>That the rich will flee, leaving us.... better off in every possible way??
Can you explain why would we be better off when the rich flee?
I see this "we gonna be better off without them" sentiment quite often, but never an explanation how would we be better off? What metrics have you used?
They won't flee. The tax would have to astronomical to offset the advantages of doing business in the US. If that wasn't true, they would have all disclaimed their US citizenship and moved to Monaco already.
This is not the question I asked. I asked how and why would it be better for the rest of us?
For the record, I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea of taxation on the wealthy, but I want to understand why having no rich is better for everyone.
Fair, and I don't believe we'd be better off if they fled. We would be better off if they weren't astronomically wealthy. I don't have a specific number in mind, but "a billion-ish" feels like a reasonable upper bound on wealth.
I'd also note that I would prefer to adjust tax/accounting laws to prevent the accumulation in the first place, not just roll out a blanket "take everything over a billion-ish law" as that feels more like a band-aid than a fix.
USSR had no rich and everyone one was poor (except for the party’s apparatus).
So, how would it work here? Why eliminating the rich (whatever is the definition) would achieve a different outcome than that of communist regimes of the past?
Not only rich people affect outcomes of the elections or legislature, unions do as well.
For example, New York’s Health Act failed because teachers unions opposed it on the grounds of “protecting the hard fought contract benefits”. In other words, union leadership realized that with this bill becoming a law unions would be less needed, so they fought for their interests while disregarding interests of others.
> Unions represent the interest of a large group of people, they arrive at policy through debate and consensus.
Well, in this case, how come preventing access to healthcare to NYS residents is in the interest of the teachers? And, why would teachers think that they are the only ones who deserve good health care?
Unless… the unions have no feedback mechanism to ensure that they operate the way you think they operate, and they do what any other politician does — they want to stay in power I exchange for keeping just enough of the voting base like you more than the next guy. So, in this case, it’s perfectly reasonable for a union leadership to fight this law — it simply a preservation of power thing.
I would say it’s no less convenient for those that tend to overuse the word to label anything as colonialism or terrorism. It absolves them from building any sort of coherent and substantiated argument.
I think the comment wasn’t about likability but about the fact that both sides of political spectrum have very rich people donating to influence politics.
Your feelings towards those individuals doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, what matters is that everyone’s opinions are shaped/influenced by the few with money.
> The talk in this thread indicates absolutely no empathy for dual working parents and just repeats tired talking points.
My kids get no more than 10m of tablet time a day each. Both of us are working full time. When they ask for more I point them to their toys/books/etc, or play with them.
So, being dual working doesn’t mean you have to allow your kids to have lots of screen time.
At least you acknowledge some screen time unlike the puritans we have in this thread but i also suspect you're not in the most extreme of difficult parenting situations.
Sure, why not? Unless you've encrypted the thing with keys you (not AWS) control there's absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so -- and even if you do have the drive encrypted at rest, they still have access via the virtualization layer while it's running.
Amazon have very expensive lawyers, I'm sure that their T&Cs are flexible and woolly enough to include some reasonable justification for doing whatever they please with your VM.
"in order to secure our service against abuse..."
"in response to a court order..."
"...in order to provide better service, we reserve the right to."
AWS personnel do not have access to Your Content on AWS Nitro System EC2 instances. There are no technical means or APIs available to AWS personnel to read, copy, extract, modify, or otherwise access Your Content on an AWS Nitro System EC2 instance or encrypted-EBS volume attached to an AWS Nitro System EC2 instance. Access to AWS Nitro System EC2 instance APIs – which enable AWS personnel to operate the system without access to Your Content - is always logged, and always requires authentication and authorization.
/quote
This has been third party validated (there's a blog) and is part of the contract terms. Which you would find if you did any research before posting. I'll let you figure out how you don't understand KMS either.
"AWS Nitro" is their new high-security platform, not generic EC2. The obvious implication is that they can "read, copy, extract, modify, or otherwise access Your Content" on non-Nitro instances.
Good for them, if it's really the case that they can't read Nitro EC2 instances. Of course, that still leaves S3, RDS, DynamoDB, Elasticache...
Germany has five to six parties (depending on election cycle) in the parliament. Noone calls the SPD far right. You may find people debating whether the SPD or the CDU marks the center, but the AfD is clearly far right.
It's funny how people avoid this term. The far left party in the German parliament ("Die Linke") would never deny they're far left. (Their name literally translates to "The Left".)
I am not informed enough about AfDs platform to judge.
My comment was more about how the US media/english-speaking media describes non-left parties. All the populists on the left side of the spectrum are “left wing”, but their political counterparts are always “far” right.
You’ve read half of my comment and ignored the second half. My comment is not claiming that only the left-wing media is doing bad things, it’s about the role that media has and modern media failing it.
But sure, let’s continue this whole “he did it, so I’m doing it too”
I didn’t, because Waymo cars were proof of concept, not proof of wallet size.
It is very impressive engineering, just not very useful or ever going to result in any viable product. It’s a dead end. A waste of somebody’s engineering effort and talent for a one-time rich guy demo item. People hate on it because they get it.
You’re confused. This isn’t a “maybe there’s more demand for flying cars than you think!” kind of situation. My dude, nobody is disputing the demand for flying cars. It is fairly obvious, however, that they’re completely infeasible technology, and even if not, then this certainly ain’t the way to do it.
> I have a general tendency to know things. I think it has something to do with my brain.
Your brain can predict future?
> But also, I read about how this tech works. Have you? If so, how are you possibly still confused about this?
I think that in 1900s there were a lot of people that were saying the same things you are saying about brothers Wright and their inventions. And yet, if there is demand and value in specific things people will find a way to make it work cost effectively and at scale.
Not who you are responding to, but common workflows like “show me the picture I just took” or “copy the damned image file elsewhere” are completely broken.
God help you if you own a camera and try to store its photos in apple photos.
Can you explain why would we be better off when the rich flee? I see this "we gonna be better off without them" sentiment quite often, but never an explanation how would we be better off? What metrics have you used?
reply