That would be 1.79 terawatts, which would require about 28975 km2, which is about 7% of the land area of California.

The speed of expand depends on the ROI.

Not people, you need to tax companies. Companies can be owned by people, other companies, organizations or even countries. But everyone gets their money from companies.

> For example, what about a property task that reaches 100% for the parts of property that go above, say 50M.

Then you move to another country, like people are already doing when the tax gets high enough. You can not tax super rich, because they can move.

It is not that I limit my thinking. I have tried to find other solutions for years, but failed to do so. But fair enough, there is one other option which I knew, but which I did not mention.
3. Make an international tax contract with all of the countries and cut everyone out from your trade who don't agree to sign it.

I left this out, because make international contracts is much harder than changing your own country into a communist paradise.

We don't, but perhaps we should? It might make them better at problem solving and math in general.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmathsnoproblem.com%2Fblo...

Will they be worse at calculating on paper? Absolutely. But does that matter?

The super rich buy more than poor people, but not really that much in comparison of how much wealth they have. Most of their money is in stocks. And when they earn more money, they buy more stocks.

I don't think that it really matters that much do we have 1% owning all the stocks, or 50% owning all the stocks. You won't solve any problem by giving those stocks to 50% and thus getting rid of the super rich. You would still have the rich and the poor.

So your alternatives are:
1. Everyone owns stocks and gets money from them. But unless this is controlled by 3rd party, you will eventually end up with people who don't have stocks or at least people having more stocks than others, simply because some people are smarter with money than others.
2. Governments own all the stocks.

But here comes the real question. If even individuals from a poor background can become super rich with stocks. Why aren't governments (except Norway) doing that also in such a large scale, that they get all their money from the stocks? They should be able to pull it off as governments have a lot of money, right? If the solution is so simple, why are we not using it (except Norway).

Just like there is a future in TV repair? Or like there is future in car repair? Once the product becomes cheap enough, you don't repair it, you just replace it with a new one.

Don't think about jobs, think about who will be the end customer and what are they going to buy. Food, shelter, clothing, weapons, energy, medicine, education, entertainment, science, etc. Most of these have upper limit of how much of it is needed. For example if we invent cure for all, we don't need any more health care than that. Or we can't really watch movies much more than 24h per day. As automation increases and people perhaps move to work as a youtuber, you will at some point run out of customers, because everyone is already buying 100% of what they need.

Only possible exceptions that I can think of are weapons and science. But can everyone work in science, assuming all the repeated work in that sector gets automated? And who will buy all of it?

I don't think that this will happen very soon, it could take even 20 years. But at some point we will run out of things that we need.

You could reduce the cost perhaps 15-25% by removing the life support from the truck. Weight saving would be something like 2% - 10% depending on the load. You could expect something like 1% saving from the fuel due to reduced mass. With better aerodynamics you could get something like 20% savings in fuel.

You are comparing your friend to Tesla. This article is about Waymo.

> Does it repeatedly do dumb shit and cause damage and deaths for no good reason? Including repeated obstructing of emergency services.

Yes, Humans do that all the time. That is why they are trying to fix the problem with driverless cars. Waymo has AFAIK caused only one death. The victim was a dog which run from behind a parked car to the side of Waymo, making it nearly impossible to avoid.

> The way I see it

AI is already doing the job and better than humans, so your view is already wrong.

If a washing machine kills you, who do you blame?

Well, I knew that offshoring was a bad idea for the companies that did it, because at some point those offshores will setup their own companies and compete against them.

But I have nothing against automation. I would be quite happy if automation could replace me. I'm even willing to freely help Google to get their AI up and running to do this. Automation to me is washing machines. I wouldn't like to wash my laundry by hand, so why should want to do any work by hand if it can be automated.

I spent a year in Duolingo. I did not master the language, but I now understand the basic grammar. I think that Duolingo or similar is perfect for when you start learning a new language, because you get fast feedback and a lot of repetition. I think that we should use similar system at schools too. So I am happy that I used it. It really helped me to get started.

I stopped using it, because it is so focused on sentences, which makes learning new words hard. I prefer repeating a list of few words quickly several times to get the words into my memory.

There is also alternative for Duolingo which offers free and paid service and shorter lessons. It is closer to what I want, but not quite.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.memrise.com%2F

It could be that some are more productive at work and some are more productive at home. But I have never seen an employee that is productive and would stop being productive at home. But there is another point in this also and that is worker happiness. Happy workers are less likely to leave and that is a real money saver for the company.

But I think the real reason for return to the office-policy is that they just want to fire employees and this is a nice way to do it as people resign themselves. And why do they want to fire people? To get more money for their AI projects which aim to replace workers with AI.