I absolutely agree. They shouldn't be able to vote and they shouldn't have free speech rights. Corporations are a legal structure - a way to allow risk sharing to encourage investment that would otherwise maybe not happen if one had to risk everything in order to invest. But when we choose to allow that, and it is a choice, we should not give those entities the rights of people. It is simply absurd.
Is this rich person also voting in the place where they actually live? I'm not against a rich person voting, I just don't want them to get more than one vote. I haven't read the opinion to see if that's addressed.
Having grown up in a tourism/2nd home town I think this is probably a good thing. Keeps the place from being totally captured by local business interests.
But it would likely lead to other problems because the owner demographics are generally out of touch.
> Keeps the place from being totally captured by local business interests.
I'm pretty sure this is a fundimental design of the US system. There are things your city is allowed to do by state constitution. Things your county is allowed to do. And things only the state is allowed to do.
This is expressly to enable the people that live in that place the right to self governance.
Anymore I think the question shouldn't be about some kind of economic fairness (the time value of money thing being discussed) but the idea that wealth accumulation is a disease that afflicts society. I don't think anyone should have the level of control or influence on others that having a billion dollars currently allows. If a millionaire gives $100 to a political candidate it probably doesn't require too much thought. It's impressive to note that a 10-billionaire can give $1M just as easily, and so we have a class of folks who can throw around influence, who can order a team of lawyers to do things, can employ their legion of sycophantic followers to harass people, or can threaten the employment of many people not-of-their-class because they can make decisions that threaten someone's employer's bottom line. And note that above I compared a millionaire to the 10-billionaire, but there are plenty of folks, especially around the planet, who economically live several orders of magnitude below the millionaire.
As a bit of an aside, "spending more time with family" is an often-used euphemism around someone being fired, but if you have more money than you know what to do with and you aren't using it to spend more time with those you love, then what on earth is it for?
I know this is tangential to your main point, but in the US, you can only give a max of $3,500 to a candidate per election cycle, for each the primaries and general election.
To give more financial support, you have to do independent, uncoordinated campaigning for the candidate. So you can spend a million dollars on ads saying to vote for a candidate, but you can't give that money to the candidate's campaign and the candidate can't coordinate with you. This is what Super PACs do.
I only write this because a lot of people are unclear on the rules. I'm not making an argument about billionaires.
I wouldn't put that in the same category as campaign donations. That money won't help the candidate get elected. The money goes to the inaugural committee to pay for the event.
I'd put that in the broader category of doing something the president/politician likes in hopes of gaining favor.
With this administration there are even better ways to gain influence and money by doing things the president likes than donating to inauguration ceremonies. Become a known staunch Trump advocate, and you could become the Secretary of Defense, FBI Deputy Director, or head of DOGE. No experience necessary.
How do you think society works without wealth accumulation? There would be no incentive to innovate to push forward. You wouldn’t have your iPhone, computer, or car. Want to see the result of societies that forbid wealth creation? Go to Cuba.
It's an interesting question. If we lived in a universe in which we weren't in fear of losing access to basic necessities of food, shelter, and healthcare, but had to work to have anything beyond those, what would happen? I don't truly know and I don't believe we have done the experiment anywhere. But I do know that the system we have not only produces innovative products but also corruption, oligopolies, and steamrolls over labor and the environment if not regulated.
I'm not naive enough to think communism is a magical answer (but Cuba is not some A/B experiment - the U.S. in particular has done a lot to make sure Cuba didn't succeed) - it ends up concentrating the wealth too. I would favor some form of democratic socialism, with leaders who can be kicked out if they abuse their power and limits on the influence of rich individuals and corporations.
On the latter, I think we forget that corporations are a legal construct intended to benefit society by allowing risk pooling - they are not people and should not be considered as such for things like free speech rights. Corporations should not be allowed to make political contributions in any way.
I know that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_Spreadsheet?wprov=sfla1 existed since '84 and was in use in disparate parts of the company (I hit the printer division in the summer of '88). IBM was still using mainframe tools, including FORTRAN and APL for engineering work, and we were using BASIC for some testing automation as well as stuff written in assembly (bit banging of parallel ports as GPIO).
Automation was used in testing since the beginning, of course. (Earliest vivid example I have is from a 1956 television commercial.)
Spreadsheets certainly existed. We know that.
What I don't have is any example or testimonial from anyone, earlier than 1988, of using a spreadsheet to DRIVE automation used in testing. I would be surprised if I was the first to have thought of it. I can only say that my team asked around Apple and found no one doing this but our team, at that time.
This is a lovely example of how to think about physical systems through an iterative approach of empirical testing and modeling of the physics. Kudos to the author, Prof. Jim Woodhouse.
I'm used to approaching these problems from a slightly different angle. There are two simple cases that can be used to establish guide points.
If you have a load that is purely inertial, the optimum gear ratio (to minimize I-squared-R motor loss) is found by picking a gear ratio which matches the reflected inertia of load and motor. At this point, on every acceleration you put just as much energy into the rotor inertia as into the load inertia.
In contrast, for a steady-state load which is all friction (e.g. a mixer such as for paint or food), a gear ratio which balances friction loss in the motor with the load friction will minimize the armature loss.
Most applications have live between these points, and these optimizations ignore gearing losses and expense and noise, but they can serve as guide posts.
There's also the issue of separating winding choice from gearing choice. For each candidate motor there exists an optimum gear ratio which will minimize the heat produced when driving a given load (friction and inertia) over a given velocity profile. That gearing can be found by trial and error in a simulation. These aren't crazy difficult simulations (can be done in a spreadsheet) but do need to take temperature dissipation and change of motor performance with temperature into account. Once that gearing is found, the V-I requirements of the motor at that gearing will be known and then winding adjusted to fit requirements of driver circuitry (i.e. trade current for voltage).
reply