Isn't that the argument for the alternative? The risk of being distracted by other traffic and missing a pedestrian who was obscured by another vehicle is much lower when there are no other vehicles or traffic, and then the rules are indecorous for not taking into account the change in risk.
> Of course, the very idea of jaywalking was created to remove the obligation to not kill people from drivers and shift it to the very people being killed, but this doesn’t seem to bother the meddling grandmothers.
I'm kind of curious how you expect this to work.
A driver is driving down the road at the posted speed limit. Instead of crossing at an intersection, a pedestrian steps into the road from between two parked vehicles directly in front of the moving car. By that point the car cannot be stopped before it hits the pedestrian because of the laws of physics, so who would you have at fault and how was that person expected to prevent it?
> But in theory fingerprinting with protocol RTT difference where one protocol is proxied and the other is impossible to bypass, but this is only the theory.
Alice wants you to think she's in New York when she's really in Taipei, so she gets a VM in New York and runs a browser in it via RDP. How are you detecting this?
> Anyhow, we know what life was like before Great Society programs, and it wasn't higher wages for the poor, we've just forgotten because it's been so successful.
That doesn't tell you the answer because the programs were instituted prior to the productivity increases in the 20th century. Are people better off now than they were before the general availability of electric light or mechanized transportation? Probably, but that doesn't mean you can trace the development of modern agriculture to the existence of SNAP.
> In a free market, how would Walmart be forced to pay a "livable wage" if entitlements didn't exist?
People frequently have choices between jobs that are easier or otherwise more pleasant and jobs that pay more. For example, long-haul truck drivers get paid significantly more than short-haul drivers, but they also sleep in their trucks and don't get to see their families most nights. Likewise, a lot of jobs require you to get a degree or certification, which can be a lot of work, which people may not be willing to do if they don't need to.
If you give them "benefits" then they take the easier job over the better paying one. Which allows the employer offering the easier job to pay less and still get applicants. It also creates a poverty trap if the benefits are contingent on not making more money, because then the compensation advantage of the higher-paying job is much smaller -- in some cases negative.
> EITC increases as your wages increase, theoretically incentivizing work, rather than diminishing as you earn more.
Except that it does diminish as you earn more, because it has an aggressive phase out. For a single person with no dependents, the phase out kicks in below federal minimum wage. If you had a minimum wage job at 30 hours a week and wanted to work 40 hours, increasing your hours would cause you to receive a smaller EITC.
There is a reason the EITC represents ~0.1% of the federal budget, and it's not because it's a bad idea, it's because it's implemented in a way that prevents people from getting much from it.
> People frequently have choices between jobs that are easier or otherwise more pleasant and jobs that pay more. For example, long-haul truck drivers get paid significantly more than short-haul drivers, but they also sleep in their trucks and don't get to see their families most nights. Likewise, a lot of jobs require you to get a degree or certification, which can be a lot of work, which people may not be willing to do if they don't need to.
That's a slight of hand. There's value in choice, and that value is being reaped by the worker precisely because poverty programs make it possible.
But let's go with that example. You're assuming the number of truckers and trucker-hours would remain constant. But they wouldn't. That's just not how dynamic systems work. There are other people for whom short-haul trucking is the less desirable choice than what they're doing now, or who work fewer hours than they're doing now. Without the welfare subsidies, the supply of short-haul trucking labor would likely increase--more people working more hours. Similarly, you're assuming the demand for short-haul trucking would remain the same at higher wages. But demand in economics is not the same thing as "I would like" or even "I need", and at higher wages the demand would likely diminish.
The whole argument is the economics equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, and it's sold by throwing contrived complexity at people and hoping they don't think it through. Like perpetual motion or free energy machines, at the most miniscule scale there are exceptions and caveats (maybe short-haul wages in particular would rise, especially after accounting for the totality of labor economy changes), but those exceptions don't scale to a systems level. That doesn't stop con artists from selling their Rube Goldberg machines, though, knowing the vast majority of people won't think it through.
What the rhetoric is trying to do is bolster support for a livable wage through radical policy changes by drumming up anti-corporate sentiment. It's in service of a normative argument (a "livable wage" is a reasonable social ask, IMO, notwithstanding its amorphous nature), but disguised as a scientific argument that can only result in failure by setting wrong expectations about how markets and policy operate, ultimately reinforcing cynicism.
> There's value in choice, and that value is being reaped by the worker precisely because of poverty programs make it possible.
It seems like you're ignoring the same thing you're objecting to: It's a dynamic system.
If long-haul trucking companies offer less desirable but higher paying jobs and easier jobs aren't paying a living wage then people would pick the harder job that lets them not starve. Which means the easier jobs would have to pay more in order to attract workers, unless those workers can get government assistance. If they can, the easier jobs can get people to work without paying more, because the assistance programs let them pick the easier job even at lower pay. In other words, the subsidies were supposed to go to the poor and instead they went to the lower-paying employers.
In a dynamic system the long-haul companies would then have to respond if it became more desirable to work somewhere the pay is low enough to get government assistance, but the phase outs give the low-paying employers another advantage.
Say the undesirability of the job is good for $15k/year in additional compensation. However, if you got paid $15k more, you'd lose $10k to government benefit phase outs and additional taxes. To actually get paid $15k more, you'd have to "get paid" $45k more. Which is to say, the employer with the low-paying job can pay you $45k less.
But it's a dynamic system, so they might "only" pay you $35k less and then hire more people. The trucking companies would then have to pay $45k more than them when it used to be $15k. Even with Walmart paying less than before, their relative advantage has increased. And there are two ways to get something a long distance over land: A long-haul truck the whole way, or a short-haul truck to the rail yard, a freight train, and then another short-haul truck. So then instead of a truck driver getting higher pay per mile over 2000 miles of driving, a different one gets lower pay per mile over 60 miles of driving twice, and a rail company gets the rest.
So the low-wage subsidies cause the amount of higher-wage labor demand to go down by making it less competitive with non-labor alternatives to perform the same function, as labor is diverted to the lower-paying jobs even while enabling them to pay even less.
> There are other people for whom short-haul trucking is the less desirable choice than what they're doing now, or who work fewer hours than they're doing now.
All of that is already baked in to the existing numbers; the long-haul drivers get paid more because fewer people want to do it.
> Like perpetual motion or free energy machines, at the most miniscule scale there are exceptions and caveats, but those exceptions don't scale to a systems level.
Only they're not exceptions. If you subsidize something you get more of it. What happens if you subsidize low-paying jobs but not higher-paying jobs?
> The household that brings home $80K/yr would always spend a larger percentage of their income on taxable consumption, than an executive that takes home multiple million per year. Progressive income tax brackets are a better tool for making sure those who are able to pay a larger share of the common good, do so.
"Progressive income tax brackets" don't actually do this. The people with so much money they can't spend it all use various tax shelters as it is. They typically manage to not even pay tax on the amounts they do spend, because they borrow money and spend it instead of recognizing it as income first. So they would be paying more under a flat consumption tax than they do under the status quo. The "progressive income tax system" doesn't actually work the way it's claimed to.
On top of that, the problem is essentially fake. People absolutely can and do spend millions of dollars a year. Cardiologists making seven figures buy huge houses with multi-car garages full of exotic makes etc. It's spending billions of dollars a year that nobody is really going to do, but that's such a tiny percentage of people that it's ridiculous to design a tax system being imposed on everybody else on the basis of that, and those are the exact people who aren't paying the high rates under the existing system anyway.
Here's a proposal: Have a flat consumption tax, and then have an income tax where the rate is 0% up to the 99.9th percentile income and only the top 0.1% even have to file a tax return. The latter is going to be avoided in the same ways it is now, but at least then you can't say the billionaires don't have a higher nominal rate, right?
Is it though? Both social security and 401k withdrawals are taxed under the existing income tax, so they'd just be paying it as consumption tax instead.
Also, aren't people with an enormous amount of stored wealth "the rich"?
You don’t have to have an enormous amount of stored wealth to be on a livable fixed income (e.g. a municipal pension) and that income could be very lightly taxed today relative to a viable consumption tax.
Government pensions seem like the easy one. The state would be getting the revenue from when they spend the money, so they could use it to adjust the amount of the pension ("cost of living adjustment") and it would be revenue-neutral.
But also, government pensions tend to be, shall we say, unreasonably generous, because they live in that sour spot between "the legislature doesn't have to pay for this in the current year's budget" and "the union negotiates reasonable-seeming rules it knows it can game against public officials who are in their pocket or DGAF" e.g. pension is based on compensation in the last year before retirement and overtime is "awarded" based on seniority, so that people put in 80 hours of overtime every week in their last year. And then we're back to, aren't those the people we want to be taxing anyway?
Are state government pensions worse? Folks live and work for a state that includes a pension, i.e. Illinois, then retire and move out of the state, no longer contributing to that state's economy, just drawing on it. Thoughts?
Most of the "we should just get all the taxes from rich people" arguments ignore two fairly important things.
The first is how asset markets works, i.e. why rich people are rich. It's because there are finitely many assets and whenever anyone rich gets more money, they use it to bid up the prices. But that makes high taxes on rich people do something unintuitive at scale: It takes away the money that was making the stock market go up. And then not only do they have less money, they also have less income, because the people who would have paid them for their stock also have less money, which makes stock prices go down. Which means that increasing their tax rate from e.g. 25% to 50% doesn't generate anywhere close to twice as much revenue, and it also lowers the growth rate in the tax revenue you get from them. Which means that raising the rate will, in the long term, inherently generate less revenue. Whether you end up underwater in 48 months or 48 years depends on what the existing and proposed rates are and what the economy looks like, but there is always some period of time after which a reduction in the compounding rate is going to absorb any percentage increase in the tax rate. At which point you're paying the recurring costs and lower compounding rate from the higher tax rate indefinitely in exchange for no additional revenue, and indeed for less government revenue.
And the second is that Congress wants money to spend, so they're going to do the things that cause them to have more money to spend. Now imagine what kind of non-tax policies they're going to implement if the tax system makes it so the only way they get more money to spend is if they transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. We don't actually have an effective solution to the principal-agent problem, so perverse incentives are bad, right?
> Which means there's less workers being paid, less taxes, less money to be spent on the economy, which means less money to pay workers, which means... the logical conclusion is "no economy at all".
Except that's not how the economy works.
Suppose you automate web development. Fewer people get paid for that anymore. Does it increase long-term unemployment? Not really, because it creates surplus. Now everybody else has a little extra money they didn't have to spend on web development, and they'll want to buy something with it, so you get new jobs making whatever it is they want to spend the money on instead.
The only way this actually breaks down is if people stop having anything more they want to buy. But that a) seems pretty unlikely and b) implies that we've now fully automated the production of necessities, because otherwise there would be jobs providing healthcare, growing food, building houses, etc.
The flaw is assuming that lower costs “free up” money.
Money isn’t "freed". Money is created. Banks create it when they lend against future income. If automation removes wage income, banks don’t create replacement demand: they redirect credit into assets.
That’s why you can have rising productivity, stagnant wages, booming asset prices, and weak consumption at the same time. The missing variable is where credit is created, not how efficient production is. (Think Japan in the 90s)
If you think the AI threat is real buy real assets now. (not financial IOUs in computer systems)
>Now everybody else has a little extra money they didn't have to spend on web development, and they'll want to buy something with it, so you get new jobs making whatever it is they want to spend the money on instead.
Why assume a business that just boosted profits by reducing headcount would want to spend that surplus on hiring more workers elsewhere? Seems like it would mostly go towards stock buybacks and higher executive pay packages. There might be some leakage into new hiring, but I reckon the overall impact will be intensifying the funneling of money to the top and further hollowing out of the labor market.
But that implicitly assumes all jobs are comparable financially. Sure there’ll always be jobs to do but x number of web devs or whatever is not the same as x numbers of nursing home care workers.
Also in terms of extra money and spending, the logic also breaks a bit because we know that by age cohorts, older cohorts have more money but tend to have less consumer spending than the 25 - 40 cohort.
It's not a matter of scale. If people don't have to spend as much on X then they end up with extra money and will spend it on Y. Jobs then shift from X to Y.
This has been happening for centuries. The large majority of people used to work in agriculture. Now we can produce food with a low single digit percentage of the population. Textiles, transportation, etc. are all much less labor intensive than they were in the days of cobblers and ox carts, yet the 20th century was not marked with a 90% unemployment rate.
It's either one of two things. Either post-scarcity is possible because machines that can collect and assemble resources into whatever anybody wants at no cost are possible, and then nobody needs to work because everything is free. Or it isn't, there are still things machines can't do, and then people have jobs doing that.
> get the bloody USD printing machine under control
The amount the US government spends on debt service is already unreasonable. If the US dollar lost reserve status, the first thing that would happen is that the Fed would have to buy the debt with newly created money to prevent bond rates from causing interest payments to explode. Meanwhile the act of other countries unloading US dollar reserves would cause significant inflation in itself.
Basically, loss of reserve status = hyperinflation. At least at the outset.
On the plus side, that would pretty much wipe out the excessive amount of US consumer debt as long as wages stay consistent with the value of the dollar.
You, an engineer at a major aircraft manufacturer that isn't Boeing, have been working after hours with some of your colleagues on a hobby project to add some modern safety features to an older model of small private plane, because you regard it as unsafe even though it still has a government certification and you got into this field because you want to save lives.
Your "prototype" is a plane from the original manufacturer with no physical modifications but a software patch to use data from sensors the plane already had to prevent the computer from getting confused under high wind conditions in a way that has already caused two fatal crashes.
Now you have to fly somewhere and your options for a plane are the one with the history of fatal crashes or the same one with your modifications, and it's windy today. Which plane are you getting on?
Are you kidding me? How many times have you unwillingly introduced bugs into a code base you didn’t fully understand? That’s basically table stakes for software engineering.
> Definitely not the untested code I wrote myself!
Nobody said it was untested.
> How many times have you unwillingly introduced bugs into a code base you didn’t fully understand? That’s basically table stakes for software engineering.
Which applies just the same to the people the company hired to do it, and now we're back to "the people with a stronger incentive to get it right are the people who die if it goes wrong".
I can’t tell if you seriously think a random person writing code in their basement is equivalent to a company that has access to API docs, design specs, actual test hardware, the expertise of a ton of engineers that have worked on the project and understand how it can go wrong, not to mention all the regulations and verifications they’re subject to.
But if you do then wow. That really puts in perspective the kind of people that use hacker news. I’m gonna be more selective about who I bother replying to going forward.
> I can’t tell if you seriously think a random person writing code in their basement is equivalent to a company that has access to API docs, design specs
Are you saying not having those things is dangerous? They should be required to publish all of that for safety-critical devices then.
> actual test hardware
Why would arbitrary people be unable to buy test hardware? Again something to be addressed if true rather than used as an excuse.
> the expertise of a ton of engineers that have worked on the project and understand how it can go wrong
Do they not have internet access? If they don't even work for the company anymore then that could be the only way to access that information.
Literally something which is happening on the linked Reddit page.
> not to mention all the regulations and verifications they’re subject to.
Regulations are for preventing someone else from harming you. You don't need a government incentive to protect you from yourself, you already come with that incentive.
Tested how? With 100% "unit test" coverage? I can certainly see how a random person on the internet might be highly motivated and actually talented enough to contribute to these sorts of projects. But they don't have the budget and resources that commercial entities have. They don't have the same due diligence requirements. They don't have the same liability. If I use a commercial device unaltered, it's the company's fault if the device fucks up or is defective and causes harm. If I install random internet software on my medical device and it fucks up and causes harm, it's my fault.
I say this as someone who might modify my own medical devices because I'm so fucking jaded over the capitalist march towards enshitification and maximizing profit over human lives. There is simply no way random folks on the internet can test these types of systems to any reliable degree. It requires rigorous testing across hundreds to thousands of test cases. They at best can give you the recipe that works well for them and the few people that have voluntarily tried their version. That doesn't scale and certainly isn't any safer than corporate solutions.
Why do people think constantly something made by some random company is automatically better than something made "DIY".
I totally understand, that because of liability and some more availability of resources, you would expect a company product to be "safe". BUT: if it is your butt that is going to be in the line, then I bet you: you will be much more careful that a random engineer in some random company. About the resources available in a big company, they are usually more directed to marketing, legal (including lobbing to avoid right to repair) and oder areas to maximize revenue, and not exactly in quality.
I worked in 2 different big companies which worked in "mission critical systems" and boy! I can tell you some stories about how unsafe is what they do, and how much money is invested in "cover your ass" instead of making products better/safer.
I thought I explained it, but I'll break it down into smaller words. Medical software doesn't just have to solve one particular users's problems. It has to be generalized to the majority of folk seeking treatment for a particular problem. If one particular CPAP user is able to tweak their settings to work better for their particular lifestyle, it is not generalizeable to every CPAP user. A corporation offering a general solution is put under *far* more scrutiny than a random github repo is. A corporation can be sued for releasing a product that kills people, but good luck convincing a court that your family deserves restitution for you installing a random script you found on the internet into your insulin pump.
This has fuck all to do with how much corporations care about people. It has everything to do with liability laws and how victims can get restitution. It has everything to do with the actual risks of installing random internet scripts versus the corporations who have to jump through regulatory hoops. And it's not to say corporations get everything right. They fuck things up constantly. But they fuck things up constantly with oversight and regulation and you want me to believe random internet users will make a better product without it. It's nonsense.
I have explained it already in other comments, but let me break it down for you again:
The “liability”, “scrutiny”, “regulation” only generate “cover your ass” measures, bureaucracy, red tape, costs, and hardly any real measure to increase quality or safety. My work is in such a critical mission systems company, and they don’t give a shit about safety, just are interested in coming out clean or not waste too much money in settlement with dead people relatives.
> but good luck convincing a court that your family deserves restitution for you installing a random script you found on the internet into your insulin pump.
And good luck fighting a Pharma corporation for whatever did wrong. BTW, you bring the CPAP topic. Maybe you can read this at leisure [1] in this case, because it was a huge scandal, they pay. But 90% of the time, they don’t. And even if this case, with legal cost deducted, and divided by all people, is not a real compensation (spoiler alert: it never ever is!).
Please note in this case they DID KNOW about the issue, and did nothing. So much for liability and scrutiny.
This is fucking retarded. Liability isn't just CYA. It's real fucking consequences when someone dies. From your own fucking source:
> Philips Respironics agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement on April 29, 2024, to compensate people for financial damages related to the recall.
Which open source individual contributor will agree to a $1.1 billion dollar settlement because of wrongdoing? Not a single fucking one because those numbers don't make sense when random internet users are promising salvation if you just download their firmware. What a complete crock of shit you're suggesting here and you're just reinforcing my point. Did you even do the barest amount of critical thinking here?
random internet users are not promising salvation, nor or they taking profit.
they are saying: i made this and it worked for me in my specific case. you can look at it (or have a trusted knowledgable friend look at it), and use it, for zero payment; if you want to, if the paid solutions offered on the market are insufficient for your specific case.
they would never need to come up with 1.1 billion dollars because they're not making 10x that from selling things that still harm people despite the resources that that profit makes available.
> But they don't have the budget and resources that commercial entities have.
Everyone is standing on the shoulders of giants. You're not going from stone tools to jet engines in a month, but you could fix a bug in one in that time.
> They don't have the same due diligence requirements. They don't have the same liability.
Things that exist to try to mitigate the misalignment of incentives that comes from paying someone else to create something you depend on. Better for the incentives to align to begin with.
Notice also that these things are floors, not ceilings. The company is only required to do the minimum. You can exceed it by as much as you like.
> If I use a commercial device unaltered, it's the company's fault if the device fucks up or is defective and causes harm. If I install random internet software on my medical device and it fucks up and causes harm, it's my fault.
And then if the community version fixes a bug that would have killed you and you stick with the commercial version you can sue them for killing you. Except that you're dead.
> There is simply no way random folks on the internet can test these types of systems to any reliable degree.
Basically the entire population is on the internet, so the set of them includes all the people doing it for a corporation. Are they going to forget how to do their jobs when they go home, or when they or a member of their family gets issued another company's device and they want it to be right?
Wouldn't that imply that end-user license agreements are all unenforceable because the software was sold through a retailer, and even if it wasn't you could just a get a secondhand copy?
By my understanding EULAs are based on contract law and having a clickwrap agreement that requires you agree to it before using the software, not copyright law. Except perhaps to the extent that copyright law would prevent you from creating a derivative work that doesn't require you to agree to that clickwrap agreement prior to using the software.
I think the usual argument is that you don't own the digital good, you have a license to use it, and that license is between you and the originator (or their reseller) directly. And you aren't allowed to resell the license.
> No, not if the same itself was unlawful because Alice signed a contract to not sell it like that.
It's the contract that's the violation, isn't it? What would the first sale doctrine be if in order to get a copy you could be required to sign a contract not to exercise your rights under it? For that matter, how could state-level contract law override the federal first sale doctrine?
The "derivative work" hack also seems kind of fragile. The normal way to get someone to agree to something is that they need a right from the license, which they then don't get if they don't agree to it. But if it doesn't give them anything that they need then "there are ways to use the copy they own and have a right to use without agreeing to any additional terms" is more like the default you're trying to hack your way out of than something they're exploiting a loophole to get into, and where does that leave you if anything slips?
Suppose Alice is a three year old. She owns the copy, she presses the button and now she has a running copy even though she's not competent to enter into a contract, and then Bob buys it from her. Or Alice owns the copy and Carol presses the button, and then maybe Carol could be sued, but also maybe Carol lives in another country, and either way Alice now owns a running copy she never agreed not to sell. And then you want to be able to say "but that's cheating" except that it's not any less cheating than what you were doing to try to get them to agree to it.
Sure, maybe anyways but let's assume it is, the parties to that contract are the manufacturer and the copyright holder. The contract allows the manufacturer to distribute it to the distributor without requiring the distributor to agree to the terms and itself become a party. The distributor can then sell the device with the software on it on without acquiring a license and becoming a party to the contract because the copyright has been exhausted (first sale doctrine).
EULA's get around this by forcing the end user to become a party to the contract via a click wrap agreement. There is usually no such click wrap agreement binding the distributor in the case of the GPL. And the GPL doesn't require the creation or maintenance of such a click wrap agreement so the manufacturer would be free to remove it even if the original software had one.
Like when I buy a second hand book and then I start printing copies of the book and selling them without any agreement with the original author or publisher?
Like when you buy or sell a second hand book without getting permission from the copyright holder to distribute their copyrighted material, which would otherwise be necessary.
reply