Unlurker|Replay|About
GitLab Outage (status.gitlab.com)
•
Incident link(s): https://status.gitlab.com/pages/incident/5b36dc6502d06804c08349f7/6ab5ac13c927d205640922b7 https://status.gitlab.com/pages/incident/5b36dc6502d06804c08349f7/6ab52a27c927d20564092275
We self host ours too. 100% uptime ;)
•
what host are you using that gets 100%uptime? A hyperscaler like AWS?
Coincidentally (?) we’ve seen a huge uptick in failed login attempts to our MFA-protected admin accounts on our self-hosted Gitlab CE instance today. They’re coming from thousands of IPs across hundreds of networks (VPS providers and, apparently, residential proxies).
•
It's probably related to the issue published by aikidolabs where leaked per-user gitlab issued emails were being used as a sort of credential. https://www.aikido.dev/blog/gitlab-email-push-to-main
Well, git is already distributed, so you could use _any other computer_ instead of gitlab.com...
•
or go back to Mercurial... Do you remember Mercurial? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Back and shoulder surgery is often worse than useless (economist.com)
•
I've had a searing rotator cuff for over 2 years. Someone recommended peptides called Wolverine Blend. It is now healed after 3 weeks of injections. The thing is, this seems to be rather common.
•
It might work, it might be quackery. https://moonshotmp.com/learn/wolverine-blend/ "Educational information only. The peptides discussed here are not approved by the FDA for the uses described, and nothing on this page is a recommendation to obtain, self-administer, or dose them. Any peptide therapy at Moonshot Medical is individualized and provided only under medical supervision after an in-person evaluation. This is not medical advice — consult a qualified healthcare provider." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TB-500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BPC-157 If there are any scientific studies or governments that have approved the use of Wolverine blend, I could not find them. I'd be interested if anyone else has better information.
•
Strengthening my posterior chain solved my back pain from desk based living. I didn't realize how weak it actually was. It is almost like strong muscle structure helps brace and hold the bones in better position.
Surgeons often jump too quickly to the knife. Effective physical therapy or lifestyle adjustments frequently offer superior, less invasive outcomes.
•
This. Even if you're struggling with pain after surgery, moderate activity, a well regulated diet (to control inflammation) and stress management can do wonders. I know from experience :p
There is an even stronger version of your argument, one that works without shifting to the same old "you don't need the expensive stuff, just get your life together" advice that already has kind of a bad rep for not fixing depression. You can accept that you cannot inject much more of necessary discipline and motivation into people after they leave school.. and still argue against many types of surgery in mostly the same way: by strictly comparing them to other costly endeavors that could bring about those probably-helpful life changes. Many more people could work towards that "real solution" by benefiting from some other spending.. which merely happens to be cheaper than surgery, while still not being entirely up to them. Example: My town installed an outdoor "grown-up playground" in the nearby park. Probably cost a little over two complicated surgeries. Already saved 10 people from neglecting upper body workout. Just 10 people having a really low-barrier-of-entry gym available to them whenever walking their dog. I suspect its already been cost-effective. Plus, it is reusable and low-maintenance. Try to beat that in the operating room!
•
The thing is, the fitness level OP is talkign about is not going to be compatible with the grown up playground sort of activities. You need to get jacked basically. You need to be lifting to failure 3x5ish hitting all muscle groups 2x a week with compound lifts. You should be struggling to go up stairs after working legs. Working out is good, yes, but you need to actually work the body and make it suffer so that it may actually be damaged enough for high rates of muscle growth. So many people do not do enough because they don't like to push themselves, they take it easy and they end up wasting their time in the gym. Even more true as you get older and natural testosterone levels start declining and limiting your muscle growth. This is why people end up taking spin classes when they can just do it at home on their own stationary bike. For some people, they need a jockey who will kick their ass along with the peer pressure of a room full of people dumping out sweat.
It’s worth recalling that a large (possibly majority) share of the population has extreme limits on their time imposed by economics. While I’m fortunate now to be able to dedicate time to the gym and other physical fitness, this was not always the case. We lack the societal incentive structure to allow someone working 60-80 hours a week to reduce their workload to physically recover. We do allow that same person to spend 5-10 years income on surgeries which have 4-6 week recovery times.
•
People have more time than they expect. Very few people are working 16 hour days. https://www.bls.gov/charts/american-time-use/emp-by-ftpt-job-edu-h.htm Note how two job holder average is barely above single job holder average. These are probably people working two part time jobs with a 4-5 hour shift each. How about activities? BLS has some data there. https://www.bls.gov/charts/american-time-use/activity-by-age.htm Note the leisure column. Screen time average is about 7 hours a day (not the best source I guess compared to say if apple published their data): https://www.demandsage.com/screen-time-statistics/ You could do a lot of good with a 3 day a week 30 min compound lift strength training workout. Deadlifts, squat, bench press, overhead press, pull ups.
As someone who's going to the doctor next week to discuss potential shoulder surgery, this is timely. I really need to figure out whether it's going to make things better or worse, but unfortunately, that feels like something a doctor can't guarantee one way or the other. Any anecdotes or other experiences/thoughts are appreciated.
•
Read the Substack of Howard Luks, he's an orthopedic surgeon who has a lot of experience. At the least I would heavily consider exhausting conservative treatment first. All but the worst tears can heal on their own, it just takes time and steady effort. No matter what you choose to do, the adherence to rehab will determine your ultimate outcome.
I would posit this is more of a function of Canada having too few machines, with a median wait of 10 weeks for an MRI. [1] To me it's crazy that people are waiting an average of nearly 3 months to get imaging. This is probably after waiting a couple months for their doctor's appointment to get the MRI scheduled in the first place. [1] [ https://getmrifast.ca/mri-wait-times ]
•
One of the reasons I left Canada was it took me 6 months to get an MRI after a severe head injury in 2017. I have since gladly paid nearly 500k in taxes to other countries. Fuck Canada.
•
That is kindof crazy! Imagine you are suspicious that something is awry in your soft tissue, in which case I think MRI is the main diagnostic (?). Then you don’t find out for ten weeks, plus some for analysis!
•
> https://getmrifast.ca/mri-wait-times It's sad that seemingly the top result for this search term is an AI slop lead-gen site, rather than the actual source: >Disclaimer: Wait times shown are estimates based on publicly reported data from the Fraser Institute, CIHI, and provincial health authority reports.
Yep. Wealthy Canadians often come to the USA as medical tourists and pay cash to skip the queue at home for elective procedures like MRIs or joint replacements.
•
You can pay for MRIs in Canada. My friend needed one and he had it within the week for $800. I think private MRIs have been around, at least in my province anyways, for close to 30 years.
•
Hmm, that's good information to have, I had no idea. I just had an MRI appointment that I had completely forgotten about or what it was for I was waiting so long (and obviously not having the issue for anymore). I'll know this for next time and consider it.
I think the actual issue is that America often has infinite wait times because people can't afford the procedure.
•
Oh yes I see, America bad, got it.
As someone with herniated discs, spinal stenosis, degenerative disc disease and scoliosis for decades, who's already had surgery but still got worse... what else even is there besides more surgery? I can't wave a magic wand and just put more space between my discs... that's the only thing that's going to ease off my pain as far as I'm aware.
•
Have you ever tried serious strength training of your posterior chain? That fixed me up although my back wasn't as bad as yours. I feel that if the muscles are weak they fail to support the spine in an appropriate way.
California is chasing wealth that has feet (blog.landeconomics.org)
•
> nor can it be passed on to renters This is an asinine claim - any cost can be passed along to a willing payer.
•
Most land I bet is leveraged (hence the high price!) and taxing it will put pressure on home owners and investors. It is great for the truely rich who have a $50m mansion because it is chump change and will pay $375k which is approx zero but for someone with a typical house $1m it is $7500 which is less money for food and other household expenses and they may be paying a big mortgage already and not rich in the true sense. Taxation ain't simple. There are always second order effects. I am not against land tax but using it as a kneejerk levy could have unintended consequences. Instead taper onto a reasonable land tax. Just raise taxes if you need more money in a fair and progressive way. Of all the places you can avoid flight from to avoid tax California must be the easiest.
Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood? What if I voted for pro-theme park politicians? Or what if I volunteered my time to clean up the community parks and shared space? What if I helped improve the reputation of my child’s school by volunteering and donating to the music department? My taxes fund the maintenance of public infrastructure and services, and my actions support the civic good. If I vote to be cheap or generous with taxes, or choose to be lazy or ambitious in community support, that all contributes to the desirability of the land around me.
•
> Why is it assumed true that individuals do not contribute to the increasing appeal of their neighborhood? Two things are true: 1. I should have been more precise in my language. "You didn't do anything to make that happen" is a useful generality and not a prescription of every single individual in the community. In this case, we're talking about fairness - which I don't actually care much about myself, but is a point that people most often can emotionally identify with. But, to continue, if you're carrying all that water on behalf of your land value, then good for you! You likely have an existing stake in the community, other than the land that you own (maybe the businesses or houses or other property built on that land or you own a local services business). That is great! The fairness comes from owning the finite resource of land, and not something others can provide (housing, businesses, etc.). I hope you do continue to contribute to your local community and increase its appeal! 2. Your fixation on this point reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of an LVT (surely partially my fault). It has to do with efficient taxation. Dollar equal, it's better that your taxes come from the value of the fixed resources of your community rather than things that can be increased. Because then you don't have a depressing effect on productivity and the things, other than land, that make your community nice. It's better that you keep more money from the things you _do_ for your community instead of the monopolies you hold in your community.
It's such an amazing psy op that every opportunity to discuss wealth disparity and distribution becomes a Georgism slog. No, abolishing all tax except land value tax won't fix it.
•
Why care about wealth disparity at all as long as everyone is better off? If I offered you to double your real wealth but sissy Bezo's real wealth, would you reject that offer just because wealth disparity went up?
What if your only relationship with land is that you rent an apartment, but from that apartment you build a $10M/year revenue social network? How should that be taxed? Should it at all?
•
That would be income tax
•
I believe they described a system in which only natural resources are taxed. That's how I read "Georgeism but applied to all natural resources, not just land value". Income is not a natural resource which is why I asked them how they think it should be taxed, if at all.
The hard part is that we've structured life such that you are on a fixed income at the end of your life in no position really to deal with inflation. At least when you are still working, in theory at least your wages will go up with inflation. This is really why prop 13 happened to pass at all: the idea of being displaced at the end of your life out of the home you already paid off due to market forces you aren't even a participant in is actually widely unpopular even if it makes better economic sense.
•
Empirically, according to Doucet, a land value tax would only raise average tax rates if you're living on a parking lot, or vacant lot. Aging homeowners would mostly see a slight decline in their property taxes ( California excluded ).
•
Retirees are not on fixed income and haven't been for decades. Social Security gets adjusted for inflation. 401ks grow. https://www.slowboring.com/p/seniors-arent-living-on-fixed-incomes
Most of the other states have not seen the rise in population growth and real estate values seen in CA. There are still places where homes are like 250k or less. There is also way more value drop off outside the metros in most other states with high cost cities such as MA or NY. You could be 30 mins drive from boston in a great 400k home. Try and find that 30 mins out from SF or LA. There just isn't really that fall off in california that you might expect from real estate markets elsewhere. It is like the rising tide has lifted all boats.
•
To be fair 250K homes and under homes are increasingly uncommon and increasingly undesirable. Rural areas with almost zero industry are averaging out at 600-750K. Maybe a bit of a downward trend, but the average salary in the area is like 50K. so it doesn't matter.
> The only people this is appealing for are people who fancy themselves analytically minded economists with no interest in the practical humanity Most states in the US do not have Prop-13-like laws and get by just fine. For the few states that do, they are less restrictive taxation-wise than California's. Prop 13 has completely distorted the housing market; it is, perhaps unintuitively, a co-cause of CA's housing unaffordability issues. (Prop 13 discourages new development, and is an enabler of housing NIMBYism.) We of course shouldn't just abolish Prop 13 overnight, or lots of people will get displaced, also overnight. But we should absolutely reform it and phase it out over time, while building more housing, as fast as we can (something that will be a little bit easier to do as all the NIMBYs realize that if they keep shooting down housing projects, their property taxes are gonna go up a ton).
•
Most states also rely on sales taxes and various fees, and assign limited property taxes. A Georgist land value tax would have much greater effects than the current tax regimes.
•
Prop 13 is a bit of a nothingburger anyhow when you consider median homeownership period in CA is only like 2 years longer than national average, rather than the myth that seems to be perpetuated of every home being a 40+ year hold paying a couple dollars in property taxes. And when that home is sold the tax assessment of course goes right back to market rate, and boy that is substantial when you have what would be a 450k home outside of Boston go for 2.1m with a 1% tax. 21 thousand a year off a single 50ft wide lot is no slouch in terms of tax revenue.
I don't think this is why it won't get passed on. In theory the lowest income could leave the state and higher income renters would come in. But in reality a land value tax incentivizes higher density housing. A single house and an apartment complex pay the exact same amount of tax, while the apartment building can split it up over many occupants. Land value taxes are a very natural hands off way of encouraging the right use of land, empty lots and car parks become unaffordable in highly desirable areas while apartments become relatively very cheap. In theory the land value tax could be set so the overall taxation is the same as before, but but the distribution is such that the people with massive blocks of land in highly desirable areas foot most of the bill. This would over time make housing cheaper over time as more housing is built to reduce the tax burden.
•
> a land value tax incentivizes higher density housing. A single house and an apartment complex pay the exact same amount of tax, while the apartment building can split it up over many occupants. That would only be true if the LVT replaced the existing property tax structure, which is not what TFA is calling for.
"Personally, this is why I am fine with higher income or sales taxes." Indeed, the working poor need to pay more in taxes.
•
Not even the poor. Really everyone working. I would much rather sleep all day and live off of a pile of money than to show up somewhere and do something for money. That's the tax -- 35% of your waking hours are now at the service of someone else. And yet, they charge income tax on that. Stay home and live off a stash of money in your mattress, 0% tax, 0 obligations. Wake up and commute to work, 35% of your week gone, 35% of your "income" gone. I am not even that mad that I personally have to pay taxes. I enjoy funding government programs! I think I owe society something! But it sure doesn't make sense that already being rich makes you immune to giving back to the society that made you that way.
What are the proposals for accomplishing this?
•
Ditch or reform/restrict the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Remove barriers to building more housing. Other stuff, but you can do a web search, I'm sure.
What evidence do you have that people borrow against assets as some tax avoidance strategy? What are the details of this brilliant, often repeated plan? In particular, where do you get interest rates that are low enough to make it worth it to avoid capital gains even with an asset that's grown 100x over its cost basis (and are you accounting for reinvestment of income like dividends that can't indefinitely defer taxes, creating regular tax lots with higher basis that you could sell first)? e.g. are they getting better interest than SOFR somewhere?
•
The framing was slightly glib, and you're correct that current rates impacts the equation, but there has been real damage caused by how extremely attractive this strategy has been over the past decade. We sitting on an unprecedented peace time deficit due to a failure to properly tax an economy that has been massively prosperous during this same period. This strategy is small part of it, but it is a real part.
I hope we agree that we need more taxes, it doesn't matter if they are taxes on billionaires, taxes on property, taxes on sales, taxes on crypto, or taxes on the poor. Without taxes we can't have a civilized society.
•
Assuming we do need more taxes, the manner of taxation absolutely does matter.
How else are we going to support public infrastructure and society?
•
Progressive taxation and more efficient spending. (And in CA, fixing Prop 13, and knocking out more hurdles to housing development in desirable areas.)
Did tariffs raise prices? Or did prices stay the same because "if the market demand is such that it allows them to raise [prices], they'd already have done it"?
•
Looks like this is complicated and the short answer is "it depends": https://chatgpt.com/share/6ab5ca51-3e0c-83e8-a232-892d3e4ef914
If they can't raise rents to cover expenses plus "enough profit to make this PITA worth it" then things (slowly over time) grind to a halt.
•
If the assessed land value is actually correct, then someone can make that land work profitably, by definition. That might mean bulldozing a single-family home and building a 4-unit building, for example, but it's doable. If the assessed land value is incorrect, then that would need to be fixed.
Appropriate username.
•
Solid counter argument.
Better, or better for you in particular?
•
Not better for me. But I believe it fairer. Yes, I have no income tax. Yes, I pay a lot in property tax. But it is a better capture of wealth. I shouldn't have my property tax locked to a low value from decades ago while squatting on a large asset
 Top