YouTube is not hosting and serving uncompressed video so the apt comparison is not "compression" to "no compression" rather than "fancy experimental compression" to "tried and true compression."
I think I heard it was a bit more than that - you'd buy them online direct, blind, and be informed immediately after purchase what it was you'd actually bought, so bringing in the immediacy and "convenience" of online gambling/gacha/etc. too, compared to ordering a mystery box and opening it when it was delivered, or buying foil packs of trading cards where you need to actually be present at a particular location.
Someone getting forced out of their home in exchange for a few million dollars isn't exactly the most tragic story out there, and increasing tax revenue to pay for better amenities is hardly a bad thing by my reckoning. The aforementioned rich people are a bit less richer, because now they're paying those rates.
Most plans to implement LVT at scale that I've seen include provisions to increase the rate slowly over years and decades, and allow deferred payments for the elderly upon sale or from their estate because yeah, a lot of people made plans to retire based on the present tax regime. Younger people saving for retirement can plan on putting retirement savings into productive assets rather than land speculation. I'm also not entirely clear on why a pension that pays for everything except housing is fine, but providing housing for the elderly is a problematic level of state intervention.
For me, the difference is choice. An elderly person voluntarily accepting a multi-million dollar buyout is a wildly positive story (as would any other voluntary conclusion).
It’s the involuntary “beat it, Grandma!” that people find objectionable.
I wonder if a scheme where you could "lock in your rates" would work. Instead of just waiting for reassessment or whatever and having no way to know how it will increase in the future or hoping it stays the same for a long time, maybe you could agree to a X% yearly increase and pick how many years. So you lock in 2% increase for the next 20 years. This could be especially nice for the elderly and allow a compromise for tax revenue. Each property owner gets to decide whether to hedge or not. (This would just be for non commercial properties only.) This is just a hair brain idea off the cuff, just thinking out loud.
Perhaps land ownership could be renewed on different time bases, where the longer deeds have higher taxes?
For example, you could own a property for 1 year at a lower rate or 10 years at a slightly higher rate, and 20 years at an even higher rate.
This would allow you to pay a premium for a more stable tax rate. Perhaps you could accomplish this in the private sector through some type of "property tax insurance"?
This is a more reasonable version of California's Prop 13.
A fairer system would be to allow unaffordable property taxes to be deferred indefinitely, while accruing fair interest, with the property as the collateral. "Unaffordable" would be means tested. When the owner dies or sells the property, the remaining property tax is paid from the sale of the property. This creates the possibility of properties being underwater, however, so there would have to be provisions to call in the property if the ratio gets too bad.
>Someone getting forced out of their home in exchange for a few million dollars isn't exactly the most tragic story out there
Separating someone from the place they had all their kids because they cant afford the tax is pretty bad. Especially when the property hasn't gotten any better. People shouldnt be at the mercy of subjective, third party evaluations of their wealth. This is why progressive taxation waits until gains are realised.
>Most plans to implement LVT at scale that I've seen include provisions to increase the rate slowly over years and decades
Never seen this, I always see Georgists lamenting home owners whose land has increased in value as evil and deserving.
>providing housing for the elderly is a problematic level of state intervention.
Providing housing for the elderly is fine. But if they are already self sufficient, forcing them into alternate housing is disgusting.
I've seen a few people use a soft inflatable or plush collar that's more flat, and doesn't go up around the face, instead of an actual cone. That way the cat's the whiskers aren't disturbed while still preventing the cat from worsening wounds by licking. At least some cats seem to be a lot more tolerant of that style.
If you say "no, we're not pursuing this feature because it's impossible" and users have used other software that implements the feature to a reasonable degree of functionality, you're not doing yourself any favours in terms of shutting down demands. You'd be better off either not giving a reason at all, or giving reasons that are clearer to people who aren't as knowledgable.
Reasons are actually stated, they explained it is not feasible for the general case.
Once the devs have made clear they don’t plan to do exceptions (as other softwares do) then users should accept it and move on instead of keep harassing volunteers.
... except VLC implements time-based seeking which has pretty much the same requirements and is consequently not possible with literally all files either. But both are possible with 99.99% of video files you will come accross.
VLC developers are of course free to reject any feature request but if they do it by bullshitting their users (and that includes tacking on additional requirements that no user actually needs like perfect support for all formats under the sun) then they will be rightfully called out for it. Then throwing a tantrum and citing CoC violations is not going to improve things.
It's their project so ultimately they get to choose to run it into the ground but this kind of behavior is not something I want to support as a user os I will stay away from VLC which includes not making helpful bug reports and not donating.
Why is it incumbent on the developers (who know their codebase and its capabilities better than the forum posters) to explain their decision to the forum posters begging for a feature, and not only explain it, but explain the decision and the reasoning behind in such clarity and depth that the forum posters (who might not even be programmers, let alone know the code base) understand it sufficiently well to refrain from begging and insulting?
Because - and more so for the maintainers/managers of those projects - being able to communicate effectively is part of what it means to run a successful project?
That may even mean that you have to hold yourself to a higher standard than some low-effort post on the part of some casual user. Especially if you're the boss, the maintainer, the leader. And if that's asymmetric then yes it is - but to be a maintainer/manager of a project is also asymmetric. Good managers might also promote that culture more widely across all the project's contributors and so yes it may apply to all developers, too.
Not everyone that engages with your project is going to be perfect, some may even be rude. But as a representative of that project it's a skill to be able to cope with that, on behalf of the project (not you). I think one of the most underrated skills of a FOSS maintainer is a degree of fault-tolerance, to use a systems analogy.
Or, you could argue that no, it's not incumbent on a maintainer to be anything, even to be kind. But then don't expect your users to come back.
The choice not to implement it for architectural reasons is entirely up to the devs, is likely justified, and in most cases users acting entitled to support and feature additions from OSS developers who are volunteering their time is something I side against. But the devs also should be able to talk to people who aren't marinated in that same viewpoint, for their own sake if nothing else. The leap from "there exist cases where implementing this feature in a performant manner wouldn't be feasible" to "we shouldn't implement this feature even for the many cases that would support it" isn't going to be obvious to everyone.
VLC's poor performance in seeking backwards in general, not just by frame, is a big part of why it's no longer my media player of choice. Which is fine! As an OSS project there's no real reason to care about the number of users as long as enough people are involved to sustain the project, and making the developer experience pleasant is more important than making the user experience pleasant on that front. It just means it's not as good a tool for some users as others, like mpv.
Okay, how do moral hazard (as defined here), information asymmetry, and monopoly not apply to public health systems as well? Point 5 here is a little under-explained, how exactly does demand for healthcare reduce supply and why can public systems cope with that while private ones fail? And which aspects of medicine are non-excludable and non-rivalrous, aside from herd immunity? From what I can tell vaccines tend to be subsidized by the govt. in the US anyway, which doesn't require overhauling the entire healthcare system to rectify.
I'm quite pleased to live in a country with a decent public healthcare system. It does indeed have some significant benefits. It still has half the problems on your list, and more besides.
reply