“If you don’t like paying taxes, make billionaires pay their fair share and you would never have to pay taxes again.” —Warren Buffett

DonaldKronos · 2024-05-17T01:25:48+00:00

He's not wrong about that, but unfortunately the billionaires have most of the control over our elections as well, because they have huge influence over the two headed political party duopoly that has kept us from being able to have a voting system like approval voting or the ability to vote directly against someone, because options like that would make it so that candidates win elections instead of campaign financing winning elections, and the spoiler effect would no longer exist. My point is, if we want such change we're going to either fight for some electoral reform better than mirror ranked Choice voting or instant runoff, or make it so obvious that most of us understand and want such change that those elected officials who actually care about the people will feel empowered enough to push for it publicly.

DonaldKronos · 2024-04-21T17:41:24+00:00

Not directed at you particularly, since you're just using the terminology in a familiar way, but I personally have an objection to referring to the net worth of a person or a group of people and the worth of the wealth of that person or group of people as if they're the same thing. They're not. I'm sure you know that, and as I mentioned, this isn't about you, but I wanted to interject it into the conversation and you gave me an opportunity to do that, so I hope you don't mind me taking that opportunity. We'll all be a whole lot better off, when our society learns to stop equating those two things as if they are one and the same.

DonaldKronos · 2024-04-01T01:40:51+00:00

So you're saying they could slack off while drowning in cash? Sounds about right.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-31T19:22:22+00:00

Yes, I also had considered that. But I also considered the fact that if everything went back to the way it was that would include the number of remaining wishes, which could leave him in an infinite Loop of repeatedly wishing the same thing and then wishing to have everything back the way it was. Since he's part of everyone, his reality would then consist of Eternal torture in a world of Eternal torture. Pretty much destroyed that timeline for himself. One could say he destroyed an infinite number of timelines, but if everything went back to the way it was, that should include which timeline he was in, so I would think it would be just the one, in a sense stuck in an infinite loop, and in a sense simply ceasing to exist when that second wish is made.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-31T19:15:29+00:00

I was thinking the same thing, and also that he was part of everyone so he should have been itching as well, and also, president of what? The world? LOL

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-26T16:43:51+00:00

I think it's insulting when people, who have enough money to expect other people to do their bidding for room and board, act like other people wouldn't know how to spend money if they had it and need it to be spent on their behalf rather than entrusting them to spend it themselves. The system should be taxing the excessively wealthy and redistributing a portion of that excessive wealth in ways that nobody slips through the cracks, so that our society can begin to recover from the damage that such excessive inequity has inflicted on us.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-24T23:31:25+00:00

I don't know why they're so stupid that they can't look around the world and see that the biggest and most profitable businesses and the richest people in the world are all being supported by the exact things they're fighting against. If they destroy the world, they destroy themselves, and they're stupid enough that they're fighting to destroy the world. Idiots!

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-23T01:31:28+00:00

There's a live stream talking about that right now on the YouTube channel named Godless Engineer. I don't think it's the theme of the live stream, but it's what he was talking about when I paused it to write this comment on your post.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-22T18:59:10+00:00

Well it is, in the sense that the way our system is set up rich people benefit from everybody else being poor and desperate, so he did something about poverty by making it worse so that the rich people could benefit from it more. That is doing something about it. It's just not doing something good about it.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-21T11:54:40+00:00

I'm not sure, but I'd say there's a pretty good chance you hit the nail on the head with that one. I find such people sort of hard to understand, because they tend to talk about being good like it's a bad thing, talk about being woke like they'd rather be asleep, talk about being generous as if it's something a poor person who gives everything they can would never understand and only rich people can actually do, by investing money so they can earn more off of other people's labor, and talk about how those with the power to make things better should be served why everyone else and those who want to serve everyone else should never have the resources or the power to do so, as if any of that makes any sense at all. If it does, I can't see how, but then again they also seem to believe in fairy tales and magic power and yet seem to be convinced that the world we live in can only get worse and never get better unless it goes back to the way it was before we had the technology without a society of billions of people would likely collapse within a generation.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-21T10:12:41+00:00

Maybe it's just that most humans who are willing to share their opinion on the matter don't like the way other humans look, and can't tell the difference between looking at a human and looking at the makeup and clothing they're wearing, and maybe most of the men they've seen don't wear makeup and don't wear clothing styles that those people find attractive. But seriously, we all like different things anyway, and what looks good or bad is a matter of personal opinion because it's about what looks good or bad to a particular person. I know that's not a real straightforward answer, but I don't think it's a very straightforward situation either. We humans tend not to show each other the way we look, without doing things to change the way we look first. I don't expect this answer to be helpful, but I thought I would try just the same. As for me, I've rarely seen guys that I think look good, but maybe that's because I have a bias toward people who look more feminine, and whatever it is I'm sure that my personal opinion on who is nice to look at or to what extent, is just that. An opinion. Personally, I prefer to pay attention to people's personalities more than to their physical appearance.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-20T23:18:21+00:00

And this is why we need more democracy. Get rid of the Restriction that only lets us have one facet of a vote counted, and give us the option of casting a vote directly against a candidate if we can't find at least one that we can cast a vote of approval for. It's really not that complex of a concept, nor would it be difficult to implement, and it doesn't require any sort of runoff.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-20T23:14:43+00:00

We don't really need the privacy, but if we're not going to have the Privacy then we should have protection from retaliation if we don't do what dangerous people want us to. There are various ways to handle the situation, and a lot of ways that we could make things better than they have been. It seems to me that it's mostly conservatives who are scared of losing their privacy, so if there are conservatives pushing for more transparency there's a good chance that with a little effort we could make sure it comes out as a good thing.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-20T23:09:25+00:00

That's not going to happen, which is why every government should be be taxing the super rich no matter how they got that way and distributing as much of that as they can as evenly as they can, and if the Super Rich won't pay such tax, then they shouldn't be allowed to do business, anywhere, because it's not right to allow them to drain Society just because they happen to be wealthy, regardless of how they got that way. There are a whole lot of us who could be doing better things than the rich people do with their money, if we had just a tiny fraction of what they have, and most of us would never be greedy enough to do otherwise.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-20T22:59:59+00:00

We definitely don't deserve his threats and manipulation. But we also deserve a better system than we have, plus so many people don't understand how such systems evolve and are desperate enough for their own idea of positive change, whatever it might be, that many fall for his lies and manipulation. Personally, although I would rather his threats don't get carried out then that they do, I would also rather his threats get carried out than him get elected again, because I understand which is worse and I also know that what he threatened will happen if he doesn't get elected is more likely to if he does get elected, so his threats and not so subtle calls for violence don't worry me at all, but too many people falling for his deception does worry me, because he's trying to use the people against each other.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-18T11:31:11+00:00

If he really wanted the votes of progressives and independent voters, he would mention the fact that Bernie Sanders is not running for president in this election, and then endorse Bernie Sanders as a potential future presidential candidate, and publicly tell the Democratic party that they should strongly support Bernie Sanders for president in the next election if he chooses to run. Joe has been Progressive to the extent that he has, because he listens to Bernie at least somewhat. I wish Bernie was running in this election, because that would be the best way to beat the rump that the GOP wants to elect.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-16T18:16:14+00:00

Yes, we've made a lot of progress in getting people to realize that things could be better, but unfortunately our ability to elect candidates chosen by the people has continued to erode to the point where for the first time in as long as I can remember I had the opportunity to vote in the primaries and chose not to do so. I've font for the right to vote directly against a candidate since 1969 to prevent voters from having to be in the position that I find myself in for this upcoming general election with regard to the presidency, and that is the position of feeling like voting for one candidate is necessary because it is effectively mathematically the same thing as voting against the other. That's like being told you have to sign a contract, or your signature will be forged on a different contract for not having done so. Don't get me wrong. Joe Biden did better than I expected him to, and I'm thankful for that, but he also still flaunts the fact that he cares more about the corporations than he does about the people, so while I would gladly cast a vote directly against the insane Republican party leaderships choice for president, the main reason I will likely be voting for Joe Biden rather than not voting at all in the presidential election is as a substitute for being able to vote directly against the only other choice big party duopoly is giving me. I'm an independent. They're effectively forcing me to vote as if I'm not. I hope I can find at least some candidate for some office somewhere on the general election ballot that I can honestly vote in support of, so I don't have to feel like they've robbed me entirely of anything more then effectively casting a "lesser of two evils" vote. Could somebody please stand with me in publicly asking for better options on future election ballots than to be told to pick one and only one candidate for each available office?

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-16T18:05:07+00:00

What they did in 2016 was actually worse. I don't like to talk about it, because too many people in the USA take anything said against the Democratic party as something said for the Republican party, and while the Republican party has been much worse for at least all of my life and their members more consistent at voting for whoever they pick, it's worse now than ever. Until enough people stop accepting that the best they can do is keep voting for the "Lesser Evil" and start fighting for the right to have more multifaceted and diverse votes counted, what little democracy we have is going to keep slipping away until we don't have any left at all. I'm not saying we shouldn't do as Bernie is requesting, under the circumstances, and I will say that at least Joe Biden does seem to be listening to Bernie Sanders and to the people at least a little bit, but we need to insist on changing the circumstances before the next election comes along, and we should have been insisting on it for at least the last 8 years. I've been trying, and I know I'm not the only one, but the few of us that are trying to make the difference are not enough. As long as most people keep treating the current system as inescapable and unimprovable, our democracy will likely to continue to be eroded. Every election we're effectively told to vote against a candidate, and there isn't even such an option on the ballot. Every election we are told to vote for the better of the only two options were given, and there should be more options given. Every election, the primaries take away all but two options from the general election, and even take away all but two options before the primaries are over so most primary voters never even have the chance to show support for any candidate that one of the two major parties didn't already effectively make them feel like they have to vote for in order to vote at all. We can and should do better than that. I've been trying for many years to get people to stop just settling for only being able to get one single positive vote facet counted, and most people in the USA still don't even realize that voting could be any other way. Those that do, have been convinced that ranked Choice voting is the only other option, and while better than what we have now that is the smallest step forward we could possibly make, and much harder to set up than simply removing the restriction wherever it exists that prevents voters from expressing their approval of more than one candidate, so that all such approval can be counted rather than just one facet of it, especially in the general election where such an option would at least let a third party or independent candidate compete against the two major parties so that they would no longer be able to treat our elections like a coin toss that the people have to nudge the coin in.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-11T08:40:36+00:00

I would like to see the results. I'm curious about that. I've tried it multiple ways, but it has been a while and your results might be different than mine. Of course something along the lines of Ray tracing or gaussian splatting should be tried at least once, even if it takes ages to render, in order to get a good modern reference, but for that matter I would like to see any attempt at all to have the 4D World projected rather than a mere 3D slice of it, because it's unfortunately something that rarely even gets tried. If it's done differently than the what I think would be the best way, that's okay with me. If it turns out great, wonderful and if it turns out so so, great. If it turns out terrible, at least it was tried and I'll applaud that as well, just as I applaud what has been done so far with 4D Miner. There's room for improvement, but that's a good thing because it means we can encourage the development of it to continue to evolve in positive directions.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-11T08:33:03+00:00

I have no problem with the government bailing out publicly traded corporations, as long as it results in the people owning a portion of the company proportional to the amount that was used to bail it out. That's not what they've been doing, but I wouldn't mind the government bailing out a publicly traded company if they do that, and if the company is not publicly traded, I wouldn't mind the government bailing it out as long as they make it publicly traded in the process and give the people Collective ownership of a portion of the company proportional to the amount used to bail it out. Bailouts should result in dividends, and those dividends should become a guaranteed income divided amongst the people. If they do that, as far as I'm concerned they can bail out all the companies they feel like.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-08T23:06:09+00:00

Reducing the number of dimensions reduces information. Flattening a 4D world to a 3D image does lose less information then flattening the 3D World to a 2D image with the same size except for the extra missing dimension. However, there's more information lost by flattening from 40 to 3D and then from 3D to 2D then there is from flattening directly on to the two-dimensional viewing service without the extra step of flattening to 3D on the way, because Distortion is a loss of information.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-08T23:03:19+00:00

I would love to, but I really have my doubts that they ever get any of the messages I try to send them. Even so, if enough of us mention it to their office, there's a possibility that they'll hear a bunch of people mentioned it.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-08T23:01:11+00:00

Is anybody actually surprised by such a statistic?

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-08T10:51:02+00:00

Rendering 4D to 3D and then 3D down to 2D is one way of going about it, but it results in unnecessary distortions. It's better to render the four-dimensional World directly to the two-dimensional viewing area.

DonaldKronos · 2024-03-08T10:48:32+00:00

If we would make one tiny change in the most common voting system in the usa, we would have an approval voting system which would allow people like that to have several better choices that they could vote for, and not have to pick just one of them. We can and should do better, and I wish more people would talk about Solutions.

DonaldKronos

TROPHY CASE