Well how about bi-trimestrial?

It doesn't.

But in the current case there wasn't a governmental agency bullying anyone, it was a private entity as far as I understand the issue. Of a foreign nation at that.

Not essential here, but my own server also runs within my own 4 walls so they'd have to bully an internet provider (not impossible, but more difficult) and/or a DNS TLD provider.

Your mother.

I have no idea as to the economic and technical considerations of being a spammer. But I do run my own email server, as my first and only email connection to the world. And extending the offer to ny immediate family and few selected friends.

So go ahead, bring those experts on to tell me I can't do what I've been doing for bordering on two decades now.

I run my personal server too, without any secondary email address. (I do have corporate ema addresses left and right, but I'm pretty much aggregating all on my private IMAP, and only using corporate SMTP to send in corporate roles.)

And on average over the past 15 years I've had less downtime than any job related email server I've known, about en par with gmail (which was down a couple of times).

It's complex and annnoying, but it's a matter of knowledge, not of time investment. It's nowhere near a full time job. All in all, maybe a week or two of full-time work, per year. I'm doing it "as a hobby", but I could easily administrate a few corporate email servers as my full time job, if they'd be willing to pah for it.

Nobody says that the journalist needs to do that "as a hobby". The entity they work for can hire a half-time sysadmin to do it.

If course it is.

They presumably work for a news agency, or anh kind of organisation. As in: there's bound to be 1/4 a position somewhere to give to an admin to set up and run their email server.

I get it that the average journalist can't do it... but c'mon, they also can't build a car, fly a plane, make paper, or install Windows. Yet they use cars, planes, notebooks and laptops all the time. And running an email server isn't Gandalf-style hi-tech, you know... Just f-ing pay someone to do it. Put them on your own payroll if you need the extra bit of reliability!

Then again, you are expected to pay for viewing reruns, one way or another.

I.e. hey're still copyrighted.

Documentation is different from syntax checkers, tests and linters. While there may be a valid reason for any of those to miss or fail, I can't thibk of such a reason for documentation. Even if it's just "nothing to see here, move along" -- that in itself is already important enough to be documented.

I'm not sure if I should reply, as you seem lretty brainwashed, but I'll try.

Except.that this isn't a "tide". What you're using are "trickle down"/talking points, and they're BS.

If we look at US population alone, I.believe the official statistics is that 2/3 live paychecl to paycheck. More than half live off less money per month than it takes to rent a place. The number of fully employed homeless people is the highest in the world.

The definition of "extreme poverty" is a UN one, fairly recently, and wouldn't exist 500 years ago. Not sure what you mean when you say that 99% of people didn't have enough back then. They may not have had access to sanitation or clean water, but that's because nobody did. They had food, water, clothing, housing.

You say average income has increased by 50% in the pasf 50 yeara- not sure why you believe that. Median income in 1975 was around $13,500-ish, that would be $81k and change according to official inflation calculators, opposed to $78k today. Meanwhile average rent back then was $150 ($900 inflation corrected) while today it's in the $1,600s.

The average house has more than doubled since 1975 (again inflation adjusted).

The typical American can't afford to call an ambulance today, they'll rather Uber to hopsital and bleed all over the back seat in the process.

There's one obvious flaw in your reasoning: there are not noly "tech" billionaires out there.

The higher principle is: the lowest you can pay a person is whay they need to survive (because otherwise they will eventually kill you.

So everything between what a person can produce, and what they need to aurvive, ia "excess wealth". Since we've started doong agriculture instead of hunting and gathering we've generated increasing amounts of excess wealth. AI and modern "tech" aren't any different.

Then, on top of this, comes all.of your argument. But the magic of all of this isn't "tech" being "techy", it's there being a gap between what a person can produce and what they need (i.e. how hard they'll push back if you take it away from them to various degrees.)

Whenever "something" gives Humanity the occasion to be even more efficient in generating wealth, all other things staying the same there's even more potential for wealth being moved uphill.

Why do you think is that?

There's no inherent power in AI. Or machines. Or computers.

It's not "computers"/specifically that concentrated wealth. It's politics. All computers did was make.us more efficient at getting shit done.

Case in point: wealth was concentrated in few hands when there weren't any computers, shortly after invention of the steam engine.

There's only two ways of not concentrating wealth in few hands: (1)/) we cease to be efficient and essentially revert back to growing our own food without mechanisation; or (2), we get our ahit together and install a long overdue more civilized economy.

That's the part they didn't say out lout: "investment", while the right thing to do, will always disproportionately pile on the largest heap by various devices (e.g. compound interest, subsidies, tax write offs etc).

What we need in addition to that is a counter mechanism - a "wealth dissipation device" that works more aggressively the more wealth an individual has.

It doesn't even matter which one specifically (higher taxes on income, wealth, or whatever else). The important part is that there's a counter force that will make the average wealth of the average individual oscillate around the... well, average of the total wealth in the system.

"Investing" and "trading" are not the same thing.

You talk about "trading".

It isn't that "labour" isn't the source of value.

It's that it doesn't take so many people, so many hours, to create the same value as previously. We've gotten more efficient - vastly more efficient, actually. Just replace "AI" with "computers, machinery and automation" and there you have it.

But we still have a society where survival is tied to selling the best chunk of your life's productive time to someone else (increasingly meager survival at that).

The answer *is* investment; sharing into society's common value.generation.

That's a statistical artefact. If they survived their infant years, the next station was the 1st heart attack, typically in their 60s, like us.

Of course there were wounds from war and accidents, but they weren't that common. Many wounds heal well by themselves, not every injury leaves you with your guts hanging out.