https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_population_living_i...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

I interpreted "acoustically-accurate" to mean physically modeled in some way. Filtered sawtooth makes a simple brass-like timbre, but 80% still sounds synthetic.

Really neat anyways, thanks for sharing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_radix_choice

I need some functions to show what I mean. Calculate logarithms, calculate the number of digits, and convert a base-n unit of information into base-2 units of information. Finally, calculate the information cost: the number of digits, times the information needed per digit.

  import ln, floor
  define log := (num,base) -> ln(num) / ln(base)
  define digits := (num,base) -> floor(log(num,base) + 1)
  define tobits := (base) -> log(base,2)
  define infocost := (num,base) -> digits(num,base) * tobits(base)
  define infocost_wikipedia := (num,base) -> digits(num,base) * base
  define infocost_tbwtc := (num, base) -> (digits(num,base) - 1) * tobits(base) + tobits(base- 1)

I define a logarithmic per-digit information cost, following information theory. For example, 1 trit = log(3,2) bits. This results in no advantage for any base (in which case, choose base 2).

Wikipedia uses a linear per-digit information cost equal to the base. This holds when communicating options takes linear time (Wikipedia's example of a phone menu). This results in advantage for base e (in which case, choose base 3).

The video "The Best Way To Count" uses the logarithmic digit cost, and also notes that the leading digit carries less information (it excludes 0, like a IEEE floating point mantissa). This results in advantage for base 2.

Therefore, know the context to apply the right cost analysis!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_radix_choice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optimal_radix_choice#Why_...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optimal_radix_choice#Bina...

https://youtu.be/rDDaEVcwIJM?t=701 timestamp 11:41

I also imagine a system where graphical programs must call a trusted system file picker to receive a fd. Receiving the capability grants permission. Ideally, Chrome could export browser history to a file, but we live in a fallen world. In any case, an alternative browser must request access through the system file picker, selecting an exported file or selecting the Chrome app data folder. It trades automatic import with user selection. The user has ultimate power, and programs make noise when doing such requests.

Please forgive me that I don't know Android system architecture. Searching tells me something about the Storage Access Framework, but I don't know if that truly meets what I describe.

Thanks for chatting.

Cheers!

>Money does not determine resource allocation. But spending money does!

Very good point. Investors have some say as to where the money goes, but you're right. Often said that the economy runs on debt.

>They spend only a tiny fraction of it – and invest the rest.

Well said. I suppose their wealth only represents a potential for resource allocation.

>If we forced them to spend that wealth, much of the economy’s resources would be redirected to provide goods and services to the top 1% of people.

Under most theories of value, this extreme demand and labor would cause the price of such luxury goods and services to skyrocket! The money would quickly distribute to the hands of those who provided such goods. Then the masses can spend the money.

I now see our discussion as a classic debate of supply-side vs demand-side economics. I'll steal "the unity of means and ends" from the anarchists for this: I fully believe that the masses must have the resource allocation potential in order to achieve greater wealth for all. That exists in a positive feedback loop with businesses, increasing technology and production, and increasing the general standard of living. But, investing gives the resource allocation power to the businesses. With enough wealth and power, large businesses can keep the investment cycle flowing between businesses and owners, underpaying the workers and buying out competitors. At the most extreme result, a vertically closed system where the workers must meet the needs of the business (company towns).

>These are not easily adapted to produce things that regular people need.

So many goods start out as expensive luxury goods. Refrigeration, commercial airlines, air conditioning, computers, HDTVs, cell phones...

>When a small number of people can, in effect, buy the government with pocket change, that’s not good.

Then they morph government policy towards further enriching themselves, hurting the masses in the process. Very bad!

Would you advocate for a 0% capital gains tax? Or a capital gains tax-break? How would you calculate the ideal number? (I would place capital gains tax included in income tax.)

If I got that right, here's my best shot at a contradiction. If resource allocation is a zero-sum game, money (liquid assets) determines resource allocation, and low capital gains tax further concentrates money to the wealthy (I would need to prove this, and in recent years the distribution of wealth has increased towards the wealthy), then the wealthy gain a greater share of resource allocation next year.

This might not result in problems, as historically the increases in resource production have increased regular people's resource allocation in absolute terms, but I see no necessity in this trend. I might argue that the poor can lose resource allocation in the zero-sum game, but I'd need to prove that (something like, inflation hurts poor people more than the rich? incomplete thoughts). I could also argue that currents trends place financial assets (intangible) above production assets (tangible), slowing the benefit to regular people.

I claim that if the wealthy were to put their money in luxuries (things that don't give capital gains), they would control more allocation in a given year, but then they would decrease their share of resource allocation the next year. I also claim that resource production would increase just fine, as technology initially benefiting luxury production expands toward general production.

I think enshittification, cost externalization, and rent-seeking behavior cancel this out, muddying the connection towards meeting the needs of regular people. For example, we needed cap-and-trade to internalize the costs of acid rain back onto power plants.

>These claims are demonstrably false. Paper assets provide no tangible benefits.

I think my rhetorical bait worked: you seem to agree with incentivizing luxury spending on real goods and services (instead of incentivizing capital gains)? Adam Smith argues to take that vanity and drive it towards public recognition. For example, many universities put the names of rich donors on the opulent buildings they donate to build. That's good! (My college's music building was amazing!)

>In other words, doesn't that policy incentivize wealthy people to consume less and, therefore, claim a reduced share of economic benefits? Consequently, doesn't an increased share of economic benefits go to "regular people"?

I thought trade doesn't make a zero-sum game? Money supply is a zero-sum game (I think), and I want money sinks to spread the money. We want them to spend their stored money to generate more tangible wealth for all. Luxury goods often push the limits to what can be done, advancing technology and generating wealth while also depleting their money stores. But while investments and venture capital might also advance technology and generate wealth, they continue to concentrate the money supply to the rich. Not good!

I vaguely remember Adam Smith talking about directing the vanity of the rich towards spending great amounts of money on proper objects in exchange for recognition. 4:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejJRhn53X2M

After separating a++ onto its own line, replacing a++ with a+=1 or a=a+1 comes down to personal taste in syntax sugar. I vote for a+=1.

You posted links earlier, which suffices.