You definitely should pay more marginal tax as you make more money, up to some point. The first $10 or $20k you make should be tax-free, and then the tax rate should become progressively higher after that, but should max out around 30% or so. But that's only 30% of income, not 30% of net assets. Taxing assets is theft. Taxing income is progressive.

However, the accumulation of wealth into the hands of people who make good investments (i.e. making good choices of what to spend it on so that they invest in something profitable) is a valuable feature of the system, and is the reason it's allowed to happen. The government is bad at choosing projects to invest in. The market does it automatically and in an efficient and distributed manner. Picking the right investments is the useful work that entrepreneurs and capitalists are providing to society. If you do something to prevent more capital being given to the people who are making the best investment decisions, then you're actively discouraging the efficient allocation of capital. That would be a good way to run your country into the ground.

The government's job is to regulate the negative aspects of capitalism. That means it has to prevent tax loop-holes for the wealthy (as you said), stop corrupt officials from profiting from their position, punish companies for monopolistic behavior, and reduce the influence of money in the political system. These are the things we should be voting for. Not a 5% government approved theft of assets.

I didn't say 'no parents', I said 'most'. Also, you're posting on slashdot so your 5 parents that you work with are highly likely to be working in the tech world. Sure, people who understand technology are more likely to be skeptical of social media and AI and are going to teach their kids online safety and are going to limit it. But that's certainly a minority of parents. The vast majority of non-computer people will go onto google, type a question in, and 100% believe the entire AI blurb that it spits out at the top. Just like most people will eat too much junk food. You're talking about products that are literally designed to circumvent rational thought and appeal directly to our dopamine receptors. It's not a fair fight.

Realistically most parents aren't monitoring what their kids are doing online. When my kids were in grade 7 and starting to complain that all their friends had devices (and cell phones), I was shocked to learn that many of the kids in their grade had already seen Deadpool. This is an R-rated film, and specifically it has explicit sex scenes and a ton of gore. I'm OK with parents making decisions for their own kids and even watching an R-rated film with them if the parent has OK'd it (I watched the Matrix with my kids when they were 13), but it was clear that these kids just had an iPad with Netflix and Disney+ installed and there was no parental locking, so they could watch whatever they wanted.

Believing that parents will monitor what their kids do online is like believing they'll feed them breakfast every morning. We have breakfast programs in schools for a reason.

I'm not sure that's true. You can cut emissions first by just installing solar panels, which is very cheap and offsets a lot of the energy use at peak times (mostly due to AC). You can also make sure you've developed your hydroelectric sites. Then you need to up the nuclear generation, which is nearly zero emissions and can provide base load power. Then you're only left with your variable load, which is typically provided by natural gas. The only zero-emission substitute for that is battery capacity, which is expensive but certainly feasible. For example, "In Ontario, 87% of electricity is produced carbon-free from hydro, nuclear, wind, and solar. But the remainder comes from natural gas plants, especially during peak hours as they are usually the generating resource responding to short-term changes in demand." (source)

How big are the buyouts, roughly?

Take a note of the countries that were at that conference, and the ones that weren't. The biggest consumers aren't there.

Closing the Strait of Hormuz drops oil supply by about 20% worldwide. That's the amount that has to either be replaced with production elsewhere (likely Russia) or replaced with alternatives (wind, solar, nuclear, etc.). Nobody is suggesting that we're going to replace 100% of fossil fuels with renewables. For a small island nation that already has diesel generators, this means a large up-front capital investment to build a large amount of solar and/or wind and a large battery bank, but the ongoing costs will be lower than purchasing diesel fuel. Unfortunately capital (the thing you use to build stuff) is expensive right now and looks like it will stay high for a long time, so that makes the initial construction a lot more expensive. Which means less spending on other stuff for those nations, like building industrial plant, schools, roads, etc.

Think about the incentives involved in the new AI race.

We've inventing a new type of machine. The machines are big and huge and complicated and consume enormous resources, so they're necessarily centralized. These machines are wondrous marvels. You can ask them a question and 9 times out of 10 they give you a relevant and useful answer.

People are naturally trustworthy of machines because we view computers as infallible. If I store contact information in my contacts list and go back and retrieve it later, the information is still there 100% intact. It augments our brains with perfect memory and recall. After all, that's what computers do.

So almost everyone trusts these new machines intrinsically. Few people question the answers that are given, and even if you were a little skeptical, it's much less work to convince yourself that it's probably right than to track down the supporting material.

The organizations that control these new machines have a perverse incentive. They can make far more money by manipulating the answers that the machine produces in subtle ways for their benefit, or for the benefit of their paying clients. "What is the best dishwasher?" "Are there any pharmacies in my area open until midnight?" "Summarize the political platform of candidates X, Y, and Z." "What medication can treat such-and-such disease?" These are all prompts that can be monetized by the AI provider.

We know they will because companies have been inserting paid advertising and results into our search queries and emails for years.

Imagine the power that you wield if you own a machine that everybody trusts implicitly with their most important questions and most sensitive information.

That's clearly what we're building. We can't say we didn't know and weren't warned.

I'm pretty sure zipline would have a lot of incentive to patent it. But you can license patent rights.

I salute the naming committee from that group. Well done.

I'm sure women would have something to say about abortion rights, like they should have them including all rights that men are afforded.

To be pedantic, men don't have the right to an abortion. I assume that's not what you meant though, LOL.

Tinkering with a word guessing machine to see if you can make it smart is like breeding horses to be faster and faster expecting one to give birth to a locomotive. Word guessing machines are cool but they're never going to actually "understand" what they're talking about.

In one sense, taking on any engineering challenge you haven't done before always causes you to learn something new, so there's always progress. In the case of this particular program (Artemis) there's a lot of reason to be skeptical of what we're getting for the money. The original Apollo was done in a hurry with an all-hands-on-deck attitude, and amazing progress was made. When that program ended and the space shuttle program was created, there was less urgency, and politics dug its heels in. The only reason the shuttle program was allowed to happen was because different parts of the shuttle were manufactured across almost all 50 states. That made it inefficient, but also politically possible. The program itself wasn't as successful as originally hoped, and for reference if the cost of 1 kg to orbit on a (partially reusable) Falcon 9 today is $2700, then the space shuttle's cost of 1 kg to orbit was almost $55,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars. When the shuttle program was scrapped, funding to NASA for Artemis was only approved on the condition that NASA use all the same contractors and parts that the shuttle did. That's why you have two solid rocket boosters and shuttle engines powering the main stage, and a big orange foam insulated tank. And those 4 shuttle engines are thrown away with each launch. It's the least efficient way to do this, but it's politically possible because it keeps a bunch of money flowing out to almost all of the states. SpaceX is developing a new launch platform called Starship that's supposed to be fully re-usable, and the long term cost of 1 kg to orbit is going to be in the range of $150 (some estimates have it under $100). So the whole Artemis program is at risk of being obsolete as soon as Starship is proven to work. I would argue that it's already obsolete and a spending boondoggle, and I'm a space nerd who loves space exploration.

No it didn't. Nobody in "upper middle class" back in the 50's was "going on a vacation every year to a foreign country." Give me a break. And the general standard of living was much worse, particularly health care. Back in that "golden era" the life expectancy was significantly shorter, everyone smoked, and health care was basically anti-biotics, or nothing. They were still doing lobotomies. And houses were a lot smaller, poorly insulated, almost every kid shared a bedroom with a sibling, you had to wash your own dishes (gasp) because there were no dishwashers. Microwaves weren't a thing. Cribs came covered in lead paint. You were lucky if you had one television, and it was in black and white and got 2 channels. The one thing that an upper middle class family could do in the 50's was buy a new car every couple years, and that's because cars were a lot cheaper as a percentage of income, but they didn't have seat belts, airbags, power steering, and they needed constant maintenance and didn't last very long. Someone making minimum wage today lives better than royalty did hundreds of years ago. Get some common sense and learn about history.

What are you smoking? The median household income in the US is roughly $84,000 a year. That would make $133k very clearly upper middle class. You know that there's more to the US than New York and Los Angeles, right?