Yes — because there are many non-equivalent statements that are easier to prove.
So the Lean proves something and the question is whether that something is actually what we care about — or something similar, but ultimately not the question.
If we have variable c, it would be indistinguishable.
We even use the Lorentz transform, developed for post-Michelson aether theories, precisely because you cannot tell whether you’re in a varying aether or a varying geometry.
We define distance and time relative to c, so we cannot measure it in the usual sense.
My comment was mainly a joke. Since my work is primarily with performance and graphics, I rarely use any proper RNG and usually only need cheap things which look random enough at first glance.
That sounds related to the pigeon hole principle: if you have n objects and m buckets, and m doesn’t divide n, then some buckets have more objects than others.
Circa 2008, into 2010, you had the Democrats running on holding Wall St accountable and a genuine class movement to reform capital in the US, Occupy Wall St.
Obama et al instead tore open old racial wounds, thereby destroying class solidarity in exchange for Wall St promoting their ideology, thereby creating “Woke”.
This was the origin of the Obama -> Bernie -> Trump cohort, who helped bring Trump into power a decade later.
Which part are you struggling to take as in good faith?
I’m sure it’s not your preferred narrative of the times, but we both knew that before I answered; so what is it that strikes you as in bad faith rather than my genuine interpretation of events?
I'm struggling to follow. The typical Obama was divisive/made race and issue has actually been a right wing dog whistle for "he is black and I don't like that."
Obama using race to distract from Occupy Wall Street. Bernie Sanders leading to Trump. The hole thing really. My good faith interpretation is you are leaving out parts you think are obvious and so if you show me those parts I will understand. Now, I think the parts you're leaving out are just not allowed on the site.
Obama used race (and in particular, neo-Marxist theories like intersectionality and equity) to displace conversation about class with conversation about race. At exactly the moment class-unity was driving meaningful capital reform in the fallout of the 2008 GFC.
There were numerous memes at the time pointing out the shift in the language of NYT et al from discussing class issues to racial grievances. Clear as day in Google’s metrics of media terms.
That shift in focus is what broke Occupy Wall St as a class movement — and was adopted by Wall St to appoint commissars of that ideology in exchange. Woke.
The Obama -> Bernie -> Trump pipeline is a cohort of working Millennials, ie, the proletariat who have lost faith in Democrat politics serving capital and racial tribes rather than the working class. So they elected someone with the right platform they believed would break the system — following the rigging of the 2016 primary. They’re one of the relatively small (1-2%) but engaged cohorts that switch teams, eg, when the election comes down to under 1% difference, which way they vote matters — and they generally vote anti-establishment, with increasing aggression.
Democrats have completed failed to perceive that reality and engaged in name calling instead — eg, the multiple replies calling me a racist to slander me and poison the well for debate.
I usually don’t reply because there’s no point making serious discussions to people who have already made up their mind, eg, sibling replies.
Ah yes, we all remember how America had no racism or anything like that before 2008.
Just like the emancipation proclamation solved slavery, racism was solved in the 60s. We definitely don't have (literally the same) people running around being rather transparent in their moronic racism all the time.
How dare Obama talk about a problem that affects 30% of the country continuously.
We previously were more accepting, eg, if you read the accounts of various socialites trying to include shy, reclusive, or eccentric friends in high society, you see real effort and concern to include them despite the difference in behavior.
We dropped all that social connection/obligation and associated support it provided for various people when we stopped doing things that historic way.
Talking about a thing to virtue signal is not the same as doing a thing.
A digital nomad is still economically positive when a) their money circulates locally, eg at cafes and restaurants and b) comes from outside the region. That’s because they’re bringing wealth generated elsewhere (ie, at their employer) into the region.
While you’re correct the state misses out on income taxes, they get taxes on further spending, eg, when those digital nomad supplied dollars are used to pay wages at the cafe.
Not specifically about digital nomads, but Amazon used to estimate their salary dollars induce $2.5 of additional local economic activity — as Amazon employees bought from local stores, the store employees did in turn, etc.
>when those digital nomad supplied dollars are used to pay wages at the cafe
Nations whose economies depend on foreign tourist coming to spend their money there, are some of the worst developed out there, have a disproportionately high low wage sector, and some of the highest wealth inequalities out there with the lowest opportunities for upwards mobility. Basically a dutch disease. Nobody wants their economy to be like that if they can avoid it.
Countries aren't gonna be improved by you moving to buy 2$ lattes there while you gentrify the locals in the process and making life more expensive for them, trapping them in perpetual indentured servitude catering to the digital nomad/tourist industry with little to no possibility of moving up the value chain. The only ones who will be happy you do this will be landlords and business owners in the hospitality industry but no developed economy is built with those two as its pillars.
Developed nations want an export economy of products and services aided by imported skilled workers to stay as long term residents and contribute in income taxes, not in latte purchases, and maybe even become citizens so they can become eligible for the draft in case shit were to hit the fan. Digital nomads are like locusts by comparisons, they come to treat your country like and amusement park in a race to the bottom while the going is good, but leave at the slightest inconvenience if now the 2$ latte now has to be 3$ due to increased labor protections, when the impoverished country next door sells it for 2.50$.
> Digital nomads are like locusts by comparisons, they come to treat your country like and amusement park in a race to the bottom while the going is good, but leave at the slightest inconvenience if now the 2$ latte now has to be 3$ due to increased labor protections, when the impoverished country next door sells it for 2.50$.
This assumes they come just to geoarbitrage. Many want to experience a country for its nature, food, culture, people etc.
I work remotely/seasonally while traveling the world to learn local languages, learn about traditional culture, see nature out away from cities (I'm a bikepacker), etc. It is rare that I meet other digital nomads interested in those things; the vast majority really do come just to geoarbitrage. When I meet other foreigners deeply invested in the specifics of the country, they are more likely to be students, pensioners, or the independently wealthy, not DNs.
> While you’re correct the state misses out on income taxes, they get taxes on further spending, eg, when those digital nomad supplied dollars are used to pay wages at the cafe.
This only works to some extent, because, again, you can't subsidize budget with VAT only. And a person who is a bona fide employed immigrant still pays more tax in place of "just" a nomad.
They don’t get VAT only, but also income taxes on wages to support that activity and additional rounds of VAT.
Yes — people who emigrate to work there pay more in taxes, but they generally also consume more: the job they’re working displaces a local, they benefit from social medicine, etc. Digital nomads bring jobs from elsewhere to spend locally, while not benefiting from (eg) local healthcare or schools.
> They don’t get VAT only, but also income taxes on wages to support that activity and additional rounds of VAT
They would get the same wages earned on the workload surplus coming from employed immigrants in place of nomads. They also use the same services plus pay income salary. That's the whole point discussed here. Skilled immigration is better than glorified tourism.
It's not meant to be idealistic at all. There very much should be a whole lot more that goes into the decision to raise prices or introduce ads or whatever that might upset your customers.
So the Lean proves something and the question is whether that something is actually what we care about — or something similar, but ultimately not the question.
reply