Ya, I read it as sarcasm, apparently I'm not alone there. No harm no foul, but sorry for misreading it.
flatlined
joined 2 months ago
In this context, why the hell wouldn't you? If you need a freaking logarithmic scale for it, if the gap between haves and have nots is this lopsided, at the very least making a conservative "no matter where we put a line maybe a billion is too much" is a useful thing to go. We can quickly quibble over whether multimillionaires should exist, but no matter what, the existence for billionaires is a failing of society.
You could play the world's smallest violin for them. Couldn't get paid for it apparently, but still.
More seriously, we probably disagree and I won't try to persuade you. Abolish capitalism and all that is preaching to the choir, but while we will live under it, if an artist you like has a direct way for your support (cash, bank transfer, crypto, whatever floats your boat) that doesn't fatten music labels, would/do you?
This, with a small side order of "change of energy traffic behavior could have totally been expected. Wasn't." Like in most things a less centralized flow (energy, data, money &c.) prefers a different infra to hub-and-spokes traffic. Make it easier/more affordable to supply surplus energy to your neighbors and you won't have to deal with moving stuff between neighborhoods/cities/regions as much.