i just do not understand "i demand for you to make a demand to take away my money"

i mean - why make the demand that someone else make the demand for you to do something? wut? just do something, if that's how you feel about it

its like a nursery school "fight" where 5y olds are each 'daring' the other to do something in order to provoke them into action and then calling the other a coward for not provoking them. it's a fucking stupid way for adults to try and appear 'brave' like that tho

if you want to give away your money, just give it away. nobody is actually preventing you from doing that. if you feel you have more than you need, give the surplus away. right now. go ahead

go to your personal banker and instruct them to give away 90% of your net income earnings for 2019 to any, from a wide range of organizations in need including but not limited to Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, SPCA, Wikipedia and that's not counting virtually any university research program desperately looking for funds in areas of climate change, cancer research etc etc et

heck - you could just cut the check to the government. go to the receiver of revenue and say to them "i wish to overpay on my annual tax return because i have too much and i want to give it back to you"

to me, crying crocodile tears about how "government won't take my money" sounds like a way of phrasing the converse that "i refuse to give my money away unless an external agent forces me to"

i get that "philanthropy doesn't work" in principle and government should tax rich people more. very noble

however you are still in control of and (very much) holding onto your funds, right?

at least rich people who want to hold onto their funds makes sense. they are greedy and selfish and that makes sense to me. rich people who "desperately want" to give away their money away BUT ONLY IF someone else forces them to give it away - makes no sense to me

"i just hate it that i have too much and i blame The Status Quo for refusing to tax me more ;_;"

really? that's your actual complaint? someone else won't legally oblige you to give away your surplus? well why not simply give away your surplus out of your own volition then?

i mean, like, it's bothering you so much, like, all this crazy surplus and stuff and you, like, have nobody to forcefully take it away from you or something... what to do? what to do?

wait a moment... i know! you could give it away!

seriously tho - someone complainbragging they "have too much because the government is bad" is like standing on a boat, shouting at drowning victims nearby: "im sorry you're drowning! you need help from a search&rescue boat... and someone else refuses to confiscate mine towards that end ;_; f*ck this system!"

people couldn't care less about how badly you feel about 'having too much'. it doesn't matter how you feel. it only matters what you do

while we wait for the government to get their shit together and confiscate your boat - just pull the drowning victims into your boat, if it means that much to you. or give your boat away to search&rescue missions who are willing and able to help and pleading for more boats

that is way more useful than writing open letters about how privileged you are to have a boat and it will definitely send a louder message to powers that be than writing open letters signed by your other millionaire buddies

either that or s...

Programmer here

it’s not a simple matter of “writing leaner code”

the complexity of requirements has also changed and grown drastically

it’s humanly impossible to maintain programs counting millions of lines of code in high level programming languages (and “compile” to - ie automatically get translated to - billions of lines of assembler code) by hand and without automation

the software is bloated in part but in a much greater part the complexity of what it is required to do reflects it’s instruction set size

for example the Linux operating system kernel subsystem (so just the kernel that gets put into operating systems like Android, Ubuntu or some server flavor like Debian which contain billions of lines of code outside of the kernel) has 25+ million lines of code which contains enough code that if published on paper (with no margins) would produce a stack of paper 38 meters tall

that’s just the core of the operating system to manage CPU execution

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/millions-lines-of-code/

so quite a few things like that are contributing

historically, abstracting fewer lines of human readership code to produce more lower “level” code is how we used to manage this problem

we went from physically rewiring CPU circuits, to writing operation codes for general purpose prewired circuits, to writing assembler code to manage “memory addresses” which “compiles” to operation codes, to writing linguistic instructions to manage “memory” which compile to assembler code and finally, for the past 30 years, we have been using 4th generation high-level programming languages to define and model “objects” which compile to linguistic instructions which manage “memory”

and each time we make one of these kinds of abstractions, we do it to give people comprehension and audit control over underlying system components. Anecdotally (I lost the link) a programmer in the 70’s could not resolve a bug in his assembler program because of the complexity and - so the lore goes - he had to take LSD in order to be able to visualize the full program model (and solve the bug) but then with advent of higher level linguistic programming languages that level of complicated assembler programs simply went away as humans were not required to manually code assembler programs by hand

so yes we have a lot of bloated, inefficiently running software and part of the solution would be to offer better toolsets to manage that complexity with simpler human control system

historically, what happens with these technological quantum shuffles is that they solve the complexity of legacy problems (or problems already solved with legacy technologies) but the solution is more easily modified, elaborated on and extended by hand and so people use them to those ends and that introduces new, previously undiscovered complexities (which then are in need of an even higher level approach to manage and prevent from collapsing under their own weight)

really hope this makes sense to non-programmers... I did the best I could