> I think almost everybody would be better off if taxes were something like 1% of total assets rather than off the top of your income

No thanks. Any discussion about tax reform has to start with government spending otherwise it's not serious. Nobody wants to give away a slice of their net worth to pay for bullshit wars and ballrooms.

> Any discussion about tax reform has to start with government spending otherwise it's not serious.

I'd say almost the reverse. What we need most in terms of "tax reform" is to move away from thinking about taxes as solely a means of funding government operations, and towards thinking about taxes as a way of directly redistributing wealth. That is, the revenues of a wealth tax could simply be given to the non-wealthy as direct payments (possibly in the form of refundable tax credits). Unavoidably there will be some overhead, but there doesn't need to be anything for the money to be "spent on"; it can just be straight-up given to different people than those who paid it.

Totally agree but its not the reverse of what I said, you're still talking about changing how the government spends money.

I would say the way to think about it is that the revenue from this tax is never the government's money. They are just administering the transfer of it from some individuals to others.

We're splitting hairs but imo if the government takes money from bob and gives it to joe they own the money on between those two steps. The taxing -> spending plumbing is exactly the same as it is now.

And if you disagree with that look at social security which is supposed to be your money but clearly it is not.

> The vast majority of people in America are already doing this, because their wealth is entirely derived from their income

Derived is not the same thing. Not even close.

Then why stop at 1%? Why not fork over half of your possessions to the government every year and let them spend it for you, if you trust them so much?

And by the way we already have a wealth tax. Its called inflation.

Inflation is only a wealth tax if you invest in cash. If you invest in stocks, real estate, and sometimes other things (gold, bonds, art) then your wealth grows faster than inflation.

> If you invest in stocks, real estate, and sometimes other things (gold, bonds, art) then your wealth grows faster than inflation

Aka put your wealth at risk or watch it disappear.

And the larger point is that runaway govt spending makes it disappear faster.

now - 29 years = 1996: Phish - Billy Breathes

1996 - 29 years = 1967: The Doors - Light My Fire

> I've found that nobody that doesn't code is at all interested in the topic.

This triple-negative is hard to parse.

Do we really need this comment for every article? Who cares if AI wrote it if you like the ideas?

The issue is, there’s not a lot of meat in this article. Anyone who’s done any amount of SRE can perfectly articulate alert fatigue in way less words.

Yet the article doesn’t tackle at all the hard part: making alerts that are actually meaningful. They handwave it instead of giving actual advice. This post is a good intro, but I didn’t "walk away" with anything useful.

This is why, in this case, AI is important. Someone puts in an effort to write a short article (if a bit wordy) that can be used by e.g. beginners or managers? Good! I’m not the target audience. But if it’s the output of AI, what’s the intent?

The aricle is a marketing page under a "Winning with us" section right next to a "CEO Page" that describes a CEO pitch. I really don't think this article is very different from thousands of others like it that were published before AI.

Huh, thanks, I failed to see it on my phone. Down the trash the article goes then.

I care.

Nobody cares that you care, because you're not adding anything to the conversation.

I’m answering a direct question posed by the parent post. What’s your excuse?

I wrote the parent post. It was a rhetorical question.

But it did not get the answer you expected. So a failed rhetorical question.

Exactly.

Yes. And all software is abandoned sooner or later (usually sooner). Acknowledging that is reality is a healthy perspective.

> Not all

is doing a lot of work to avoid engaging with the actual argument.

> It's timeless in that it was never good to begin with

True but it shows that good design doesn't matter.

Also: Craigslist, Reddit, LinkedIn...the list goes on.

> You'll get a competent UI with little effort but nothing truly unique or mind-blowing.

This is exactly what I want in a UI.

The remaining issue is that even an AI-generated UI needs considerable UX input in order to work well, especially when you have to fit it around domain specific knowledge, use-cases, and prior art. Is it for power users or not? All that.

At risk of shifting the goalposts on what I originally said, unique here isn't meant to mean quirky or weird but, simply, something that hasn't been done before, or hasn't been done as effectively.

This is the challenge for B2B startups that are switching to LLM-based development and are trying to offer more than the reselling of cloud compute at a markup with specialised functionality, because AI turns SaaS into a sexy version of MS Access.

Exactly. If I am making a tool, I want the users mental energy to be spent on their domain, not bespoke weirdness of my ui choices.