The more wealth inequality grows the less important 99% of the population is as consumers and the more important the 1% becomes.

Not as consumers, no. The 1% doesn’t consume more than the 90th percentile. They just park a higher percentage of their wealth in wealth-generating financial assets, which leech wealth from the rest of society.

We need a tax on all registered securities, (with exemption for the first $10 million owned by a natural person.) That tax should be paid not in cash, but in shares of the security: the IRS should slowly liquidate those shares over time, such that IRS sales never constitute more than 1% of total traded volume.

We further need the punitively-high top-tier tax rate we had for most of the 20th century. That tax rate pushed businesses to spend their excess income, turning it into other people’s paychecks. It discouraged the kind of wealth-hoarding investment that is stunting consumer spending.

Everybody says this. Nobody posts recipes.

Real printers used real paper…

I would say that the software side all qualifies. You’re setting up the full software stack; that’s definitely self-“something”.

I, personally, would only consider it “self hosting” if I can take a sledge hammer to the bare metal without getting arrested.

But, I acknowledge that is an arbitrary, puritanical distinction. I don’t look down on VPS; they have specific pros and cons, and I use them myself. I just think that “self hosting” includes hardware factors, not just the software.

Parent comment is on mander.xyz. You are on dbzer0.com. The admins for either instance can prevent your account from interacting with the other.

If you start lemmy.ddash.com, the other admin can still block you, but you are the admin of your own instance. You are the second admin.

You can’t get a balloon pilot’s license without a formal diagnosis. :)

Hot air balloon pilot here: We do, indeed.

This is a “Cloudhopper”. It’s a hot air balloon with no basket: The pilot straps a propane tank to his back and wears a climbing harness. As you can see, the pilot is, effectively, walking on water with the assistance of the balloon.

Cloudhoppers are about 20,000 to 35,000 cubic feet, 40-50 feet in diameter. They are about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of most of the balloons you might see at a fair or festival.

The reverse, probably: You should probably increase your contribution.

Consider the state of the market “now”. Consider the state of the market “later”, meaning some hypothetical time between now and your eventual retirement.

If the market is low “now”, and you think it will be high “later”, you should be buying now.

That’s the whole debate though. What is your responsibility as a citizen?

The only responsibilities on the individual that are prescribed by the constitution arise under the Sixth Amendment, and Article I, Section 8 parts 15 and 16: the Militia clauses.

You have no other constitutional responsibilities as a citizen.

A legislated law obligating you to apply legislated law in judging the accused would violate the accused’s 6th amendment right to a trial by a jury of his peers. Such a law would make you an agent of the government, not a layperson juror. The legislature can compel you to report for jury service; the legislature cannot impose any sort of responsibility to render a particular verdict.

You have no (relevant) legislative-law responsibilities as a citizen.

I’m so weary of talking about it ad-nauseam.

You have yet to talk about the most important part of the constitution. The first three words. You’ve completely ignored them all this time. Either you don’t understand them, or you think they are irrelevant. They are the sine qua non of this issue. Ultimately, those three words rebut every single point against nullification you have made, every ad-nauseating time you have made them.

Ultimately these questions about jury nullification are irrelevant because you’ll never have 12 jurors who think subverting the court process can achieve justice.

Injustice requires a unanimous verdict. The accused doesn’t need 12 for the trial to reach a just end. He only needs one. A hung jury is always a just jury.

Are you sure you’re not Joe Biden?

I didn’t even know I needed to edit my prompt, but now I don’t know how I have lived with it for so long.

They just aren’t given enough to do what needs doing.

Guillotines are on back order, with earliest ship dates after December 4th.

Ooh, I like… I think you might want to add some sharp cheddar.

Spaghetti belongs in a taco, not a pizza.

I would say that neurotypicality is a mental disability characterized, in part, by a limited ability to comprehend and tolerate neurodiversity.

Het guy here: It is, indeed, “time”.

We have a system for considering the justice of law. Citizens elect representatives who debate, create, and revise laws on their behalf.

That same system also explicitly enables the executive to pardon the accused outright, specifically exempting them from the laws created on behalf of the citizenry. The system itself tells us that legislated laws should not be considered sacrosanct. The very existence of the pardon tells us that the legislature must be considered fallible and demonstrates that justice should supersede adherence to legislated law.

The juror’s role is external to the system. Jurors are not representatives of the government, and owe no duties to that government, nor any part of that government. The juror’s duty is solely and exclusively to the accused.

Juries typically choose to accept legislated law. Justice normally demands it. Generally speaking, a jury should abide by the will of the legislature. But, they are not beholden. They are constitutionally empowered to determine that a particular law did not adequately consider the specific circumstances of the accused, and would be unjust to apply. They are constitutionally empowered to place their constitutional-law duty to find justice for the accused ahead of legislated-law.

Demanding that a jury obey the legislature without consideration of their greater constitutional obligation to the accused makes them a representative of the government, rather than a layperson jury.

Around here, we just call that “Sunday”.

It is absolutely a mixed bag. Ideally, jury nullification would never be used, because none of our laws would be unjust or improper to apply.

But, we have had “Fugitive Slave Acts” on our books for entirely too long in our history: acts that criminalized providing aid and assistance to escaped slaves, or failing to deliver them to their “owners”.

We cannot pretend our legislature has never been corrupt, or will never be corrupt in the future. Like the “Pardon”, Jury Nullification is an important check on an out-of-control legislature.

There were no founding fathers who wrote a document to include this “ultimate check”.

“We The People”. The first three words establish the philosophical model of the constitution. “We The People” willed it into existence.

The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by a jury of the accused’s peers. Not the judicial branch of the government. Not the government in general. It guarantees the right of the accused to take the case directly to a quorum of 12 members of “We The People”.

The founding fathers did write a document that included this ultimate check.

A judge would merely be a steward conducting proceedings and a jury would just mete out justice based on the vibe of the matters before them.

They do. Generally, the “vibe” is that legislated law is just and proper, and the jury should apply it as written. Generally, jury nullification is not a factor.

But we are contemplating the special case. Here, we are not constrained to the general case. Here, we are considerong the conditions under which the law itself is determined to be unjust, such as the “Fugitive Slave Laws” we actually had on our books. Here, we can consider a corrupt legislature enacting unjust laws.

Are we forced to jail an abolitionist for aiding and abetting a former slave in escaping his “owner”? Are We The People truly compelled to abide by the evil acts of a reprehensible legislature?

We are not.

The fact that justice won’t always be done is not in any way a justification for rendering the unjust verdict demanded by a corrupt legislature.