> 640K and above have a higher tax rate than those below 640K, how is paying at a lower rate progressively worse?

I don't have a clear argument.

But lets say the rate is 10% for 10 000, 20% for 20 000 and so on till 50% to 50 000.

Lets say I make 50 000. If it makes sense to tax me more the more my revenue goes for 10 000 to 50 000, why does that logic not continue to apply to those making above 50 000?

That seems related to ideas like that the cost of living reasonably doesn't go up with revenue and cutting into discretionary income is a a greater burden the less discretionary income you have.

> We already have a progressive tax system in the USA.

I'm not sure I get this, but why does the marginal tax system stop progressing at an income of $640,600, doesn't that mean lower income earners are getting a progressively worse deal compared to those the further up they are above the 640,600 threshold?

> I did go full-on in on it and this person still noticed nothing.

Not sure why you say they noticed nothing.

If I assume they did get it, I can see a few ways their reply, especially in a public forum, is appropriate.

> Are computer purchases not consensual? Nobody is forcing you to buy overpriced RAM if you don't want to, so the rape analogy doesn't work.

"In both law and ethics, consent requires the freedom to choose without pressure, threats, or negative consequences"

> Recent estimates put total global installed peak computing capacity (smartphones, PCs, data centers, AI accelerators, etc.) at roughly 3x10^{22} FLOPS. A single human brainâ(TM)s equivalent throughput is estimated in the 10^{15} to 10^{18} range depending on the model used. That puts collective human technology at roughly 10,000Ã-- to tens of millions of times the FLOPS capacity of any one brain, with the gap still widening in the compute domain.

I understand the comparison but I don't think it captures how the brain or biological systems more generally get their work done.

> The interesting question is how we define and measure âoecomplexityâ going forward â" raw operations per second, integrated autonomous systems, energy efficiency, self-repair and self-assembly, or something else?

Agreed, all of those and more.

> And honestly, thats rich for someone who ignored or chose to not address, 95%+ of the counterpoints made against your argument ...

Your general comments on technological complexity were fine and reasonably backed up except for the idea that technology will expand exponentially for ever. I think that idea moves outside current science into the realm of opinion

My opinion is that this is all very interesting, technology and all, including the complexity and science of the human body, the science of which is getting more complex daily with each new discovery. For example, on a simplified perspective, each interconnected human contains roughly 37.2 trillion cells, they are all networked together through roughly 2,500 distinct molecular pathways, and each cell hosts millions of organelles and averages around a billion chemical reactions per second.

> Those people are morons.

Technological complexity and number of computer operations are not the same thing.

You may not agree with them but that does not make them morons.

> Considering its end will likely be tens of thousands to millions of years from now OR MORE, to a human, that = "Effectively unending" You need to work on your timescale perspective a bit. ;-)

No, not at all.

To be extra clear, in my last comments I asked you questions, not about the universe, but about technology and you have avoided those questions.

For example:

As far as I can tell there is no evidence the exponential growth of technology's complexity will even last 100 years, some argue the growth has already stopped and others that it never happened.

Are you trying to avoid my question?

You wrote:

> the increase the increase in the complexity of our technology, is exponential, and unending

The exponential increase of technology has been occurring for a short time. What makes you think it will be unending?

> The original point made, never changed. The progression of low entropy to order, will continue until ALL usable energy in the universe is converted into total diffusion... UNTIL THEN, self organization rules. It, cannot, be stopped. It doesn't matter what we do. Unless we are willing to totally destroy society

I agree the universe can't be stopped but as the summary says some things can be slowed, paused or stopped.

> ... the increase in the complexity of our technology, is exponential, and unending

Unending exponential growth of technology until the heat death of the universe : what do you base that prediction on?

> And...why not just say 100 years for example? That would make the numbers even bigger. Why does it need to be 25?

Because about 25 years is the US's War on Terror, and most people aren't aware of the extend of the death it's caused.

> In order to get those numbers, you're having to make maximalist assumptions, and worse, they can't even be verified.

What maximalist claims assumptions? Are you claiming those or similar ones are not made when people quote for example Russian deaths or the number of deaths during Iran protests?

(On indirect deaths: "An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting")

> you're also counting figures that can't even be directly attributed to the US, and are probably better attributed to Iran.

In what way are they doing that?

> Just to give you an idea, I think it was something like 70% of IEDs were sourced from Iran.

Could you be more clear about how you think that affects things?

And how does that compare in numbers and destructive power of the over 325,000 bombs and missiles the US and its allies have dropped since 2000?

Including the one that tripped ...

Robots in Beijing half-marathon - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

> How many Chinese people pick Cuba as a tourist destination?

Surprisingly a lot according to Google.

Why do you ask?

> what we need to survive is proteins, carbs, and fats. I feel like there's a fourth thing there but I forgot.

Me too, so I looked it up:

There's six with vitamins, minerals and water. And dietary fibre too, but it's not an essential nutrient.

> The problem is that as this happen and progress, we will be bind by legal agreement to supply this province or that state

In other words, for now there isn't as you said a need to "lurk back to Ontario and the USA and cry for energy that we need to buy back at crazy rate" and currently HQ is still making a large profit overall from it's sales and purchases of power from outside the province.

> and we will be fucked

That doesn't seem to be the case. The current reduction of power exports is because of below average precipitation in recent years, but they aren't expected to stay low and climate change models expect at least an overall small rise in average precipitations.

- https://www.ledevoir.com/actua...

- https://www.ouranos.ca/en/clim...