Over 85 years and that's an inflation adjusted number. We give away more money each year (USAID/soft power efforts) than we spent on average on nuclear weapons. And neither of those items are of much significance on the US federal budget. Currently, social safety net programs are half of the federal budget and the total military budget is about 1/6th of the budget for reference (that's 2/3rd total between those two parts of the budget).
> And neither of those items are of much significance on the US federal budget.
$95 billion / year is $620 per US taxpayer.
> social safety net programs are half of the federal budget
I suppose you are referring to the big 3: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are programs that people pay for. In the same way that retirement savings, pensions, and private health insurance is something that people pay for.
But whatever, every dollar wasted to blow up people in another country can be excused because the federal budget includes programs that provide services to people in this country...or something. It is extremely revealing how some people are completely unbothered by some spending and are extremely bothered by other spending. The nuclear weapons don't bother you, but spending a bit of money to help alleviate famine for people in destitute countries is just unacceptable.
No. My point is not that something costs more than something else.
Look at a city and the traffic there we know that everything can either feel empty with only a ~8% decrease, or be completely gridlocked with a ~8% increase. Small adjustments in what we spend money on has a great effect. Being destructive is the easiest way to show this. If you bomb a hospital, does that cost ten million USD for the bombs or one billion USD to rebuild and handle loss of quality of life.
In Sweden the most useful and supported way means that you need this.
1. An identification approved by the EU. You get this from the national Police. (A government agency)
2. An SSN which is your birthday and four extea digits. E.g. 1212121212 is a valid "PNR", you get this from the Tax agency
3. A bank account (you need 1 and 2)
4. A patched Android or iPhone.
5. The BankID a app from a company owner by the banks in Sweden.
6. A Certificate downloaded from your bank to you BankID App
7. A PIN to Protect the key in you BankID App.
8. Normal internet connection.
9. A camera on your phone to read QR code on Service Provider webpage for session initionation
When you sign something the app will send lots of metadata to "the Identity Provider" (BankId), e.g. how much root you have on your phone, if you run known malware, your current ip, and your phone HW info. This is used to calculate a score that you as a "service provider" (i.e. banks, government, companies) can choose to ignore (they usually do)
When you as a Customer either sign in or sign you will see a document that you sign maybe "I give you 100SEK", and who you sign that to. You enter you pin or use biometric to aprove.
You will not find any reputable source for those statements, sure maybe as opinions. This is the issue here we are talking about facts. I have been able to look up this information for as long as we had a government in Sweden, and it works.
Financial privacy is a complicated subject, could you perhaps agree that there is a use for transparancy?
The problem is that when you get a high amount migrant from very different ethnicities and cultures than you, it starts to change. Those people do not necessarily want to play the same social game as you, and you risk having structured crime networks arising.
Just like in France where those kidnappings were made by the algerian "DZ" mafia (DZ is a slang for Algeria). Or in Netherlands, with the "mocro" mafia (= Morroccan) who put a price on the royal family's head, forcing the princess sibling to leave the country[0].
In the case of Sweden, this is now the case, although that many Swedish people continue to do as if it wasn't. Don't tell me that such news happens in a "safe" country:
And I don't see why there should be transparency about how much I own, or earn. I don't want the neighbors to know about it, or feed your voyeurist pulsions. The line is thin between "social justice" and "mob violence", or discrimination, in that aspect. Which is likely to happen in a country that sterilized "socially unfit" people for a long time.
I am wary to continue this, because you post unrelated tidbits and opinions.
My opinion is that opaque financial markets only benefits people with lots of money and power. Financial privacy is important here in Sweden, but having the net worth and income as public records has worked for us the last 250 years. I do not know where you come from and what society you live in. I do sense fear in your posts and that is usually a personal feeling. It might be different for us since it has been ingrained for so long.
I am talking from experience in our safe society (fact). Which obviously has severe flaws (opinion).
> Financial privacy is a complicated subject, could you perhaps agree that there is a use for transparancy?
No, because I don't believe in income tax or capital gains tax. I do believe in government taxes but they should be made on land holdings (Georgism) and on corporate activities, not on individuals' financial status (their earnings & capital).
It is usually those with little power that suffer when you do that, and those with a lot of power that suffer from financial openness. I ask this in the most naive way possible I think the Pandora Leak was a good thing, do you not agree?
Richer people have many ways to protect themselves from society, unlike poorer people who have to bear the envy of others and can't escape it. Just ask any homeless person.
A rich man can just (and likely should, given the comments here) leave the Swedish crab basket.
Having society obsessed with watching how their neighbor is doing is a very good way to get everyone to look away, while, in the case of Sweden, a single family owns a large part of the stock exchange.
You can start a signing process saying you are who ever owned that certificate. E.g. if you call someone. You can not use those signatures to gain access, and it is rather in phishing.
Signed documents can be as simple as an ID of the transaction, a statement in text, PII data that identify what you sign, or a store of larger PDF files for download and verification. We do not know. I base this on how signing works technically in Sweden.
Should bee wings be transparent? (Let the perfect be the enemy of good) You should have a source/url on the upload form of the image already exists somewhere.
Right, exactly. Good eye. Yeah well the tool that does the PNG transformation is far from perfect. Sometimes it cuts an image cleanly and other times not so much (open to improving this function).
Also a source/url would be a solid addition as well, even if the image is under a CC0 license. Appreciate your feedback.
These look very nice thanks, hope it can be expanded. Interesting I wonder how does web devs handle transparency? There must be a better way than pngs.
Thanks! Yeah, expanding the collection is the priority right now.
Re: transparency - PNGs are still the most universally supported. WebP has better compression but inconsistent support in design tools (Photoshop, Figma, etc.). SVGs don't work for photographic specimens.
Could potentially offer WebP alongside PNG for modern browsers, but PNG is the safe default for now.
We can mince his words. In the end anyone who organize gambling for profit is scum. If you do it for charity I know form experience it is massively profitable, but.. I am not sure it is worth it for society.
Hey now, silent auctions and raffles are great for small communities and aren't prone to degeneracy. I know a lot of fire departments that get a majority of their funding from a mix of these attractors and things like cookouts and public events.
I believe it just enables and validate the bigger actors. I do not know where the line should be drawn, if gambling is ilegal you build an illicit trade, if it is legal that trade just become more evil.
We should be careful with gambling especialy when CEOs are talking about it and only caring about the legal frameworks.
The problem once again comes when you decide to hyper optimize for profit. Ada and William will rely on word of mouth, maybe a few posters to drum up attention to their raffle.
Meanwhile large gambling orgs will run ad spots non stop with celebrities enticing you to join their app with free bonus bets and once you're in they will send you daily notifications to nudge you to place "just one more bet".
Easy to see how one would be relatively harmless while the other could cause widespread addiction.
reply