The idea is to allocate academic reviewer time based on the estimated quality of a submitted paper. But critically, you should maintain uncertainty bounds in your estimate. It's kind of like an UCB (upper confidence bound) bandit approach but inspired by cascaded speech translation (where you really should not throw away information at any point in your pipeline).
This is some of the most embarrassing shit ever. Man with more money than God is too selfish to pay some taxes. Needs giant corporation to give him even more money to keep him from throwing a fit and moving away from where his job is that made him unimaginably rich. The entitlement of these billionaires is boundless. Take all their fucking money. They don't deserve it.
I'm actually fine with this? He owns a good chunk of that corporation so he's paying the tax either way. And other shareholders can decide whether it's worth it to them to help him pay the tax.
> And other shareholders can decide whether it's worth it to them to help him pay the tax.
Not in Meta's case. Facebook voting rights are set up so that Zuck always controls a majority of the votes (even if he doesn't control a majority of the shares). Some stocks are more equal than others.
So it’s fine for the general public to decide that he doesn’t deserve to keep shares of his company, but it’s a bad thing that he offered portions of the company to the general public for purchase with conditions to ensure to the companies grows based on his priorities?
Nobody had to buy shares in Facebook.
In fact, Californians have to hope that there are enough people out there willing to buy the ~8-10 billion worth of shares he needs to sell to cover the wealth tax, if it gets imposed on him.
This is like assuming people in africa need telephone lines strewn to every home in order to have telecommunications. The developing world doesn't need oil. It needs solar panels and ever cheaper batteries.
None of this requires fossil fuels and small rural villages in poor countries are never going to get electricity if they have to wait for large power plants and long distance transmission lines to be built. It makes far more sense for a village to have a solar farm, a battery bank and a small local grid.
I assume current technology requires significant fossil fuels to be used to manufacture and transport the type of batteries that can replace the heavy lifting that fossil fuels do.
We have electric cars and whatnot, but they're still far more expensive than fossil fuel cars with less bang for the buck in terms of power and portability. I doubt we will see cost effective construction vehicles, ships, planes, etc. powered via batteries anytime soon, at least not on a timescale that makes a material difference.
The BYD Seagull costs $10,150. If there wasn't tarrifs on China EVs would be significantly cheaper. The cost of batteries has been decreasing exponentially just like the cost of solar. Electric tractor trailers are already on the road. Your pessimism about electric heavy machinery is misplaced.
From my perspective it's like you're looking at the market for telephones in 2004 and remarking that most phones are landlines and most portable phones are flip phones and therefore you don't see a future for smartphones.
Solar and wind are cheaper than any other form of electricity in history. (Often even when paired with a storage facility) The fact that it doesn't always shine or blow when needed is driving massive investment into storage technology. The world is changing rapidly. You're not paying attention.
The growth of energy use is mostly in countries that are industrializing/developing. Places like India/Indonesia/Vietnam/... are where most energy will be added and they'll all add coal.
Meat isn't a health food. Most Americans eat an unhealthy amount of meat. Especially red meat. You could probably eat half as much meat and not be in any danger of not getting enough macro nutrients.
You don't get modern discontent and populism (and the current president) without the expansive (at the expense of congress and the states) executive branch. You don't get the expansive executive branch without 1930s populists and FDR.
Obviously there's a lot more nuance and detail to it (the blame Nixon deserves being of specific note IMO) but the argument is there.
So I'd argue that both the means are bad and the end
FDR had the folksy charm to directly address the public and acquired a lot of power, but in most respects he seems the opposite of a populist. He was a party insider with a complex technocratic response to the Depression voters believed actually worked, not someone who spent his time picking fights and arguing he needed more power to defeat enemies (or making complete fantasy promises like Huey Lewis), he picked up a broad voter coalition including lots of minorities he neither scapegoated nor actually defended, and was a conventional moderate for the time on foreign policy and [future] culture war issues. He was more radical and centralised than previous Presidents when it came to economic policy and the role of the executive, but it wasn't a shouty type of radicalism, especially not compared with how socialists and fascists elsewhere addressed the subject of the Depression...
I would say functionally yes but i get the vibe jim is doing it on purpose for pump and dump reasons we just havent figured out yet, while greta drinks her own koolaid and so must this guy by assosciation. Ie they strongly believe in their wrong position and promote it with conviction.
reply