My response was specifically to the original poster who, for some reason, was taking a "we are losing the class wars; breed faster!" position rather than the "if you are already losing the class war why would you even think about putting in that much effort and cost so your children can deal with a bad or worse outcome?" position.

It would honestly not surprise me if that is a nontrivial contributing factor: If you aren't emotionally invested in children as an end in themselves the wage and cost of living numbers have done very little to encourage you to see them as affordable since roughly the late 70s(with a combination of substantial stagnation for anyone who is primarily wages rather than capital gains; and such good news as there is mostly confined to people who complete at least undergraduate education and remain in a career track full time) and people who are emotionally invested in children are often willing to go to considerable lengths to try to improve their children's outcomes; but are presumably discouraged by the prospect that they will most likely be downwardly mobile instead.

It's not a surprise that people who want labor, cannon fodder, or taxpayers to be abundant for them are fretting about it; but it's hard to see why most of us should care. Why do things that are good for society when society is pretty overtly disinterested in being good for you? You may be able to squeeze the current labor market a bit; because people who already exist tend to take the "or starve" possibility pretty seriously when deciding what they will put up with; but if you offer nothing but the demand for a toiling underclass to encourage people to have children that's not terribly compelling, either for those who aren't interested in sacrificing for children and see hitting education and career hard as increasingly existential or for people who would sacrifice a lot to better things for their children but are more or less accurate in seeing it as highly unlikely that they will be able to.

I'm rather doubtful of the plan's viability; but if they are willing to justify the company name by chaining Bezos to a rock so a bird can eat his liver repeatedly I could be persuaded.

My previous [Linux] Thinkpad was a Twist. As much as I loved the machine, I hated the screen BECAUSE it was a touchscreen. It had a shiny/glossy glass surface which made the screen a total horror to see with tons of reflections. And I never used the touch or "twist" [tablet] feature, anyway. It added cost and weight on top of that. I already have a Samsung Android tablet for when I want that form factor.

I made sure my next/current [Linux] Thinkpad had a matte non-touch screen and I am much happier. I have no idea if current touchscreens have the same issue with needing to be glossy and/or glass, but that is my warning for people considering it.

Man, it's just constant retreat with you, isn't it?
You're seriously saying Alma doesn't have cellphone signal? I've lived in a smaller town and still had signal.

Generally speaking, those installing EV charging stations want to be able to bill for it. Which means that the station itself needs connectivity, even if it doesn't need to be much. They need a big fat pipe of electricity as well.
Sounds like an excellent spot for a cell phone tower, if one isn't already in range.

Besides that, I managed to drive from Alaska to Florida, through Canada, without ever being out of cellphone signal.

Worst case, the app developers are aware that you might be out of signal occasionally. Therefore they cache information.

Apparently a *lot* of people on Slashdot are completely fooled by the CCP propaganda.

And some of them are CCP propaganda, using multiple "sockpuppets" to both post and moderate.

Decades earlier — during Vietnam war — USSR was financing all of "peace" movements in the West in particular, while attacking the "Capitalist way of life" in general. It'd be quite foolish for China to not be doing the same now. Even more foolish would be for us to not realize, that they do.

>"I think wealth taxes are fundamentally a distraction from the giant loopholes in current systems, and even if you oppose wealth taxes, you should still fix said loopholes."

Totally agree

> First off, people like Musk just take loans against their stock. [...]

Yep, that should somehow end. I am not sure exactly HOW, but I am sure there is a way... one that would not create undue externalities.

>"Secondly, capital gains are just income. They don't deserve a special lower rate. They should be taxed the same as other income, at normal income rates."

As long as it is realized gain, I totally agree. But I also think that realized loss should then also be 100% immediately deductible against income, that is fair (currently you can't, there are low limits, and although it can travel to future years, it is so low it makes it ridiculous). But I do think there should still be carve-outs/exceptions for the non-super-rich for events like selling a primary residence or property (especially if that money is then applied to replacement residence or healthcare expense).

>"can we at least agree that we should be doing these things, and make this the standard globally?"

I can. And I bet a lot of people would agree. But many are driven by envy/hate/delusion and nothing will ever be enough.

>"Nobody has made them yet, so there is no data."

What exactly is "fair" as far as taking someone's money and non-liquid assets? Is it fair that half of Americans pay no net taxes at all and everyone else has to cover that? (Net taxes are all monies the individual paid vs. all value of monies and services given back to that individual).

It isn't even real money, it is almost all valuation of non-liquid assets. You could liquidate it all, then take it all of what was left (it will be a lot less) and distribute it all out, and in a short time, everything would be about the same as it was. And then we would be worse off, because it is likely all the companies associated with him would fail, thousands would lose their jobs, tons of lost revenue and tax for many years, and lost products that make people's lives better.

If you could liquidate it all, maybe at half-value (which is extremely optimistic), that is $500,000,000,000. Give it equally to every person in the USA, it would be about $1429 each. Inflation would temporarily increase due to that and gobble up much of its value. And then no money or value or tax would ever replenish it because the engine creating that money is gone.

His having tons of "money" doesn't "take" it from other people. He created the wealth and expanded the pie. People happily and voluntarily transacted with his companies, getting what they wanted, and the free market valuates the companies based on past performance and expected future performance.

Aside from what you might think of Elon (and there is justifiably a lot of variation in that), he has produced a zillion times more services, jobs, goods, tax revenue, and helped a zillion times more people than anyone on Slashdot ever did, could, would, or will. If you are worried about his control or power, that is a totally different topic, and a function of preventing government fraud, enforcing anti-trust and such.

?"There's no doubt that Musk has near limitless funds at this point. But, "trillionaire" is just paper games. His estimated net worth may be a trillion plus. But, his ability to liquidate even a tiny majority of it is virtually zero. So, the trillionaire moniker is meaningless to me."

Bingo. This is "paper worth", he doesn't have hundreds of billions or a trillion dollars. He has stock holdings that are currently valued at that. The value can (and does) change at any moment, both up and down. And if he sold in any mass amount, it would tank the price immediately. Of course, he still has a super-mega crap load of money and, more-so, money potential.

And to that I say "whatever". He obviously has presented extreme value to consumers who voluntarily gave their money to his companies. For those worried about taxes- his companies pay a lot of taxes and employ a lot of people. As for possible taxing on unrealized gain, that is completely wrong. But I do support closing loopholes, like borrowing tax-free money against non-liquid assets, which is a trick that is often used by the mega rich.

Throughout most of history, females that are fertile have been experiencing pregnancy as soon as they are able. If that wasn't the case, we would not be here as deaths from everything other than old age has been incredibly common.

Now that deaths from old age appear to outnumber all other deaths, there is no need for females to become pregnant as soon as they are able. That is why we enacted laws protecting young females. We do not need their participation anymore.

To me, it is gross and barbaric to treat females this way. They are people and not merely baby factories; however, it is not merely propaganda to discuss a historical fact and think that it is relevant to what is occurring now. It absolutely is a factor, even if not the primary reason.

Remember, they are betting with YOUR money and they are rated on the amount of bets they place. What do YOU think the outcome will be?

Who cares? A guy was arrested for a crime that was committed. As long as someone was arrested, nobody seems to care.

Why did you post this as an Anonymous Coward? This is incredibly insightful. I am guessing it is because you actually are a coward :(

As a child, I was constantly falsely accused. Less so as an adult. This is all status quo. As long as a finger is pointed, people are happy.

It sounds like normal business for a regime that has no concern at all for its citizens. *shrug* The rest of the country seems to be okay with this; otherwise, I would have to guess that the elections are rigged. I see no other possibilities.

LOL. The path of lowest energy will always be taken. Spending millions of taxpayer dollars is nothing next to the hundreds of billions spent yearly.

In other words, expect to be next on the accused list.