What are you reading?

silvermouse

https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energy-usage-climate-footprint-big-tech/

ShawnOL

These ai companies should be required to build their own electrical plants to make their own electricity.

Rdp77

@ShawnOL said:
These ai companies should be required to build their own electrical plants to make their own electricity.

Some actually are. Part of Three Mile Island has been bought and being allowed to open back up.
Not necessarily a good thing.

TRayB

@Rdp77 said:

@ShawnOL said:
These ai companies should be required to build their own electrical plants to make their own electricity.

Some actually are. Part of Three Mile Island has been bought and being allowed to open back up.
Not necessarily a good thing.

I currently live in Londonderry Township, where TMI is located. It will be good for the local economy. It was bad when it shut down, but the township has made up for the loss of tax revenue and jobs by allowing multiple large distribution centers and warehouses, and now is considering data centers. I have mixed feelings on both of those replacements.

silvermouse

I am all for this solution to the Social security shortfall. Seems sensible to adjust the COLA of the people who are least affected.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/one-type-social-security-adjustment-could-cut-75-year-shortfall-half

peter4jc

I hadn't heard of that strategy, but it looks okay to me.

Something else I've seen bandied about is removing the cap, or at least raising the cap, on how much income is subject to SS taxes. I forget the exact figures, but for example, the income cap is $165K, so a person earning $1M pays no more than someone earning $165K. Remove or raise the cap, and then stop plundering the SS funding for other things.

Amos_Umwhat

@silvermouse said:
I am all for this solution to the Social security shortfall. Seems sensible to adjust the COLA of the people who are least affected.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/one-type-social-security-adjustment-could-cut-75-year-shortfall-half

That's one remedial step, seems to be based on expectation that these people will die soon? Another approach might be to tax everyone at the same rate, no matter their income. Instead of saying that people only have to contribute to the program up to $X of their annual income they might continue to contribute from their abundance. I'm not sure what the cutoff is now, I think it used to be ninety six thousand dollars a year, I believe it's up to 125K - 140K now, and then whatever money is made above that amount is exempt.

Why?

Presumably this is because it's believed that people who made more than that won't need Social Security? Like, nobody who makes this amount ever goes broke? I don't think so.

Another might be to apply the same debt interest rate that the IRS applies to overdue taxes to the money that Congress has repeatedly "borrowed" from Social Security to fund whatever was popular with Congress at that moment in time, rather than having them pay back just the amount that they borrowed.

They do pay it back, don't they?

Maybe, maybe not.

I wonder.

At any rate, just my thoughts off the top of my head. No one should make the mistake that I believe myself to be an oracle in a burning bush sowing my wisdom to the earth.

Thank you.

silvermouse

helpful analysis of the different approaches to increasing the solvency of social security https://www.pgpf.org/article/should-we-eliminate-the-social-security-tax-cap-here-are-the-pros-and-cons/

silvermouse

a look at the cost/benefit of speeding https://www.vice.com/en/article/speeding-barely-saves-you-any-time-new-study-finds/?

peter4jc

I'd have to see their data before I agree w/ that article. It looks like propaganda from the 'speed kills' crowd, and/or the nanny state that wants to control everyone in the name of safety or fuel saving.

"Drivers who complied with posted speed limits on highways and arterial roads increased their travel time by an average of 54 seconds per day, based on a mean daily driving distance of 28.6 miles. That works out to just over six minutes per week."

This may be true for city driving and poorly timed stoplights. For example, driving just a bit more distance than they quoted, say 30mi. at 60mph, it would take 30 minutes. Bumping up the speed to 70mph decreases (or saves you time) to 25m43sec. Chops off over 4 minutes in one trip.

So their results must include plenty of stop-and-go driving. I grant that 60mph will deliver better gas mileage than 70mph. I don't agree that driving 70 on the freeway causes more accidents: higher speed may increase the severity of a crash, but I contend that it's those who drive slower than the flow of traffic who cause more accidents than those going 10mph over.

silvermouse

So you have a problem with speed limits? Rebel with a cause.