handful of form factors. That's what we've seen with AA, AAA, 9V,etc. We should be aiming for a small set of form factors and connectors that enable sufficient engineering options.
I don't believe so? Your link doesn't say that those nuclear aircraft actually flew. (?)
I understand that the (claimed, alleged) 2023 nuclear cruise missile test [0] was the first, and only, nuclear-powered aircraft that has flown. All of the Cold War stuff was static-fire tested, at most.
Huh. I thought I remembered that they had, and I thought the link agreed with me, but rereading it sounds like they just put a nuclear reactor on a plane and flew it to see if it would kill the crew.
"Between May and August 1961, the Tu-95LAL completed 34 research flights. Much of them made with the reactor shut down. The main purpose of the flight phase was examining the effectiveness of the radiation shielding which was one of the main concerns for the engineers. The massive amount of liquid sodium, beryllium oxide, cadmium, paraffin wax and steel plates; were the sole source of protection for the crew against the deadly radiation emerging from the core."
Isn't this only true if OpenAI decides to let you into the gpt4 API? Is there a trick for getting them to turn it on? I haven't heard back from them for access yet.
Overall, this site reads like someone who's so convinced they're right that they don't bother to take other viewpoints seriously enough to actually refute them.