lunatic_lobster

joined 2 years ago
[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yes, you were wrong that the original poster was suggesting that mac is the same as chrome is in its structure. They were instead saying macos contributed to poor tech skills just as chrome OS is now. and iPads also contribute to this as Chromebooks do now. They can both contribute to the same cause even if they do it in different ways. Nowhere did they ever come close to mention macos is just as garbage as chrome OS. You added that bit in yourself to strawman. Therefore being "demonstrably wrong"

And that was the entire substance of my discussion, how you were mistaken about the central point.

You are also wrong about the folder structure piece. While yes chromeos technically contains a folder structure and also allows for the user to interact with it. The whole damn operating system is designed around you not needing to do that, in nearly the exact same way phones are. There's a reason that college professors in computer science departments are so confused why their students don't know how to use folder structures, and I'd wager quite a lot that chromeos has a large part to play.

So there you go two demonstrable wrongs that have nothing to do with you missing a date

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Based on this small exchange it seems like you erect straw men to knock down to inflate your intellectual self worth which is incredibly fragile based on how much you freaked out over a tiny correction that I didn't use at all in my argument.

If you are actually interested in engaging with the topic try harder to read what I have said

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (4 children)

It is rich that you are suggesting this should be about media literacy. How do you connect "what apple did on the 90s" and "what chrome OS did in the 00s" (which it was the 10s, not the 00s) as a direct comparison between operating systems? What the commenter is suggesting is that both google and apple had a hand in making students not prepared to interact with technology, not that they did it in the same way.

I don't even agree with that statement as I believe being exposed to macs at school (and likely windows at home) woild be beneficial to tech literacy. But you couldn't even comprehend enough to engage with the point. They were saying macos is not windows, and windows is what kids should be learning. Then you come in and yell and scream about mac being better than chrome.

You were down voted because you were wrong and an asshole

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (6 children)

The original commenter compared ipados to chromeos, and they compared osx to windows, I never saw a comparison from osx to chromeos.

The point being made is that modern operating systems often times in the hands of kids (chromeos and ipados) are designed to abstract away much of the underlying elements of the os.

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

It's not caused by capitalism but exacerbated by it. The ratio of workers to retirees in 1960 was 5.1 to 1, it's now 2.1 to 1. Sure if capital wasn't extracting excess value maybe we could be fine at 2.1 to 1 but I doubt we would be at .5 to 1. At some point it becomes an issue

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 66 points 4 months ago

Just to add full context, if you owe money and fill an extension till October you could have to pay a 25% penalty on what you owe.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-reminds-taxpayers-an-extension-to-file-is-not-an-extension-to-pay-taxes

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 53 points 5 months ago (1 children)

For anyone who has a Subaru and wants to get rid of this there is an aftermarket part you can install to bypass the telematics radio without losing access to any other features (if you just unplug it I think speakers stop working)

https://www.autoharnesshouse.com/69018.html

It's $80 for the one that retains the OEM head unit, but I'm thinking that might be worth it.

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

But my point is that there are certain categories of people who need access to income that they themselves do not produce. An able bodied capitalist is not one of these people, but a worker who is using real estate as a retirement vehicle is.

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I don't disagree that landlords are for the most part acting parasitically. However I would argue that in order for society to function "parasitism" is a requirement. I want to be clear and state that THIS form isn't required, but some form is.

Let me explain my thinking. Nearly half of the population doesn't work. The population of non workers can almost entirely fall within these categories: children, attending school, disabled (mentally or physically), or retired.

These populations need money even though they are not producing any. I would guess that most of the extracted profit that comes out of "mom and pop" rentals goes to providing for non-worker expenses.

Now I believe these expenses should be covered by taxations and redistribution of the factor income, but since we have a pathetic system of this in the US it's hard for me to fault someone for using investment property to hedge against child care and/or retirement

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You definitely can max both a 401k and IRA you can also max an HSA. All these combined allow for an individual (not family) to save $34,150 (there are some edge cases I'm ignoring). Someone who can afford to save almost the US median salary amount is almost certainly going to have a higher benefit from traditional than Roth.

Also, the math completely changes if you aren't maxing because if you aren't maxing the contribution than adding more to the contribution gives you more tax advantaged investments (instead of taxable brokerage investments).

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

You seem to be using many different assumptions separately. In the first you assume you are maxing a Roth IRA (in my initial response I was also considering 401ks as many of them have Roth options nowadays). If you are maxing your Roth 401k and Roth IRA you are likely a high earner and therefore likely in a higher tax bracket than you will be in retirement. This means that kind of person will likely prefer traditional investments.

Your assumption there is someone maxing out their retirement options and in a relatively low tax bracket doesn't seem like reality. So in your math example they wouldn't be putting the extra in a taxable brokerage account but in the same tax advantaged account.

Quick edit: also I'm confused on the extra $400/year into taxable account. It should be $1,250 per year (25% of the 5,000) which would be closer to $600,000 before the capital gains tax.

[–] lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I largely agree with all the points made here however I think the overall message is a bit misleading. I would disagree that Roth investments are the preferred for long term investments. You aren't accounting for the opportunity cost of the taxes paid in the initial investment year. Those taxes, while small compared to what you will withdraw tax free are also losing out on 8x-ing themselves (as you would have invested that amount in a traditional tax advantaged account).

What this means is Roth is the preferable savings method if you are in a lower marginal tax rate than you expect to be in retirement. However traditional is better if you are in a higher marginal rate than you expect to be in retirement. If the marginal tax rate was the same when you invest and retire then the difference between Roth and traditional would be nil.

view more: next ›