"""
[…] Paradoxically, the more a population grew, the more precious it became, as it offered a supply of cheap labour, and by lowering costs allowed a greater expansion of production and trade. In this infinitely open labour market, the ‘fundamental price’, which for Turgot meant a subsistence level for workers, and the price determined by supply and demand ended up as the same thing. A country was all the more commercially competitive for having at its disposal the virtual wealth that a large population represented.
Confinement was therefore a clumsy error, and an economic one at that: there was no sense in trying to suppress poverty by taking it out of the economic circuit and providing for a poor population by charitable means. To do that was merely to hide poverty, and suppress an important section of the population, which was always a given wealth. Rather than helping the poor escape their provisionally indigent situation, charity condemned them to it, and dangerously so, by putting a brake on the labour market in a period of crisis. What was required was to palliate the high cost of products with cheaper labour, and to make up for their scarcity by a new industrial and agricultural effort. The only reasonable remedy was to reinsert the population in the circuit of production, being sure to place labour in areas where manpower was most scarce. The use of paupers, vagabonds, exiles and émigrés of any description was one of the secrets of wealth in the competition between nations. […]
Confinement was to be criticised because of the effects it had on the labour market, but also because like all other traditional forms of charity, it constituted a dangerous form of finance. As had been the case in the Middle Ages, the classical era had constantly attempted to look after the needs of the poor by a system of foundations. This implied that a section of the land capital and revenues were out of circulation. In a definitive manner too, as the concern was to avoid the commercialisation of assistance to the poor, so judicial measures had been taken to ensure that this wealth never went back into circulation. But as time passed, their usefulness diminished: the economic situation changed, and so did the nature of poverty.
«Society does not always have the same needs. The nature and distribution of property, the divisions between the different orders of the people, opinions, customs, the occupations of the majority of the population, the climate itself, diseases and all the other accidents of human life are in constant change. New needs come into being, and old ones disappear.» [Turgot, Encyclopédie]
The definitive character of a foundation was in contradiction with the variable and changing nature of the accidental needs to which it was designed to respond. The wealth that it immobilised was never put back into circulation, but more wealth was to be created as new needs appeared. The result was that the proportion of funds and revenues removed from circulation constantly increased, while that of production fell in consequence. The only possible result was increased poverty, and a need for more foundations. The process could continue indefinitely, and the fear was that one day ‘the ever increasing number of foundations might absorb all private funds and all private property’. When closely examined, classical forms of assistance were a cause of poverty, bringing a progressive immobilisation that was like the slow death of productive wealth:
«If all the men who have ever lived had been given a tomb, sooner or later some of those sterile monuments would have been dug up in order to find land to cultivate, and it would have become necessary to stir the ashes of the dead in order to feed the living.» [Turgot, Lettre Š Trudaine sur le Limousin]
"""
(Michel Foucault, History of Madness)
Don't reopen the government until the Senate has been abolished, and SCOTUS has been replaced with a term-limited array of circuit court judges (sure, you get a lifetime circuit court appointment, but you only spend X years on SCOTUS; where X could be something like 10).
This list of Unicode character name errata feels like back-matter for some SF novel
https://www.unicode.org/notes/tn27/
Via @…
Been reading some of the Buffy The Vampire Slayer comic-books, set after the TV shows ended.
It's a very different world with Buffy and Xander being commanders of a whole slayer army with seemingly massive resources, from a castle being attacked by various supernatural forces.
Very different pacing from the TV show too.
You know that episode of Angel where Spike and Angel are running around in Italy chasing after Buffy who now dates The Immortal?
Turns out it wasn't Buffy at all, but one of her decoys that have been deployed around the world. Andrew thought it would be funny to troll the two vampires by pretending she was dating The Immortal.
The artwork is all great, but sometimes a little rough and I find it challenging since I don't always recognize who is supposed to be who, especially as the artists and styles switch from book to book.
Some of the mini stories feel like just pulling the TV show characters back for no good reason.
I hear rumors of a new Buffy TV show starring SMG with no involvement from Joss, and wonder if it'll assume these stories of visiting the future or fighting with an army from a castle base will be retconned out entirely?
It's an entertaining read and nice to visit those characters again, but doesn't feel much like the TV show because it's such a different setting and Buffy is very different as a commander than a school girl.
#reading #comics #buffy
What are you going to do when the regime falls? After calling all your friends, after the great memes, after the parties, what are you going to do to make sure it never happens again? What world should we create?
Taxing billionaires is great and all, but we could build systems where billionaires are impossible. Is hoarding wealth and using it to control people even something we should consider part of a functional and humane system? Any system where one group of people doesn't have rights means that anyone can be stripped of their rights, like has happened with all the US citizens who've been illegally detained and deported by ICE. Does the concept of "rights" that must be defended with violence, that can be stripped away by people who can exercise more violence, even make sense? Or should the bedrock of a functional system be the obligations that we have to each other and to society, that cannot be severed or taken from us, that tell us we *must* defend regardless of whether systemic oppression will impact us or not?
Americans have been so restricted by the limitations of the two party system, only able to choose between options acceptable to different sections of the capitalist class. Would we even be able to imagine what we could do if those restrictions went away?
The fall of the Berlin wall was a surprise. The fall of Assad was faster than anyone expected. One day the government of Nepal was an unrepentant oligarchy, the next it was on fire. Everything can change in an instant, faster than anyone expects. No one can predict revolutionary change. Will you be ready if the opportunity presents itself?
The US cannot be fixed. The economic system is a ponzi scheme that has been patched again and again, but has finally run out of options. Racism, sexism, and Christian nationalism are baked into the system at every level. Trump gutted the system of soft power that held the US economy together, now there is only a slow decline. Even after he's gone, the damage is done. Once we let go of how to fix something that cannot be fixed, we can start to imagine something that cannot be achieved within the current system.
This is a time of opportunity. Do not burrow so deep in terror that you miss your chance to dream.
#USPol
Reducing Quantum Circuit Synthesis to #SAT
Dekel Zak, Jingyi Mei, Jean-Marie Lagniez, Alfons Laarman
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00416
Ahhh, that would have been too good to be true. What a magnificent last hour though. #cricket #FifthTest #EngInd
Column-generation for a two-dimensional multi-criteria bin-packing problem
Christof Groschke, Steffen Goebbels, Jochen Rethmann
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.01218 https://
Tabular foundation model for GEOAI benchmark problems BM/AirportSoilProperties/2/2025
Taiga Saito, Yu Otake, Stephen Wu
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.03191 https://