I see that the Technocratic Excuse Factories Funded By The Ultra-Rich have already started preparing the riff-raff for another round of Bailouts Of The Rich and Austerity For The Rest.

Yes, yes, it’s “people” that are going to suffer and the “average” household that will have to endure a fall in income.

“There’s nothing we could have done about it”

“There are no other ways of tackling the problem other than suffering for the masses”

" We - *wink* *wink* - are all in this together".

Pretty wild turning a Masochism hobby into a job in Electronics Manufacturing.

You’re only thinking about the occupancy part of efficient use of available resources (and even then only partially) and forgetting all about the utility value part.

RAM used 100% of the time is not more efficiently used than RAM used 10% of the time if it’s being used for activities that deliver much lower utility, something made even worse because using RAM consumes additional resources in the form of power hence running it isn’t actually free and you if the utility of it’s use is lower you might actually be destroying value by using that power for a much lower utility use than it could otherwise be used for.

That’s the point others are making by pointing out that if that RAM is in data centers running AI 100% of the time it might actually be in use less efficiently than RAM used for multiple activities in people’s computers at home where it’s idle most of the time.

Yours is basically the same fallacy as the one about how people working more hours per day means they’re producing more.

“More use” is not the same as “more value created” because time is far from the only factor in determining how much value is created.

PS: If you really dig down into the utility value for Mankind of most modern day computing you’ll find that a large fraction if not most of it is basically entertainment, gambling or some for addition and thus doesn’t produce actual economic value. For example, how exactly does social networking such as Facebook produce economic value for Mankind - it’s basically a mix of entertainment and an addiction that directly creates or help create nothing, and instead it mainly wastes people’s time. At best it could indirectly deliver value by improving worker efficiency in activities that actually create value because people were happier with Facebook than without it, but by all indication that’s not even the case as it’s creating epidemics of psychological and social problems especially amongst young people. Those things are extracting value rather than creating value, so the computer RAM running Facebook software is probably a net negative in value creation overall - it creates little or no value overall (it extracts value from some to others but doesn’t actually create any) whilst consuming power to run, and all of those factors put together might mean that in overall value creation terms that RAM being idle or even in the refuse bin would actually be better than being used for Facebook software.

“The entire way people use computing in the whole World should change so that my business model has a small chance of being viable”

– Sam Altman

You can run qBittorrent outside docker and configure it to only bind to the network interface for the VPN (in Tools->Options->Advanced->Network Interface).

Unless for some strange reason your VPN connection is constantly renaming the network interface when it starts, this should work fine and make sure qBittorrent never sends any data outside the VPN connection.

This is Linux, so there’s usually more than one way to get the same result.

Alternatively a server-only qBittorrent (controllable via the web-interface only) without docker (package: qbittorrent_nox) behind an always on VPN, configured to only bind to the network interface of the VPN so that it doesn’t send any data outside the VPN does the same but it’s much lighter so you can put it in shitty-shit hardware.

This is what I have in the cheap mini-PC which I use as Homeserver/NAS/TV Media Player.

You’re right, I misread what you wrote.

Turns out we’re in full agreement!

Edit: My bad, misread what the previous poster wrote. The explanation is still valid, though.

If you look at their historical price chart, what you call a “minor fluctuation” this is one if not the largest price changes in both absolute and relative terms of at least the last 5 years.

Also the trading volume was the largest since 2016.

Basically you’re looking at an elephant and calling it a mouse.

It makes sense that a 12.6% stock price movement is a big thing for a company with that market cap and liquidity, since it has way less volatility that smaller companies because it takes way more money to move its price a mere 1%, plus the high liquidity means that the trading stack is far deeper and it’s way harder for there to be a crunch because you can always find people willing to buy if the price falls enough (or, on the other direction, willing to sell if the price rises enough).

This ain’t Joe’s Corner Shop Inc.

That said, the price is still above a year ago, though by a mere 0.83%, so whilst this is a big price movement, it’s far from having unwound the AI bubble stock price rise for Google - looking at its full historical price chart and roughly projecting the historical trend to present day, Alphabet stock price would have to fall around 50% more to return to historical trend and that’s assuming that without the AI bubble it would have continued to go up as before rather than reduce to the typical growth rates of mature companies.

It’s even more “funny” that just that: there are several bubbles going on right now, not just the AI, most notably a massive realestate bubble and also bubbles in things like car loans in the US.

Further, consumer indebness is again at record levels, worse even than 2007.

In other words, it’s like a mix of the dotcom bubble (this time around with a tech stack that delivers at best a lower return on investment than the Internet) AND the 2007 bubble of overvalued realestate and people deep in debt (with the personal finances of most people worst on this side of 2007 than they were on the other side so there’s a higher probability of defaults) AND a bunch of smaller unpopped bubbles all over the place.

I expect that when one of the big ones goes the resulting consumer retrenchment and pullback from both lenders and investors is going to cause the other bubbles to blow up (as loans are recalled, not rolled over or defaulted on, consumption falls and investors desperatelly try to exit their riskier positions) and the full result will be at least as bad as 2000 and 2008 combined, possibly worse.

Begun the AI Crash has.

He was actually a Shakespearean actor, but most of the World knows him for his roles on Films and TV Series.

Will there be actual jail sentences is it going to be the usual fines that companies treat as cost of doing businesses and can even declare as expenses in order to reduce the taxes they pay?

Ownership of companies via shares is only for LLCs (which is a possibility but in practice uncommon) and Corporations and both Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships do not have shares.

That said, it is indeed possible for a company to have ownership by shares and not be publicly traded (i.e. not in the stock market) so for example a corporation with no traded shares would be a private corporation.~

This is what I found out for the US by searching for “types of companies” and “LLC shares”.

The countries I lived in and owned companies in Europe have similar things but with different names (for example what a Partnership in the US is roughly what’s called a “Society by quotas” in Portugal and is actually the most common kind of company).

In my experience people that never had their own registered business don’t usually know any of this because they have no need to look into it.

I was thinking around the same, more specifically that what they’re saying is that “in the long run companies managed to produce value for shareholders actually produce less value that companies managed to produce value for a single private owner”.

This is actually pretty consistent with what we see in many industries with both kinds of companies and a pretty daming indictment of publicly traded companies as a mechanism for increasing value creation.

Using uBlock Origin from a normal internet address (so, not behind a VPN) and accessing the main page of The Guardian I immediatelly get a cookie pop-up with only the options “Accept all” and “Reject all and subscribe”.

Maybe it depends on the country you’re accessing it from? I’m in Portugal though I get the same via VPN with exit points elsewhere in the EU.

The Economic Liberals are all also Social Liberals because being for gender, race, sexual-orientation (and so on) Equality does not impact the only form of descrimination they defend: wealth discrimination.

Further, very few of the supposed modern day Social Liberals are not just Economic Liberals wearing a different mask: you can tell it because whilst they loudly criticize gender, race and sexual-orientation discrimination they literally NEVER even mention Wealth Discrimination, much less criticize it - it makes very little sense for one to be for Freedom of human beings in society and rage about how for example people’s treatment at the hands of the Justice System differs depending on their race and yet be totally silent about how people’s treatement at the hands of the Justice System differs depending on their wealth, especially as the latter is vastly more prevalent than the former - surelly any difference in the way Justice treats people is unfairly reducing the Freedom of those discriminated against and the principle of harm reduction dictates one goes after the thing with the biggest impact first or at least more intenselly that those things with more restriced impacts, hence outside countries were the other kinds are trully gigantic and with massive outcomes (Israel, Apartheid South Africa and so on) they should be raging even more against wealth discrimination than against other kinds of discrimination.

As I see it, the only real Social Liberals are Social Democrats, and those are mostly gone in the present day, when even the supposedly “Thinking Left” who claim to be Social Democrats loudly parrot Identity Politics whilst clearly refraining from talking about wealth discrimination and even when they talk about the latter, its much less often than the former even though the dimensions and consequences of the latter in pretty much all Western Democracies are far more massive than the former, to the point that average life expectancy for the poor is decades less than for the rich.

As I wrote in another post, Liberalism is like the Bible in that it’s vague, self-contradictory and contains a little something to please everybody.

It’s like the 17th century version of a paper published by a Think Tank funded by ultra-rich people that’s meant to be used to deceive public opinion into supporting something that when implemented in practice mainly benefits said ultra-rich people.

IMHO it makes no sense talking about Liberal policies (which is what the OP is doing) alongside talking about the vague and self-contradictory ideals of Liberalism from over a century ago since those ideals are way too vague to even form a political ideology (something I illustrated by pointing out that both Social Democracy and Neoliberalism fit within those Liberal principles by balancing differently two contraditory principles of Liberalism), much less guide policy making.

Indeed under that use of “Modern” you are correct and Liberalism in the first half of the 20th century was as that poster described.

However “Modern” is also often used as short for “Modern Day” which is an expression for things from the recent past and present day rather than the formal “Modern” classification in History, and what you described as “Modern” Liberalism does not match the “Modern day” practice of Liberalism.

Since I don’t quite see the point of talking about Liberalism from more than half a century ago in the context of a post which is literally about what Liberalis believe (Present tense, hence about Present Day Liberalism), I assumed the previous poster meant Modern in the sense of “Modern day” as that version of Liberalism was the one that made the most sense to talk about in that context.

If the previous poster meant “Modern” in the “Modern day” sense as I claim, then they’re ignorant (which is the point I was making), if however them meant it as the Historical classification of Modern as you say, then they were either being deceitful (by talking about Historical Liberalism whilst trying to pass it for present day one) or illogical (since talking about history in a context which is about present day Liberal beliefs and praxis makes no sense unless one provides the links in the chain between the talked about historical one and the present day one, which they did not provide).

Please tell me where the Right To Private Property in the Wikipedia definition ends and the Freedom one starts.

Specifically, were do the rights of Land Ownership stop and the Freedom of all human beings to access and use the very surface of the planet they live in starts.

Because without that contradition in the very definition of Liberalism in Wikipedia solved, you don’t actually have a concrete workable political ideology with actual policies.

I think that if you honestly look at it with a logical and analytical eye you’ll find that the various different modern political ideologies which claim to be liberal differ mainly in how they chose to handle the conflict between Right To Private Property and Freedom.

The problem is that the Right To Private Property in Liberalism clashes with the Freedom part.

In simple terms, if people own limited resources such as for example Land and have the right to do whatever they want with it, that reduces the Freedom of everybody else (since they can’t go into that Land much less do what they want with it). If landowners have unlimited “right to private property” then the more Land is owned, the less Freedom there is (since you can’t just make more Land for use by everybody else).

(And there are further practical considerations that need to take in account in actual policy making anchored on Liberalism due to real world having things like Negative Externalities and Tragedy Of The Commons situations - if you let individuals do whatever they want with what they own, in aggregate they can destroy the very things required for the survival of everybody)

So that inherent contradiction creates a lot of room for interpretation and actual Liberal political teories with actual policies have to chose their own balance between the Right To Private Property and Freedom in their interpretation of Liberalism.

From what I’ve seen Neoliberals are Liberals which chose a balance between the two were Right To Private Property is VASTLY more important than Freedom, whilst at the other end of the scale Social Democrats have Freedom be as much or maybe even more important as Right To Private Property.