Sadly, he went the way I was afraid he would. While there has been lobbying by the tax preparation industry, when California attempted to implement their pilot return free filing program, the major opponent wasn't the tax filing industry, but none other than regular bad penny and anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist. His reason is simple - his position relies on taxes being painful. Make taxes simple for most Americans, and he loses political power.
So I read that, and it suffers from the same issue - overestimating the tax preparers, and underestimating Norquist, who's a lot more dangerous. While return free filing would shrink the tax preparation market, it wouldn't eliminate it, and the parts that would be the least affected are the more profitable ones, dealing with complicated returns. In addition, I'd imagine they would pivot from tax preparation to tax review, creating a market for third party "check the government's work" services.
In comparison, return free filing would be very detrimental to Norquist. His political power, much like any anti-tax zealot, is built on being able to motivate people to respond negatively against taxes, and one of his best tools is pointing out the pain of taxes. Return free filing would eliminate a major pain point taxwise, and thus weaken his political power.
In followup, The Ringer has a good piece on said game, declaring it the worst game of Jeopardy ever played, cataloging the sins of all the players involved.
The new Contrapoints video is out, about the concept of "degeneracy" and it's history along with it's context with past and present fascism. It's really entertaining and informative, but I don't think I can link it here due to 1. Contra doing lewd shit, and 2. she reads out YouTube comments from her previous videos.
0
Options
Dr. Flamingo49 Gilded Disc Perceives the SunRegistered Userregular
Well I believe in magic and my courtiers work tirelessly to seek out hidden knowledge that will allow me to defeat death and to rule for literally eternity so that's how I believe in immortality
I don't understand how anyone who's really thought about it could believe in immortality.
Longer and longer life-spans, sure. Medical science can certainly improve a person's life quality and longevity.
But forever? No.
Unless we're using one of those definitions of immortality that really just means "a really long time" instead of "never".
In any event, even if they discovered the cure for death today I doubt most of us could afford it.
I think some manner of augmentation would be necessary, but I don't see why it would be impossible.
+6
Options
#pipeCocky Stride, Musky odoursPope of Chili TownRegistered Userregular
I mean if you're talking about the heat death of the universe being part of "forever" then sure
And also the cure for death has been discovered a bunch of times in the form of vaccinations, which are demanded by the voting populace and in demand enough that economy of scale kicks in to make those vaccinations either free through insurance/healthcare or very inexpensive.
there are a handful of very large leaps that need to happen that some people say are impossible leaps, but there is no physical law preventing people from deferring or defeating the aging process. The longer a person lives the closer their chance to die in a traumatic fashion reaches one, if that's what you're talking about.
I love the idea of like whooo boy we gotta get ahead of this imminent problem of becoming immortal
Wow hey there folks we need to really get serious and confront the real practical problems of our definite capacity to eliminate the specter of death it's real close and definitely attainable that's a given if you would just get over your silly superstitious beliefs about it.
The sarcasm is so thick in that post I literally can't get through it to understand what you're saying
Making a video to talk about how we need to stop being so obsessed with the idea that death is good because it's actually bad and we should try to not die is extremely silly.
I love the idea of like whooo boy we gotta get ahead of this imminent problem of becoming immortal
Wow hey there folks we need to really get serious and confront the real practical problems of our definite capacity to eliminate the specter of death it's real close and definitely attainable that's a given if you would just get over your silly superstitious beliefs about it.
The sarcasm is so thick in that post I literally can't get through it to understand what you're saying
Making a video to talk about how we need to stop being so obsessed with the idea that death is good because it's actually bad and we should try to not die is extremely silly.
Because it's a situation where there's two competing theories that already exist beyond the question of if humanity can transcend the aging process.
One very popular one, if you examine nearly any modern media that addresses immortality or death, is that humanity shouldn't be immortal because death is a part of living and it's only death which ultimately defines your life. Usually, ultimately, because it creates an endpoint for your story so that other people can try to suss out what your life meant.
The other is that that kind of existential meaning doesn't mean much for the people who are dead, and that if we have the ability to extend life, it should be used. And screw the people who want your life to end just because it makes it easier for them to suss out some meaning to life.
We're rapidly approaching a time when we have figured out and thoroughly studied the vast majority of external life ending events. A wide range of humanity is, for the first time in the history of our species, running up against a very real biological limitation to our lifespan that exists within the building blocks of our body itself. The philosophical question is "How do we treat aging?". Because there's a chance that we can virtually eliminate the biological roadblock to our lifespans and greatly increase how long a human being can live. We have already noted and studied species that effectively exist without limitations to their age or with biological lifespans much greater than our own.
It's not magic, and it's not fantasy, it's scientifically possible that human beings do not need to have a biological limit to how long we can live.
Dedwrekka on
+2
Options
#pipeCocky Stride, Musky odoursPope of Chili TownRegistered Userregular
The sarcasm is so thick in that post I literally can't get through it to understand what you're saying
Making a video to talk about how we need to stop being so obsessed with the idea that death is good because it's actually bad and we should try to not die is extremely silly.
Because it's a situation where there's two competing theories that already exist beyond the question of if humanity can transcend the aging process.
One very popular one, if you examine nearly any modern media that addresses immortality or death, is that humanity shouldn't be immortal because death is a part of living and it's only death which ultimately defines your life. Usually, ultimately, because it creates an endpoint for your story so that other people can try to suss out what your life meant.
The other is that that kind of existential meaning doesn't mean much for the people who are dead, and that if we have the ability to extend life, it should be used. And screw the people who want your life to end just because it makes it easier for them to suss out some meaning to life.
We're rapidly approaching a time when we have figured out and thoroughly studied the vast majority of external life ending events. A wide range of humanity is, for the first time in the history of our species, running up against a very real biological limitation to our lifespan that exists within the building blocks of our body itself. The philosophical question is "How do we treat aging?". Because there's a chance that we can virtually eliminate the biological roadblock to our lifespans and greatly increase how long a human being can live. We have already noted and studied species that effectively exist without limitations to their age or with biological lifespans much greater than our own.
It's not magic, and it's not fantasy, it's scientifically possible that human beings do not need to have a biological limit to how long we can live.
The video is attempting to set up "I want to not die because dying is terrifying" as an Interesting Fact that you Might Not Know because they taught you in school to not be constantly scared of death.
There's always a rapture ready for us, and it's always stuck in the weeds because of the nebulous but sinister efforts of unbelievers.
We're gonna die. Generations after us will die. It's going to be bad, and we're going to work against it as best as we're able and hopefully we'll make progress and hopefully we won't find ourselves in the same spot but with no antibiotics 100 years from now.
But we're still gonna die, and it's not going to be because someone said "well, it was his time" or whatever to comfort another person facing the inevitable pain of death.
The sarcasm is so thick in that post I literally can't get through it to understand what you're saying
Making a video to talk about how we need to stop being so obsessed with the idea that death is good because it's actually bad and we should try to not die is extremely silly.
Because it's a situation where there's two competing theories that already exist beyond the question of if humanity can transcend the aging process.
One very popular one, if you examine nearly any modern media that addresses immortality or death, is that humanity shouldn't be immortal because death is a part of living and it's only death which ultimately defines your life. Usually, ultimately, because it creates an endpoint for your story so that other people can try to suss out what your life meant.
The other is that that kind of existential meaning doesn't mean much for the people who are dead, and that if we have the ability to extend life, it should be used. And screw the people who want your life to end just because it makes it easier for them to suss out some meaning to life.
We're rapidly approaching a time when we have figured out and thoroughly studied the vast majority of external life ending events. A wide range of humanity is, for the first time in the history of our species, running up against a very real biological limitation to our lifespan that exists within the building blocks of our body itself. The philosophical question is "How do we treat aging?". Because there's a chance that we can virtually eliminate the biological roadblock to our lifespans and greatly increase how long a human being can live. We have already noted and studied species that effectively exist without limitations to their age or with biological lifespans much greater than our own.
It's not magic, and it's not fantasy, it's scientifically possible that human beings do not need to have a biological limit to how long we can live.
The video is attempting to set up "I want to not die because dying is terrifying" as an Interesting Fact that you Might Not Know because they taught you in school to not be constantly scared of death.
There's always a rapture ready for us, and it's always stuck in the weeds because of the nebulous but sinister efforts of unbelievers.
We're gonna die. Generations after us will die. It's going to be bad, and we're going to work against it as best as we're able and hopefully we'll make progress and hopefully we won't find ourselves in the same spot but with no antibiotics 100 years from now.
But we're still gonna die, and it's not going to be because someone said "well, it was his time" or whatever to comfort another person facing the inevitable pain of death.
You seem to have missed his point at the end.
There's a real difference that can be made depending on when we decide to put our efforts into treating aging and death as a disease. We can do a lot to mitigate or stop the biological roadblock to life, but to do so we need to stop treating death as if it is an unassailable obstacle and realize that we've been constantly fighting against it for generations and now we're within sight of a time when we've effectively defeated it biologically.
There's a real possibility that we can do this. The difference is down to when we start doing it, and a big obstacle to actually dealing with it is the belief that death is not only natural, but inevitable and even good.
It's the freaking moon colony thing all over again. Yes, with what we have, we could very likely establish a living colony on either the moon or mars. But as soon as someone says it out loud people laugh at them for being "too sci-fi", and talk about how much money it would cost. Both of which are societal problems and not actually practical problems with the idea.
We can fix climate change, but we have to constantly fight dumbasses who think that it's either "not a thing" or "it's not something we can fix".
Some things are "too big" for some people to believe that we can solve them, and unfortunately that seems to get in the way of progress long after we already have the tools, technology, and ability to fix them.
You have to defeat the societal view of a problem before people will stop laughing at you when you point out that we can solve the real and supposedly unassailable problems.
Posts
So I read that, and it suffers from the same issue - overestimating the tax preparers, and underestimating Norquist, who's a lot more dangerous. While return free filing would shrink the tax preparation market, it wouldn't eliminate it, and the parts that would be the least affected are the more profitable ones, dealing with complicated returns. In addition, I'd imagine they would pivot from tax preparation to tax review, creating a market for third party "check the government's work" services.
In comparison, return free filing would be very detrimental to Norquist. His political power, much like any anti-tax zealot, is built on being able to motivate people to respond negatively against taxes, and one of his best tools is pointing out the pain of taxes. Return free filing would eliminate a major pain point taxwise, and thus weaken his political power.
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
game maker's toolkit talks about boss design in the big game of the moment
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
In followup, The Ringer has a good piece on said game, declaring it the worst game of Jeopardy ever played, cataloging the sins of all the players involved.
Steam // Secret Satan
A livestream reflecting some value of the average speed which humans die at.
And a video about death.
Competitive "The Floor is Lava"?
Longer and longer life-spans, sure. Medical science can certainly improve a person's life quality and longevity.
But forever? No.
Unless we're using one of those definitions of immortality that really just means "a really long time" instead of "never".
In any event, even if they discovered the cure for death today I doubt most of us could afford it.
And also the cure for death has been discovered a bunch of times in the form of vaccinations, which are demanded by the voting populace and in demand enough that economy of scale kicks in to make those vaccinations either free through insurance/healthcare or very inexpensive.
there are a handful of very large leaps that need to happen that some people say are impossible leaps, but there is no physical law preventing people from deferring or defeating the aging process. The longer a person lives the closer their chance to die in a traumatic fashion reaches one, if that's what you're talking about.
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
Wow hey there folks we need to really get serious and confront the real practical problems of our definite capacity to eliminate the specter of death it's real close and definitely attainable that's a given if you would just get over your silly superstitious beliefs about it.
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
Making a video to talk about how we need to stop being so obsessed with the idea that death is good because it's actually bad and we should try to not die is extremely silly.
Because it's a situation where there's two competing theories that already exist beyond the question of if humanity can transcend the aging process.
One very popular one, if you examine nearly any modern media that addresses immortality or death, is that humanity shouldn't be immortal because death is a part of living and it's only death which ultimately defines your life. Usually, ultimately, because it creates an endpoint for your story so that other people can try to suss out what your life meant.
The other is that that kind of existential meaning doesn't mean much for the people who are dead, and that if we have the ability to extend life, it should be used. And screw the people who want your life to end just because it makes it easier for them to suss out some meaning to life.
We're rapidly approaching a time when we have figured out and thoroughly studied the vast majority of external life ending events. A wide range of humanity is, for the first time in the history of our species, running up against a very real biological limitation to our lifespan that exists within the building blocks of our body itself. The philosophical question is "How do we treat aging?". Because there's a chance that we can virtually eliminate the biological roadblock to our lifespans and greatly increase how long a human being can live. We have already noted and studied species that effectively exist without limitations to their age or with biological lifespans much greater than our own.
It's not magic, and it's not fantasy, it's scientifically possible that human beings do not need to have a biological limit to how long we can live.
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
The video is attempting to set up "I want to not die because dying is terrifying" as an Interesting Fact that you Might Not Know because they taught you in school to not be constantly scared of death.
There's always a rapture ready for us, and it's always stuck in the weeds because of the nebulous but sinister efforts of unbelievers.
We're gonna die. Generations after us will die. It's going to be bad, and we're going to work against it as best as we're able and hopefully we'll make progress and hopefully we won't find ourselves in the same spot but with no antibiotics 100 years from now.
But we're still gonna die, and it's not going to be because someone said "well, it was his time" or whatever to comfort another person facing the inevitable pain of death.
You seem to have missed his point at the end.
There's a real difference that can be made depending on when we decide to put our efforts into treating aging and death as a disease. We can do a lot to mitigate or stop the biological roadblock to life, but to do so we need to stop treating death as if it is an unassailable obstacle and realize that we've been constantly fighting against it for generations and now we're within sight of a time when we've effectively defeated it biologically.
There's a real possibility that we can do this. The difference is down to when we start doing it, and a big obstacle to actually dealing with it is the belief that death is not only natural, but inevitable and even good.
We can fix climate change, but we have to constantly fight dumbasses who think that it's either "not a thing" or "it's not something we can fix".
Some things are "too big" for some people to believe that we can solve them, and unfortunately that seems to get in the way of progress long after we already have the tools, technology, and ability to fix them.
You have to defeat the societal view of a problem before people will stop laughing at you when you point out that we can solve the real and supposedly unassailable problems.
Colonize Mars and mine the asteroid belt or whatever, sure.
But leave Sol? Nah.
I think that the technology could exist to allow for all those things and more.
But I don't think we'll ever make it there given where we are this moment. We missed our chance.
I've seen that anime...
Steam // Secret Satan