Recent comments in /f/technology

themagicbong t1_jebomix wrote

Reply to comment by ThomasJWaldmann in Aptera’s Solar-Powered EV Is Finally Finished—and It Looks Just as Bonkers as the Concept by elister

lol you joke, but from my experience carbon fiber comes in two varieties: expensive and ungodly expensive lmao. The pre preg stuff that has resin already in the material is what I consider the ungodly expensive stuff, and the dry stuff that's intended for wet layup is STILL pretty expensive. Fiberglass is so good nowadays itll get you like, 90% of the way there at like 1/10 of the cost. Fiberglass parts can be every bit as strong as the carbon ones, though obviously the diff comes in the weight, which is still pretty close between the two.

Always makes me scratch my head when I'm making a part or see a part made outta carbon where the application is not weight-critical. Which happens a lot more often than I thought would be the case. Then, even funnier, is when the part is half-assed and they end up using more resin and not even gaining any weight savings from the material.

2

JayCroghan t1_jebnscs wrote

Reply to comment by TheTrollCoach in It's becoming increasingly clear that fintech has a fraud problem by marketrent

For European fintechs like Revolut you need to prove who you are with your passport and a photo of a bill or bank statement to prove you’re a resident. Then they ask people who they need more info for proof of the source of the funds like bank statements or proof of receiving salary. I won’t use them because they freeze accounts so much I don’t want to have to deal with a months long argument to access my money.

4

Dwarfdeaths t1_jebnd6h wrote

Reply to comment by smurficus103 in It's becoming increasingly clear that fintech has a fraud problem by marketrent

> Instead of land, as important as it is, my thoughts consider water.

Henry George, the pioneer of this field of thought and the land value tax policy, had a fairly broad definition of "land" which would include not only water but "all natural forces and opportunities." This would include things like sunlight, radio bands, low earth orbits, mineral deposits, and so on.

Personally, I might go even further and include "sufficiently old capital" under land. In this context "capital" means "wealth employed for the increased productivity of future labor." Someone who saves their money to build a tractor instead of buying ice-cream should enjoy return to their capital, aka interest or dividends. On the other hand, if someone built a tractor thousands of years ago (that somehow still works) we might consider it "land" since no one alive today made it. Use of that tractor excludes everyone else from using it and the user should have to pay the "rent" for it if they want to use it. In a world of increasing automation, taxing ownership of robots/software that you didn't personally build would be a critical step in approaching the UBI paradise that we all hope for.

> All that said, i don't want to hand over everyone's possessions to the federal government

The land value tax doesn't take away land, it just charges people the "ground rent" to keep private ownership of it. You can own a square mile of Manhattan and do whatever you want with it, you just have to pay others for your exclusive use of that valuable land. And if you don't want to use it, let someone else use it (either renting it out or "selling" it). Ideally under a properly assessed LVT, the price of land should tend towards zero, because there is no economic advantage in just having it.

> The general narrative pushed is "work hard and you can do anything" rather than "get extremely lucky and you might have a successful buisness after a few failed attempts "

Indeed rent will soak up any increased productivity and hand it to land owners, whether it's residential land or the industrial land. To "get ahead" and perhaps own some land, you basically have to exceed the average productivity expected from a location. (Assuming they haven't over-estimated rent, which is what leads to economic depressions btw). You can do this either by working way harder than the average person, inventing a way to increase your productivity beyond expectations. Either way, this is not accessible for the average person almost by definition.

5

BernieEcclestoned t1_jebl1aw wrote

Reply to comment by Adrian_Alucard in Meta wants EU users to apply for permission to opt out of data collection by OutlandishnessOk2452

They're opting out of FB collecting data, not opting in. This is the first time you can do it on FB in the EU.

The problem is you do it with one click with Apple or Google but FB will review each opt out form individually which is nonsense, FB has no option but to allow you to opt out so there's no point them reviewing it other than to make it enough of a hassle for people not to bother.

1

smurficus103 t1_jebkjmg wrote

Reply to comment by Dwarfdeaths in It's becoming increasingly clear that fintech has a fraud problem by marketrent

This subject is super interesting and concerns our entire social structure.

Instead of land, as important as it is, my thoughts consider water. You can draw an example: someone built a fence around the last freshwater lake and river and defends it with force. You and your family are dying of thirst. What do you do? Sit outside of the fence, allowing you and your family to die of thirst, out of respect for ownership?

Pretty fucked up, but, extrapolate that scene outwards to every resource.

Whatever I happen to own, I feel like i worked hard to own it, I even feel like I earned more than I own (why am i paid so little?). I can only assume people with excessive lives, that can afford to go on vacations and retire, also feel like they deserve that...

So we're at this bizarre impass of ownership of everything that has value vs being born into a world where there's no freshwater source, no land, no fishes that aren't claimed by somebody & they enforce ownership with violence

It seems obvious: if you want this type of structure to sustain, everyone must have at least the opportunity to own something. Forcing people to work 3 jobs and live in shared housing is just asking for violence, and, the general narrative pushed is "work hard and you can do anything" rather than "get extremely lucky and you might have a successful buisness after a few failed attempts ". This isn't a guaranteed path for everyone to obtain land and water rights. It's more of a lottory & people rightfully point out that the deck is stacked. I can't to take out a billion dollar loan from the federal reserve to implement my will onto other people.

All that said, i don't want to hand over everyone's possessions to the federal government, that would just concentrate all power and fuck everyone hard. I suppose all consistent philosophies converge on anarchy.

4

Veritas_Victoriam t1_jebkg0n wrote

Reply to comment by JayCroghan in It's becoming increasingly clear that fintech has a fraud problem by marketrent

I used to work at a fintech and now work at a bank that has a sponsorship program. Sure, some fintechs take BSA/AML seriously but many are pretty weak or inexperienced in that area and are primarily concerned with market growth as quick as possible. Fintechs are kind of a Wild West in the US and until there’s uniform regulation stands on them they’ll continue to run the gambit on being solid to bad at fraud/risk management

8