General_Effort
@General_Effort@lemmy.world
- Comment on Do you know the answer? 8 hours ago:
Granted, it is more fun to have more answers involved, but 2 identical answers immediately gives it away as fake.
- Submitted 1 day ago to games@lemmy.world | 0 comments
- Comment on Do you know the answer? 1 day ago:
It’s annoying that 25% appears twice. How about these answers:
a) 100%
b) 75%
c) 50%
d) 0%
- Comment on How would legal procedure change if every citizen eligible for jury duty was aware of jury nullification? 2 days ago:
Far fewer than 1 in 20 defendants get a jury trial in the US. If every defendant insisted on their right to one, then the system would break down for lack of jurors.
Few juries would decide to nullify, since, by and large, Americans believe in punishment.
So the change would be insubstantial.
- Comment on Your majesty 3 days ago:
I’d be more supportive of fungi independence if they aimed for a democratic republic. Just saying.
- Comment on The Beetle 3 days ago:
Oh Lemmiwinks, Lemmiwinks, …
- Submitted 3 days ago to [deleted] | 23 comments
- Comment on Mr Burn 4 days ago:
Ah, you may leave here for
four days11 minutes in spaceBut when you return, it’s the same old place
The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace
You can bury your dead, but don’t leave a trace
Hate your next door neighbor but don’t forget to say grace
- Comment on Pictures of Animals Getting CT Scans Against their Will: A Thread 4 days ago:
20 ccs of lasagna, stat!
- Comment on FANTER 5 days ago:
Just the German branch of The Coca-Cola Company.
- Comment on FANTER 5 days ago:
History trivia: Fanta was invented in 1941 in Nazi Germany, when Coca-Cola Germany couldn’t get the original syrup because trade was cut off.
- Comment on How Will We Know If The Trump Tariffs Were A Good Idea? 1 week ago:
Ok, another answer closer to the ground. 2 goals are often invoked. Reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic manufacturing.
- Trade deficit
… means that more goods (and services) come into the US from the rest of the world than the US delivers in return.
Reducing the trade deficit makes Americans poorer by design. There will be fewer goods available for Americans, either because they have to give up more to the rest of the world, or because they don’t come into the country in the first place.
The rest of the world is willing to loan money to people, companies, and governments in the US. It is also eager to invest in the country, because it really was a good place in which to do business. Look at the current big thing: AI. You can’t really do that in the EU, and investing in China has its own risks. Trump may actually reduce the deficit by making the US more of a South American style banana republic.
- Manufacturing in the US.
One manufactures stuff outside the US and transports it there because it is more efficient. Americans can be more profitably employed in different areas. Moving more manufacturing to the US should be expected to leave the average American poorer. It should not be expected, in isolation, to reduce the trade deficit as it creates new investment opportunities that potentially attract foreign money, increasing the deficit.
However, while Americans would be left financially poorer, there may be benefits not captured by conventional econometrics. Maybe manufacturing is more emotionally satisfying in a way that is not captured by only looking at the wages. Who knows?
Unfortunately, getting to that state will be brutal. Millions of people will have to find and learn new jobs. That is what happened when manufacturing was off-shored. Reversing that will have the same cost. Some economists have come to believe that the psychological cost of such structural changes has been vastly underestimated, and that is why trade agreements are so unpopular. The benefits from free trade may not outweigh the psychological pain and disruption of communities. Reversing free trade will have similar effects, that are likewise virtually impossible to measure.
I think the most objective benefit would arise if a war happened that disrupted trade. For example, if Trump invaded Canada and Greenland, this would probably lead to the US being embargoed. Then it would appear good to have already built manufacturing capacity in the US while it was still easy. You need physical goods to fight wars, after all.
- Comment on How Will We Know If The Trump Tariffs Were A Good Idea? 1 week ago:
There is no absolute, objective way to judge if some policy is a good or bad. We can only determine if some policy achieves its goals. This is difficult as different justifications for the tariffs have been given.
We can also have philosophical arguments over whether the goals are good in some abstract sense. For example, some people on the right feel that the US not having access to X-mas knick-knacks and gifts is positive, as it will force people to engage with religion.
- Comment on In heat 2 weeks ago:
In short: BONK
It probably thought you were Elon Musk.
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to [deleted] | 20 comments
- Comment on Rock Auras - Not just for Hippies anymore 3 weeks ago:
I thought it was a good fit for this community. Good to know my repost wasn’t just spammy.
- Comment on Perfect Easter cookie for Christians 3 weeks ago:
That took me way too long.
- Submitted 3 weeks ago to science_memes@mander.xyz | 31 comments
- Comment on Will the tariffs lead to a recession? 4 weeks ago:
There’s a few billionaire numptie
Like who?
- Comment on How wil people react if Trump is right about Tariffs? 4 weeks ago:
That would certainly be quite surprising. The expression of Trump being right is flexible enough to be interpreted in various ways.
The only plausible way would be if he achieves some largely meaningless concessions and the media spins it as a win. But if the American electorate gets the idea that the US can get free stuff by throwing a fit, then any agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.
Well, I guess that’s the answer. If Trump achieves anything positive with this, then the reaction with be self-destructive.
Do you have any particular scenario in mind that ends with Trump being vindicated?
- Comment on From a purely political perspective, if you oppose the US tariffs as a US resident, should you buy or avoid buying products subject to tariffs? 4 weeks ago:
I don’t think you have the choice. Products that aren’t imported are made with parts that are imported. In fact, there will be products that have several layers of products in them, for example cars. Parts are made, assembled into bigger parts and ever bigger pats, and may cross the mexican or canadian border each time.
These tariffs are a monumental act of economic self harm. That’s what the stock market is saying. Stocks have (rational) value because you are entitled to a share of future profits. The stock market crashing tells you that the pros expects that a lot of value is not going to be created. Trillions of dollars will not be paid out to stock-owners, and further trillions will not be paid out as wages. The real wealth that is the other side of that money - all these new goods, cars, phones, TVs, dishwashers … - will not exist in the USA.
So, don’t worry about hitting them in the wallet.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a ball sack—for ever.
Maybe watch out for products from Russia and Belarus, as they are not included in the tariffs. This may start a new era of economic cooperation; putting the US in USSR. Ironically, Russia is still hit hard because of oil taking a nosedive.
- Comment on purpose 4 weeks ago:
Humanity is the CEO of earth.
- Comment on #BDSM 4 weeks ago:
It stands for Black Dragon Scale Mail, you bug lover.
- Comment on 5 weeks ago:
Trademarks have valid uses but they, too, are perverted. Think about luxury goods. The purpose of the brand name is simply to signal that the owner is able to afford the brand. These brands have nothing to do with consumer protection.
I consider them parasitic. Whatever utility someone gets from signalling with an exclusive brand is provided by society, not the company.
- Comment on 5 weeks ago:
The public domain is not just useful but unavoidable and necessary.
You could imagine a world where all available physical matter is owned property. But intellectual property is an arbitrary legal creation. It is not finite.
EG Trademark law. Only the owner of a mark may use it to trade. The mark proclaims who is responsible for a product. If there were no unowned trademarks, you could not start a business without first paying off some owner. This would clearly be economically disastrous. So having unused, potential trademarks is necessary.
EG Patent law. Only the patent owner may use a certain invention; some trick of doing something. The patent is published so that others may learn from it and perhaps come up with other ways of achieving the same end. After (usually) 20 years, everyone may use the invention. Scientific theories, mathematical theorems, and other such things are always public domain.
If patents were broader and/or lasted for longer, you’d eventually not be able to do much business without having to pay off some owner. The owners could basically demand a tax on any kind of economic activity and deny consent for anything that might threaten their status. Progress would grind to a halt. It would be a new kind of feudalism.
So, a public domain is not just useful but absolutely necessary to our civilization.
Anything could be made into intellectual property. For example tax farming in ancient Rome and elsewhere. Monarchs granted special privileges, such as granting the East India Company a monopoly on trade. Or they might grant some person the monopoly on opening coffee houses in the country or a certain city. A title of nobility could be seen as a kind of intellectual property. Such titles were traded in a limited way. Anything that can be allowed or forbidden by the government could be turned into intellectual property.
- Comment on 5 weeks ago:
That’s not correct. There are other forms of IP besides copyright, such as trademarks, patents, or even trade secrets.
What you are saying is somewhat true for US copyrights (and patents) per the copyright clause in the US Constitution. But mind that typically copyrights are owned by the employer of the creator, who may be a writer, even a programmer, photographer, or any other such professional who may not be considered an “artist”.
You would probably not consider yourself an artist for writing comments here, but you get copyright nevertheless.
European copyright has a very different philosophy behind it, which does not consider the public at all. It’s quite harmful to the public, actually.
- Comment on The first 1 star review 5 weeks ago:
That was a deepfake. They did a dirty on him.
- Comment on Are color palettes subject to copyright protection? 5 weeks ago:
Generally no, but I wouldn’t rule out that it might be possible in a limited way in very specific circumstances. You wouldn’t be able to stop others from using certain colors.
A specific color scheme might also be used as a trademark.
- Comment on HOLD ME BACK 5 weeks ago:
Studying BDSM in an animal model, I see.
- Comment on ONE OF US 5 weeks ago:
This is why WIS and INT are different stats.
