I was semi-related to a guy who would drag his oxygen tank to the kitchen so he could smoke by the window.

The bear isn’t likely to want to screw with you.

Which isn’t a bad idea, but I’d still want some kind of parental controls like Android has to limit screen time. I don’t need Netflix.com to be all or nothing, but I certainly don’t want it to be four hours a day either.

Yeah, what a shame it was that people had to invest in the longevity and reputation of their business in order to keep paying them out over a hundred years.

It turns out we can have the tax rates of the 1950s and 1960s without the segregation.

It doesn’t matter. One person can’t put forth 48k lifetimes worth of effort, and they don’t deserve that much in return.

I promise the dude hasn’t worked harder than the combined efforts of 48 thousand people.

We can reward talent, and we can reward effort. But no combination of those two is as ridiculous as our reward structure. Our reward structure is flawed because people with money make the rules, and their primary rule is that people with money should have more money.

If able, you should provide enough to society to make it worth meeting your basic needs. They give you food, water, shelter, you give them back enough to compensate them for that effort.

At its root, this is what cash should be, a measure of what society owes you. You make other people’s lives X much better, and they do the same for you.

We should really be trying harder to get cash to meet this goal. A person making 60k a year for 45 years is $2.7 million dollars. You can buy a person’s lifetime of effort for $2.7 million.

Bill Gates is worth $131 billion. That’s the lifetime effort of 48,500 people. He hasn’t improved our lives that much. Something is clearly out of sorts. There’s nothing one person can do to deserve the lifetime effort of a thousand people.

If it were anyone other than Amazon or Apple.

Speaking of which, isn’t MacOS Linux based these days? How much have they contributed back? (Genuine question)