u/karmics______

Planning to get a decent amount of games for summer sale. I was planning to build a pc but the ssd and ram inflation still hasn’t gone down. Heaviest games I’d likely play consistently are Cuberpunk 2077 and Baldurs gate 3. Other than that the resident evil and tomb raider remakes just to completion. Other games are lighter indie titles. I don’t have a 4k monitor and I’m not huge into other current gen AAA titles so would performance tier be the best for me?

Want to build my first pc after my decade old laptop just isn’t cutting it for entertainment.

Use cases: general office workspace, maybe some blender rendering. Mostly gaming with friends

Heaviest games: Cyberpunk 2077, Baldurs Gate 3. Otherwise mostly co-op in games like phasmaphobia/dead by daylight, and indie titles like hollow knight.

Would like 60 fps 1440p on heavier titles

Parts:
micro center bundle: 350 for Ryzen 5 7500x3d, ASRock B850M-C, 16 gb ddr5

GPU: I’m seeing 9060xt 16gb for 390 at the closest microcenter, but I’ve read that Walmart had a flash sale for the 9070xt for $550 but I’m not seeing it anymore, currently at $660 would it be worth waiting to see if the price drops again?

Case+cooler+psu: No opinions, don’t care about aesthetics at all, fine with ugly if it’s cheaper and better cooling

Got accepted to both, would like guidance on which to choose. I got a 45% scholarship for Boston and 2500 per credit hour contingent on merit/progression for NW. Career goal is to eventually enter HEOR/Value/Market access roles in pharma.

From the Midwest so Northwestern would be closer to family and friends and Chicago rent seems to be cheaper/potentially being able to stay with relatives. Downsides I see are that it’s part time across 2 years while Boston could be done in 1-1.5 years and has a better rank.

Co-ops seem to be a go to model for workers management but a lot of criticism revolves around perverse incentives. The only country that tried it at large scale was Yugoslavia with what was effectively state owned co-ops. Workers leased capital from the state but chose how to divide profits and wages, this contributed to a wage price spiral, chronic underinvestment, and underemployment. However, I think there are a few “easy” ways to solve this to make it more scalable

1. Wage restraint: the Nordic model may not be socialist but they do have progressive outcomes, one way they did this is actually by wage restraint. As part of the bargaining process in places like Norway, the “competitive” industry, in this case manufacturing, gets to bargain with employers first and that sets a benchmark that other sectors cannot go above. It doesn’t specifically need to be the manufacturing industry but a benchmark to ensure wages don’t outpace real productivity helps prevent wage price spirals
2. Gainsharing: basically water high mark to water gains or operational cost savings should be passed on to workers to incentivize efficiency while profits that don’t come from gains increases are still owned by the public
3. Full cost expensing: this is effectively a cash flow tax or “consumption” tax on firms. Total revenue minus capital and labor expenses. The benefit of this in general is that it lets the public tax economic profits “windfalls” of firms without reducing investment

In the case of a cooperative I’d argue the labor expense for worker-owners shouldn’t be deducted since they would otherwise continue to shift profits into wages instead of the public or into reinvestment.

Non-owner-worker expenses could also be deducted to increase hiring, but to prevent fraud like a coop hiring family members as nonowners and then giving them a large wage to get a deduction, strong tax authority would be needed.

4. Membership markets: This is basically a way for workers to buy into the coop in a way that incentivizes co-ops to hire in order to maximize output instead of just output per worker and reduce under employment

https://www.emerald.com/jpeo/article/3/2-3/135/252598/On-some-alleged-problems-and-alleged-solutions-in

5. Shut down unproductive firms. This sounds obvious but for whatever reason Yugoslavia chose to keep unproductive firms active

What do you think? Should allow for social ownership and growth of capital gains while maintaining worker management, high investment, and low unemployment

It seems to me pure random sampling could lead to distortions that are non proportional to the actual ideological alignment of the population ie a population that is a population that is 40% blue, 30 green, 20 yellow, and 10 red could end up with some over represented and others under. This would also bleed into committee assignments if those are chosen by Sortition too

What are your takes on having partisan declarations so that way there can be guaranteed quotas, ie it would be rational of me declare a party because otherwise I or people similar to my ideology would potentially have a lower chance of being chosen than if I stayed independent.

The strike seems to be polarizing people based on people stating that we must defend union no matter what vs they’re already well compensated and potentially overcompensated

Using a performance based serial dictatorship mechanism can increase tax revenue growth in Pakistan up to 30-41%. Do any first world countries use mechanisms like this? If not, should they? It seems like jobs where there’s a big difference in location quality could provide a strong performance incentive without even needing to increase compensation.

What would you think of a PR system, where instead of having party leaders choose like in closed list or have voters directly choose in open list the candidates are randomly drawn from voluntary party membership? Maybe even make party leadership mandated to be Sortition like how Germany requires parties to have a basic democratic structure.