I just tried it, its very cool, so it can not just summarize data, but also create and format table, however it can not create charts yet. I asked to create me on and it created another table and told me what i need to do in the UI to create a chart based on it
It seems efficient and simple that way. But you don't want federal politics playing that much of a part of your local life. And you don't want your local politicians to have to pander to the federal levels just to get what they need or what is theirs. I think this would result in disaster as the federal politicians are too out of touch with local needs.
If we had a single formula for taxes, then each taxing body could have their own rate table to apply to it, but still collect it directly - then I think that would be a better approach.
For simplicity sake, take income tax at flat rates. Federal may be 20%, your state might be 10%, city might be 5%. Maybe my state rate is only 5% and you might want to move here, but nationally we all pay the Federal 20% rate.
I tend to agree with this. The logic should be the same with different rate tables for each taxing body. What I don't want though is the Fed govt being the collector and distributor of all the funds. They already weld too much power with their various funding influences for transportation, healthcare, etc. The states and local govts shouldn't need to pander so heavily to the federal govt for funds.
Captured revenue : cost to capture (could be an audit, billing for interest/fees due, etc. lots of avenues to capture revenue that is being missed).
The problem is these metrics aren't really scalable productivity metrics. If you doubled cost, it might go to 100:1, if you tripled cost, it might go to 0.5:1
Each dollar generally gets more expensive to capture.
A key point is that there are large indirect costs that scale up rapidly that are not accounted for in these direct costs. These costs show up on the balance sheet somewhere else in the government, which makes the ROI for the auditors look much better than it actually is.
This is well-understood by the Federal government. When they set their targets they fully account for the growth of indirect costs created by the audit activity that don’t show up in the ratio.
Good point, and kind of interesting in that as we keep cutting funding to the IRS, this ratio will probably get wider (which looks good, but is actually bad for what it implies).
It’s a great point really. They’re both unhealthy products used by large portion of the human population. We treat one with moderation and regulate it heavily. The other we treat with utter gluttony and have not formed any social norms regarding restrictions, moderation, and things that would lessen the addiction and impacts to wellness it causes.
They’re both unhealthy products and I feel they deserve to be just that. Allow social media to be what it wants. But also approach it with moderation and regulation around access. The wellness experts shouldn’t be dictating what social media is, they should be promoting more healthy ways regarding how it’s used. It’s an uphill battle for a reason though, we like it too much.
Aren’t some things just inherent with the product though. These are unhealthy products, they should be allowed to exist for what they are instead of trying to make them something they’re not.
And I say this as a very light social media user, I never enjoyed it and it always felt unhealthy so I just kept off it. As I’ve watch it all unfold, was in college during facebooks college only explosion and now people are on tiktok. It’s clear, people want to be addicted to social media just as bad as zuck wants them addicted to social media. And an instagram without filters is like porn without nudity.
All true but it's a circular argument: these are unhealthy products because they're _designed_ that way. That design is directed from the top - no more so that Facebook/Instagram. Zuckerberg retains a controlling interest in Meta so he can't use the excuse of other public firms where CEOs throw up their hands and say "yeah, but we need to deliver shareholder return - it's out of my hands". Zuckerberg could choose differently. As GP notes, he hasn't - he's gone consistently hard the other way.
> It’s clear, people want to be addicted to social media
I'd say people are susceptible to addiction rather than wanting it. Suppliers of any addictive product - whether its tobacco, class A drugs, alcohol, gambling or social media - know that. Going too hard the other way into full prohibition is impractical because it starts to impinge on civil liberties: as a capable adult, why shouldn't I be able to smoke/drink/doomscroll instagram if I want?
That's why it's dificult; neither extreme liberty nor extreme prohibition is the answer. It's a grey area as GP notes. The trouble is it creates opportunities for people like Zuckerberg to exploit the middle ground and amass huge personal wealth paid for, in part, by the health detriment of those unable to self-regulate the addiction.
I must just lack empathy then. I feel it’s zucks role to build the best wine, whisky, casino game, meth, cigar, etc he can. It’s the consumers job to use it responsibly. They won’t so that’s when it’s time for regulation. Which is probably now/soon. And yes, he gets to amass wealth during this time. I wouldn’t say it’s all been exploitive though. I’d say many people have healthy addictions. Just like the average American who drinks 10 alcoholic beverages a week, every single week. They’re adults, they aren’t alcoholic, they just need a drink, every day they’re not being exploited, it’s a vice of sorts. But it’s an opt-in vice.
I think that yes, it's a lack of empathy stemming from the belief that everything can ultimately be distilled into personal responsibility.
In reality we are not so much in control, our psyche is easily manipulated by nudges, design that leaves you on the cusp of a dopaminic reaction is much more addictive. It's different to develop a vice to being manipulated into developing a vice. Morality should come into play on the latter, otherwise it's a free-for-all to discover the most effective ways to manipulate you into behaviours that are unhealthy but profitable.
> Just like the average American who drinks 10 alcoholic beverages a week, every single week. They’re adults, they aren’t alcoholic, they just need a drink
Drinking every day and "needing" a drink look like good indication of alcoolism to me.
It’s how people unwind from stressful day, just like doomscrolling. But most of these people aren’t considered alcoholics by society, it’s fairly normal behavior until it affects other parts of your life. From what I can tell anyways. I also don’t drink much so don’t get it when people need to have a glass of wine or whatever after a completely normal day.
I have children and don’t work in tech, I was able to self moderate myself and keep kids away from it. It’s simply not that hard to see it for what it is, and never has been. It’s bad. Glad people are finally seeing what’s obvious.
Takes some minimal effort to be honest to tell the kid no and give them other outlets for their boredom. I never did tablets or small screens at all. Parenting today, and last decade or so, instead puts infants in front of tablets. Its insane. All media is then altered to steal attention and maximize engagement. It’s to be expected. Zuck is basically cocomelon. Garbage that people love to eat.
Oh and we did ban cocomelon. My kids watch plenty of Tv and I’m not going to rave about it, it’s crappy kid TV, we try to push some educational stuff too. But It was obvious that when cocomelon was on kids eyes glaze over, they forget to blink, they have no idea what is going on around them, and just look like zombies staring at a TV/screen. Let’s be honest though, that’s what most parents like about it.
If you distill everybody involved down to a single function, this makes sense. But that's not all we are. It is not a physical law that Zuckerberg make his products the most addictive and harmful as they can be; he can choose to be more responsible with his influence. Consumers cannot always simply just choose not to be addicted; when you grow up with these things and people & companies are constantly pushing you to try them, it's very hard to avoid.
Should they, tho? Laudanum (morphine in alcohol; a lot of ‘patent medicines’/snake oil were basically just laudanum) is an unhealthy product. It is not, in any meaningful sense, allowed to exist these days.
Then ban social media as a whole, cherry picking features to ban is silly. Banning features that only harm young users that probably shouldn’t even be using the app due to their age is misguided. If it’s unhealthy for kids, ban kids use.
"Then ban medicine as a whole, cherry picking medicines to ban is silly."
Like, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. _This_ is social media, but probably would not make sense to ban (merely being very irritating is not an adequate reason to ban something).
There is a big difference between a potentially unhealthy product, and intentionally making a product as unhealthy as possible by data driven engagement maximising.
Remember the proto social media ? They were a huge time sink, sure, but they were not this hyper optimised slot machine that they are now.
Additionally if the product is inherently unhealthy, we should protect underdeveloped frontal cortices from it, as we do with every similar thing (drugs, gambling etc).
I disagree with first point but fully agree with latter.
Probably why latter should be the initiative of these 18 wellbeing experts just like how we have with drugs, gambling, tobacco, alcohol. Not by changing the product but by restricting access
Yeah but this is footnote territory. The idea of a cap is more appropriate for most advertisers. There’s a minor chance you miscalculate and the cap dissolves. It kind of goes without saying as that always applies, possibly can have high magnification if too far off the mark.
Pepsi is disgusting to me. To even speak of them as substitutes is outrageous to me. If you like it fine. I like both mayo and mustard but if someone doesn’t like mayo I don’t recommend it as a substitute for mustard.
It’s not just that though. You find when going through AI projects in an organization that many times the process is manual for a reason. This isn’t the first wave of “automation” that’s came through. Most things that can be fully automated already have been long ago and they manual parts get sold as we can make AI do it, until you see the specs and noodle around on the problem some then you realize it’s probably just going to remain manual as the amount of model training requires as much time and effort as just doing it by hand.
I have a dystopian future vision where humans are cheaper machines than robots, so we become the disposable task force for grunt work that robots aren’t cheap enough for. To some degree this is already happening.
For example, “build a Gantt chart base on … and suggest a the best layout for the data to drive the chart.”
Gets me no where with copilot but it always just wants to answer questions about my data which isn’t helpful to me.
reply