>Who do we think those costs will be passed on to....
Those costs are ALREADY passed on to everyone, that's the entire problem! Externalized costs are still costs, someone (or everyone) must still pay them. But when they're externalities instead of internalized, then they're hidden (which leads to gross inefficiency) and they're imposed on people who get no benefit and no choice (which is theft). Mass pollution is literally stealing money and life from a population and inefficiently funneling some of that back to the thief/thieves. It's as if transport companies were stealing 50% of the fuel they used to fill their trucks, and people came along saying "you need to pay for all the fuel you use", and then you argued against that saying "well who do we think those costs will be passed on to...."
When the costs are built into the price, then the direct participants pay, that filters out, and everyone can see exactly what they are and are appropriately incentivized to search for solutions to reduce them, same as every other cost that goes into a good or service. The Free Market is essentially a massively distributed constraint solver, and the "invisible hand of the market" is the cumulative billions of independent actions taken by participants in response to the system constraints and what they know. To function sustainably and efficiently, there has to be a high degree of information symmetry and cost internalization, or else decisions will obviously be distorted.
If one is worried about cost burdens, the best general place is direct unencumbered monetary payment to end consumers in need [0]. That is both very low administrative overhead, and still leaves them in a position to make the most efficient decisions for their own personal situation and fully reward producers who do a better job and reducing costs/improving quality.
----
0: Or arguably even better, a universal flat payment to the whole population, but the politics of that are harder.
>> "Commercial trucks should bear the fair costs to make it equitable" Who do we think those costs will be passed on to....
> Those costs are ALREADY passed on to everyone, that's the entire problem!
I think, you're confused about "the entire problem" - it's not that "costs are ALREADY passed on to everyone" it's about the alternative approach leading to the same result.
Actually, now the costs are passed mostly to drivers, in the case of making trucking pay more, they will be passed to all consumers, a minor difference.
> If one is worried about cost burdens, the best general place is direct unencumbered monetary payment to end consumers in need.
And the cost of that subsidy will be passed to? ... Again, everyone else of course. No change in actual outcome.
I'm not saying all subsidies are bad and I hate toxic fumes as much as anyone but solving these problems requires an approach much deeper than rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.
But if the companies actually creating the costs have to bear their burden directly—even if they can pass some portion of that cost on to their customers—that means they have a direct incentive to do something about it.
Prioritize routes that have higher-quality roads, rather than just going the fastest from point A to point B.
Maybe so, but it will also push smaller providers out of business and foster monopolization, the latter is usually more costly and less concerned about environmental impacts. As I said, when the system is chaotic, something is going to get in the way.
This idea gets brought up every time someone suggests adding regulations to prevent some harm large companies are doing—no matter how common-sense, no matter how great the harm, if you're adding regulations, that must hurt the little guy more; that must increase monopolization.
So I gotta ask:
What solution would you actually propose?
Do you genuinely think that the system as it exists today is the best it could ever possibly be?
Do you think we should be removing regulations? Sure, that would mean that big companies have even more freedom to ruin our roads and wreck our health, but hey, maybe an extra 3% of small businesses might be able to become profitable!
Because I'm pretty sick of people pushing the idea that any change we make to improve things is necessarily going to backfire and we're just too stupid and naïve to see it.
> if you're adding regulations, that must hurt the little guy more; that must increase monopolization.
That's the opposite of my position, adding regulations can work both ways, I meant it the other way around.
> Do you genuinely think that the system as it exists today is the best it could ever possibly be?
Again, the opposite of what I said. Improving the system requires systematic approach, fixing here and there without it results in a mess worse than before.
> Sure, that would mean that big companies have even more freedom to ruin our roads and wreck our health, but hey, maybe an extra 3% of small businesses might be able to become profitable!
Removing the income of "extra 3%" which is many thousands people for a rather minuscule, supposed reduction of pollution isn't worth the tradeoffs. If you can't solve the big problem don't mess with an already unstable system - fix the system first.
> Because I'm pretty sick of people pushing the idea that any change we make to improve things
We're where we are because of much emotion and many changes to improve things, to paraphrase, The road to hell is covered with many changes to improve things. This is what happens without a systematic approach to improvement.
The price of the goods being shipped. Perhaps, subsidized trucking reduces incentives for rail infrastructure which is cheaper transportation in the long run.
Don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough."
Rail is not perfect for everything; however, it is a heck of a lot better than 100+ trucks all driving to the same place that a single train could go much more efficiently.
Ships aren't perfect either, but you don't see anyone driving a truck across the pacific do you?
Replace the majority of trucks with rail and use trucks for last mile (from the rail terminal to delivery point), or truly remote deliveries (from the nearest rail yard! even if that is 500 miles away).
In my town of 700 people there is already a rail line built before trucks were common. It still runs to this day, but almost entirely just to ship sugar beets a few times a year. The majority of 1000 people towns ive been to or lived in in my state have rail either through town or within a 10 minite drive.
If they could put this much rail up 100 years ago, its a cop out to say its too difficult today with equipment able to lift the equivalent of 1000 men.
Is it just a given that subsidizing people to live in Aniak is a good thing?
To be fair, there's a counterargument - namely, that people who live a long ways away from infrastructure have been forced to by the very NIMBYs who made it illegal to build more homes where the infrastructure already exists. Population density near some BART stations is scandalously low.
Discussion about this I heard 50 years ago is the alternative to trucks tends to be rail. The real unfairness is railroads have to pay to maintain their infrastructure while trucks do not pay anything close to the costs for theirs.
If you forced trucks to pay for the damage they do to roads rail freight would be far more competitive.
Isn't this more about PayPal disliking a rooted device rather than Graphene? I used to have all kinds of issues with financial apps when I was rooted, regardless of OS
GrapheneOS isn't rooted. The issue is their flawed anti-tampering code shipped a new bug breaking compatibility with secure spawning. We have a per-app toggle for secure spawning due to seeing this with other banking/financial/government apps and it works for PayPal's app as the original poster discovered.
Flawed root detection issues are kinda common to see when running Graphene, tbh I suspect this is just an accident - it very much is not the first time, nor the first for PayPal.
dunno what your interface looks like, but no. not avaliable to me save via openrouter or similar, but the fool i am i purchased a year of claude sub on the premise i'd get 4.5 or better.
I believe there are a number of cli tools which also use Anthropic's Max plan (subscription) - this isn't just an OpenCode issue.
I had the TaskMaster AI tool hooked up to my Anthropic sub, as well as a couple of other things - Kilo Code and and Roo Code iirc?
From discussions at the time (6 months ago) this "use your Anthropic sub" functionality was listed by at least one of the above projects as "thanks to the functionality of the Anthropic SDK you can now use your sub...." implying it was officially sanctioned rather than via a "workaround".
Hey Steve! SuperWhisper free is solid - main reason to switch is avoiding subscriptions entirely. For $20 one-time you get AI formatting (removes filler words, cleans up corrections) that SuperWhisper charges $120/year for. I'm building features users ask (e.g. file transcription) for and all future updates are included. Runs light on base M1s. Not trying to maximize profit here - just testing if people actually want local-first tools vs subscriptions. If it's not worth it after a week, email [email protected] for a refund :)
I'm pretty sold. downloaded it earlier, had an issue with Lucid not automatically appearing in the list of apps to permit accessibility permission, but after a coffee I remembered that apps can be manually added (so you can ignore my support email! :-) ). My minor niggle would be no trial option, that always puts me off slightly - although I appreciate your refund offer. Oh hell, I'll just buy it. It's worth it to reward the slick onboarding process! :-)
I wonder if it's coincidence: today Anthropic mailed out all previous customers of Claude offering a free monthly of 5x Claude Code if they sign up again.
Plenty on Reddit saying they did. And I did.
Could the outage be a the result of an "unexpected" surge in account activations / use?
Who do we think those costs will be passed on to....