FWIW, I don't rate day traders much higher than I do HFT traders. Both are parasites....occasionally slightly useful, but not sufficiently enough so to justify their existence.
That didn't happen until after the cartilage was first damaged. Afterwards, things are different.
OTOH, there are many ways to damage cartilage. The most common one is probably habitually sitting too long in a chair. This deforms the shape, making it too thin in a place where it should be thicker. *This* makes it easier to tear. And after that, then running CAN damage you.
Not a real problem. Since it's just an exercycle I switched the pedals to non-clip pedals, and I just don't use clips. I don't use it that hard, or that often, so that seems a good enough solution.
FWIW, several brands of shoe come in my size, and probably even larger. And I'm sure that they could be ordered larger than the store normally carries.
I was really just expressing my astonishment that pedals with clips were all too small.
OK. What I know is that exercise doesn't make me feel better or happier.
Now this was true even before I had injured myself exercising, so I don't believe that this is due to injuries or physical disabilities. And at one point I was on the track team, so I HAVE exercised sufficiently to have experienced the effect were it present. (I clearly don't do that anymore, and the injury is only one of the reasons.)
OTOH, if I remember back to when I was 8, the effect was then present. Perhaps it was social reinforcement? (I didn't experience that on the track team, as I was never speedy, merely strong. So my area was shot-put. And even there I wasn't exceptionally good. But we all trained at all the events... except pole-vaulting. Only a couple of people trained for that.)
So they need a better moderation system. This means that they need to start with a reliable coterie of users to whom the award moderator priviledges. Better not give the priviledges too often, or they'll get boring. So you need more moderators. (Start to sound familiar?)
Slashdot actually does a very good job on this. Not perfect, but quite good. The moderation system needs some editorial supervision, and people should be warned if they are doing a poor job. And I'd prefer that there be two independent categories of moderation. One for "worthwhile" and another for "tone", where things that are overly strident get marked down, and things that are reasonable get marked up, with a moderate position in between. Then there could be a double filter, one that could be used to moderate out stupid comments, and another that could be used to allow through only a selected range of stridencies. Presumable True would rate highly on worthwhile, but would often be filtered out because it was boring.
Handles (pseudonyms) are superior to anonymity for that purpose, though. This is only true, however, as long as handles are relatively anonymous. Once handles are closely tied to names, then true anonymity is again superior.
Unhhhh.... I really doubt that "Anonymous Coward" is actually anonymous to anyone except the readers. It must, at least, be associated with an IP address prior to the send button being pressed, and I really doubt that the logs are purged immediately. Anyway, if the stream is being monitored at the ISP, as reported, the information will be there.
IOW, if you were in IT, and actually had that kind of fear, then you wouldn't be posting. Unless, perhaps, you are posting from a coffeehouse, and I doubt the security of that, also, though that's less certain.
I don't know whether you are ignorant or a troll, but if you are ignorant, you probably shouldn't be posting here.
Laziness is generally due to someone not seeing that working hard is in their own interest. This is why servants and slaves are always "lazy". This is why bureaucrats are often lazy. Because doing their job well doesn't benefit them.
Now, admittedly, laundry is a different problem. Perhaps it's a sign that the person with the problem has been spending the entire day at a job were they are not rewarded for perfoming well, and as the mental attitude is not consciously chosen, it also can't be consciously shucked. Or maybe they just don't see any benefit to themselves in doing th laundry. Do they also neglect to eat dinner?
In my house the exercise bike has stuff piled on it in late spring, and the stuff stays there until the rains start. Then it's pulled off, and used occasionally until the bad weather is over. But it's NEVER used regularly. Or for long at a time.
You don't need for "most exercise" to lead to injury, for "exercise over time leads to injury" to be true. Just do something wrong once, and you may never recover. I tore a kee cartilage. Nothing serious. Only problem is that knee cartilage never repairs itself. So now my knee was weaker. And this lead to another injury, which tore it a bit more....
So far this has happened three times, and I really don't want it to happen a fourth time, so if you don't mind, I'll use handrails to bear my weight when going up or down stairs, and I won't run, and when going downhill, I'll go very slowly. Actually, the pain causes me to limit my walking more than that cursory list indicates.
Your opinion strikes me as both ignorant and arrogant, though of course it's impossible to be sure with a limited text message.
FWIW, when I went looking for pedals with clips on them, I couldn't find any that would fit my feet. Fortunately it was only for an exercycle, but GEE, my feet aren't THAT big. I'm only size 15. Big, yes, but not really unusually big.
OTOH, the way I injured MY knee was improper yoga. Then I exacerberated it by hiking a few years later. Now.... well, I mentioned an exercycle. Yes, I have one. But I really hate using it. So instead, if the weather is at all decent, I walk for half an hour a day. Which isn't enough, but it's about all I can take over a period of time. (If I do something that I dislike very much, I won't keep doing it.)
FWIW, my brain doesn't release endorphins when I exercise. I don't know how common this is, but you might want to consider that there might be a large number of people for whom this is true...most of whom are those who choose not to exercise.
You are believing the government figures. It's considerably higher than that, though I can't give you reliable figures. My guess would be it's around 20%, but that could be either an over or an under estimate, and I don't know by how much.
Government unemployment figures have been admitted to be manipulated to give the desired value since around 1980, so it's probably been happening for a lot longer than that. As election time approaches they will often redefine the way that unemployment is calculated so that they can claim that they've reduced unemployment. (They don't go back and recalculate the historical numbers, so you can't know what the figures really mean.)
You could also look at the way they calculate the money supply. That's another place where they use slippery calculations to make themselves look good to those who care to look at the numbers, with no real way to tie them to anything actual.
OTOH, AFAIK the census bureau produces honest numbers. Despite those numbers being used to define the boundaries of electoral districts.
Good for you. I, however, have a bad knee, which I injured doing exercise. In my 30's. There was no gym next door to where I worked. Etc.
It's also true that even though I was once on the track team I have NEVER gotten ANY enjoyment in exercise...well, not since I was around 8. I have a profound envy of those who do, but I despise them when they claim that I "should" exercise.
Yes, I would be healthier were I to exercise more, provided that didn't involve bending my knee or standing on my feet. But their enjoyment of their exercise doesn't entitle them to claim that I would feel better were I to exercise. As it is I try to walk half and hour or more every day, but even that much isn't a pleasure, and I do my utmost to distract myself from the process.
He wasn't even convincing at that. I believe that he did it at the time that he did it. This is in no way proof that he would be successful were he to try it today. Lots more information would be needed.
(Even believing that he did what he says he did when he did it is giving him credit that he may well not deserve. Repeated questioning by various posters has illuminated various costs and penalties that his original statement didn't imply, and we have no reason to believe that they have all been revealed. You may claim "Well, he didn't say that there weren't other things you need to do or have" and that would be true. But his implication was that he had revealed the way, and by concealing [i.e., not revealing] obstacles and requirements he is effectively lying. And laws may well have changed since he did whatever he did, so it may no longer be legal. Or perhaps it was illegal then, and he just got away with it. [This often happens in perfect innocence, as there are so many laws on the books that nobody knows them all.])
There's even more to it than that. It also requires good timing, which can largely depend on luck. E.g., I retired slightly early, but this turned out to be a very good thing, because a year later all the benefits were cut. I couldn't have planned it. It was luck, albeit I, and many others, had gotten a bit nervous when we looked at the direction the employer was headed. Some retired earlier than I did, and by picking a safer route, reaped fewer benefits. Some couldn't retire yet, and ended up being punished for hanging on. Some gambled that it wouldn't be so soon, and lost. I had about 6 months to a year leeway, so I would have been a bit better off if I had hung on for another 3 months. I couldn't tell. The final timing may have been due to the stock market crash. Anybody could predict that was coming, but nobody could say when.
So planning doesn't suffice. Comitment doesn't suffice. Etc. You can try to manage the factors that you can control, but there are also external factors that you can neither affect or forsee.
Please note that I don't mean to denigrate your chosen path. It works for you. But among the factors that has enabled it to work is luck.
P.S.: With enough luck even a lousy plan can work. And some successful people will reccommend lousy plans because "It worked for me".
Sorry, but we don''t *know* it wasn't an accident. We suspect that it wasn't. It may be a very strong suspicion, but that's not proof. A public appology would be a strong case that they regretted the action, but I can't think of anything that would count as proof that it was an accident.
OTOH, I don't even expect a public appology. And THAT'S not proof that it was intentional. Proof that it was intentional would require something like a note from a manager to the legal department, which isn't to be expected even if it happened.
At the moment you can reasonably decide either to believe them, or to consider them bare-fced liars (or both). The evidence isn't conclusive.
It's also true that if you issue a DMCA takedown request in "good faith belief" that it's at the behest of the copyright owner, then no penalties apply. And if you are a lawyer (or clerk?) you are allowed to have a good faith belief in you client (employer?) even if he has often misrepresented his ownership previously. And the person requesting the issuance of the DMCA takedown notice has NO penalty, even if it can be shown to be malicious.
I think you may be optimistic. Much of the change is already inevitable due to high levels of CO2 already in place and rising ocean temperatures. That commission normally makes predictions that are as conservative as reasonably justifiable, or even a bit more conservative. Historically (well, a short history) they've underestimated both the current temperatures and the predictions. They go out of their way to avoid appearing alarmist.
If they predict a conceivable rise of 3 feet by the end of the century, then one should assume that a rise of 6 feet is probable. (Well, after all that *is* a rise of more than 3 feet.)
Probably a rise of, say, 1.5 feet is already committed to, even if we were to totally cease contributing CO2 to the atmosphere today. And that's clearly not going to happen. (I am not a climate scientist, so that's a WAG. But SOME rise is guaranteed based on already commited values.)
The only possible alternatives would involve quite speculative terraforming. If the albedo of the poles could be raised, e.g., that would help significantly. (We need to increase the difference in temperatures between the poles and the equator, and it's been decreasing, slowing the jet-stream, among other problems. This is why most sun-shade proposals are "bad idea"s.)
Yeah, and those maps were generally accurate before a lot of current construction, creek re-routing, etc. were done.
IOW, don't trust them at all. They may give a hint, but examine the land as it is now, and be accompanied by a decent hyrorlogist (who will probably refuse to give an opinion without taking sample cores in many places).
FWIW, I currently live on a hilltop that's marked at in the 100 year flood plain. This is because before the creek was re-routed it flowed through a small valley that is now a street. It was rerouted about 200 yards away (at this point) and there's a set of small hills between here and there. And it's in a deep channel. The heaviest of recent (decades) rains hasn't resulted in ANY significant flow down our street, much less any flooding. This is true even when the creek has significantly overflowed it's banks.
So I have reason to doubt those maps, even though they MAY be correct, if there's been no significant local "terraforming".
Corn ethanol fuel was NEVER intended as a solution. It was intended as a political sop to the mid-west agricultural combines that wouldn't cause massive upset to the green folks. I've never heard a green activist of any stripe support it, but they don't feel comfortable denouncing it either.
In fact, most of the "green" actions of the US govt (I can't speak for Europe, but I suspect the same of them) were actions primarily directed to achieve political goals, and frequently didn't have any significant genuine ecological content. OTOH, governments can't micro-manage well, and so if they need to make decisions about, say, CFL lights vs. incadescent, they can't chose the decisions that are optimal in local situations (say your attic). Unless you want them to try to develop techniques for micormanaging you shouldn't ask them to. (I'm sure they are devoting effort into doing so already, but should that really have political support?)
It's like health care. There are good solutions and bad solutions, and the government ignores that distinction to focus on the solutions that benefit campaign contributors. Even though the idea of an insurance model is clearly stupid for that kind of problem, the contributors like the insurance model, because that allows the insurance companies to make money. If you want to use an insurance model, then the default insurance company should clearly be the government, and it should clearly cover everyone who doesn't explicitly opt-out of it. (Public health measures are much more effective if they are applied to everyone. Everyone is required to have a sewer connection, you can't just flush your toilet out into your yard....except in very special circumstances, when a spetic tank system is suitable.)
I would guess, without checking, that the quote is from Stalin. If so, I deny that he was ever a communist. He was a gangster, who was also good at political manipulation. Even the government he was manipulating wasn't communist, though it was trying, at least officially.
FWIW, there has never been a communist group ruling more than a small village. This is because the system doesn't scale at all well, and only works when EVERYONE knows EVERYONE. (Not everyone needs to be trusted, but you need to know how much trust to give to everyone.) Even Oneida didn't work after it got too successful. I think that was mainly a problem of size, but it could also have been wealth. Perhaps communism only works amoung groups that are really poor, as I can't think of any counter-examples.
Marx was trying to scale up something that doesn't scale well. For a really small group it may well be a nearly optimum choice. (The best, of course, is the "good king" model, but this requires a terminally violent recall method if the current kind ceases to be good.)
As an earlier post suggested, this may be a number determined by tax laws. If high profits result in high taxes, then the money is likely to be spent on things that, while benefical, reduce the profits. What things are likely to depend on what they can buy from their parent corporation, or from other companies owned by their parent corporation.
N.B.: I'm not asserting that this is true. I am, however, asserting that one shouldn't put too much trust in that number.
Slashdot Mirror
FWIW, I don't rate day traders much higher than I do HFT traders. Both are parasites....occasionally slightly useful, but not sufficiently enough so to justify their existence.
That didn't happen until after the cartilage was first damaged. Afterwards, things are different.
OTOH, there are many ways to damage cartilage. The most common one is probably habitually sitting too long in a chair. This deforms the shape, making it too thin in a place where it should be thicker. *This* makes it easier to tear. And after that, then running CAN damage you.
Not a real problem. Since it's just an exercycle I switched the pedals to non-clip pedals, and I just don't use clips. I don't use it that hard, or that often, so that seems a good enough solution.
FWIW, several brands of shoe come in my size, and probably even larger. And I'm sure that they could be ordered larger than the store normally carries.
I was really just expressing my astonishment that pedals with clips were all too small.
OK. What I know is that exercise doesn't make me feel better or happier.
Now this was true even before I had injured myself exercising, so I don't believe that this is due to injuries or physical disabilities. And at one point I was on the track team, so I HAVE exercised sufficiently to have experienced the effect were it present. (I clearly don't do that anymore, and the injury is only one of the reasons.)
OTOH, if I remember back to when I was 8, the effect was then present. Perhaps it was social reinforcement? (I didn't experience that on the track team, as I was never speedy, merely strong. So my area was shot-put. And even there I wasn't exceptionally good. But we all trained at all the events ... except pole-vaulting. Only a couple of people trained for that.)
So they need a better moderation system. This means that they need to start with a reliable coterie of users to whom the award moderator priviledges. Better not give the priviledges too often, or they'll get boring. So you need more moderators. (Start to sound familiar?)
Slashdot actually does a very good job on this. Not perfect, but quite good. The moderation system needs some editorial supervision, and people should be warned if they are doing a poor job. And I'd prefer that there be two independent categories of moderation. One for "worthwhile" and another for "tone", where things that are overly strident get marked down, and things that are reasonable get marked up, with a moderate position in between. Then there could be a double filter, one that could be used to moderate out stupid comments, and another that could be used to allow through only a selected range of stridencies. Presumable True would rate highly on worthwhile, but would often be filtered out because it was boring.
Handles (pseudonyms) are superior to anonymity for that purpose, though. This is only true, however, as long as handles are relatively anonymous. Once handles are closely tied to names, then true anonymity is again superior.
Well, in the 1930's, I believe it was, and elevator operator got hired because of his physics papers. IIRC his name was Fremi.
Unhhhh.... I really doubt that "Anonymous Coward" is actually anonymous to anyone except the readers. It must, at least, be associated with an IP address prior to the send button being pressed, and I really doubt that the logs are purged immediately. Anyway, if the stream is being monitored at the ISP, as reported, the information will be there.
IOW, if you were in IT, and actually had that kind of fear, then you wouldn't be posting. Unless, perhaps, you are posting from a coffeehouse, and I doubt the security of that, also, though that's less certain.
I don't know whether you are ignorant or a troll, but if you are ignorant, you probably shouldn't be posting here.
Laziness is generally due to someone not seeing that working hard is in their own interest. This is why servants and slaves are always "lazy". This is why bureaucrats are often lazy. Because doing their job well doesn't benefit them.
Now, admittedly, laundry is a different problem. Perhaps it's a sign that the person with the problem has been spending the entire day at a job were they are not rewarded for perfoming well, and as the mental attitude is not consciously chosen, it also can't be consciously shucked. Or maybe they just don't see any benefit to themselves in doing th laundry. Do they also neglect to eat dinner?
In my house the exercise bike has stuff piled on it in late spring, and the stuff stays there until the rains start. Then it's pulled off, and used occasionally until the bad weather is over. But it's NEVER used regularly. Or for long at a time.
You don't need for "most exercise" to lead to injury, for "exercise over time leads to injury" to be true. Just do something wrong once, and you may never recover. I tore a kee cartilage. Nothing serious. Only problem is that knee cartilage never repairs itself. So now my knee was weaker. And this lead to another injury, which tore it a bit more. ...
So far this has happened three times, and I really don't want it to happen a fourth time, so if you don't mind, I'll use handrails to bear my weight when going up or down stairs, and I won't run, and when going downhill, I'll go very slowly. Actually, the pain causes me to limit my walking more than that cursory list indicates.
Your opinion strikes me as both ignorant and arrogant, though of course it's impossible to be sure with a limited text message.
FWIW, when I went looking for pedals with clips on them, I couldn't find any that would fit my feet. Fortunately it was only for an exercycle, but GEE, my feet aren't THAT big. I'm only size 15. Big, yes, but not really unusually big.
OTOH, the way I injured MY knee was improper yoga. Then I exacerberated it by hiking a few years later. Now.... well, I mentioned an exercycle. Yes, I have one. But I really hate using it. So instead, if the weather is at all decent, I walk for half an hour a day. Which isn't enough, but it's about all I can take over a period of time. (If I do something that I dislike very much, I won't keep doing it.)
FWIW, my brain doesn't release endorphins when I exercise. I don't know how common this is, but you might want to consider that there might be a large number of people for whom this is true...most of whom are those who choose not to exercise.
You are believing the government figures. It's considerably higher than that, though I can't give you reliable figures. My guess would be it's around 20%, but that could be either an over or an under estimate, and I don't know by how much.
Government unemployment figures have been admitted to be manipulated to give the desired value since around 1980, so it's probably been happening for a lot longer than that. As election time approaches they will often redefine the way that unemployment is calculated so that they can claim that they've reduced unemployment. (They don't go back and recalculate the historical numbers, so you can't know what the figures really mean.)
You could also look at the way they calculate the money supply. That's another place where they use slippery calculations to make themselves look good to those who care to look at the numbers, with no real way to tie them to anything actual.
OTOH, AFAIK the census bureau produces honest numbers. Despite those numbers being used to define the boundaries of electoral districts.
Good for you. I, however, have a bad knee, which I injured doing exercise. In my 30's. There was no gym next door to where I worked. Etc.
It's also true that even though I was once on the track team I have NEVER gotten ANY enjoyment in exercise...well, not since I was around 8. I have a profound envy of those who do, but I despise them when they claim that I "should" exercise.
Yes, I would be healthier were I to exercise more, provided that didn't involve bending my knee or standing on my feet. But their enjoyment of their exercise doesn't entitle them to claim that I would feel better were I to exercise. As it is I try to walk half and hour or more every day, but even that much isn't a pleasure, and I do my utmost to distract myself from the process.
He wasn't even convincing at that. I believe that he did it at the time that he did it. This is in no way proof that he would be successful were he to try it today. Lots more information would be needed.
(Even believing that he did what he says he did when he did it is giving him credit that he may well not deserve. Repeated questioning by various posters has illuminated various costs and penalties that his original statement didn't imply, and we have no reason to believe that they have all been revealed. You may claim "Well, he didn't say that there weren't other things you need to do or have" and that would be true. But his implication was that he had revealed the way, and by concealing [i.e., not revealing] obstacles and requirements he is effectively lying. And laws may well have changed since he did whatever he did, so it may no longer be legal. Or perhaps it was illegal then, and he just got away with it. [This often happens in perfect innocence, as there are so many laws on the books that nobody knows them all.])
There's even more to it than that. It also requires good timing, which can largely depend on luck. E.g., I retired slightly early, but this turned out to be a very good thing, because a year later all the benefits were cut. I couldn't have planned it. It was luck, albeit I, and many others, had gotten a bit nervous when we looked at the direction the employer was headed. Some retired earlier than I did, and by picking a safer route, reaped fewer benefits. Some couldn't retire yet, and ended up being punished for hanging on. Some gambled that it wouldn't be so soon, and lost. I had about 6 months to a year leeway, so I would have been a bit better off if I had hung on for another 3 months. I couldn't tell. The final timing may have been due to the stock market crash. Anybody could predict that was coming, but nobody could say when.
So planning doesn't suffice. Comitment doesn't suffice. Etc. You can try to manage the factors that you can control, but there are also external factors that you can neither affect or forsee.
Please note that I don't mean to denigrate your chosen path. It works for you. But among the factors that has enabled it to work is luck.
P.S.: With enough luck even a lousy plan can work. And some successful people will reccommend lousy plans because "It worked for me".
Sorry, but we don''t *know* it wasn't an accident. We suspect that it wasn't. It may be a very strong suspicion, but that's not proof. A public appology would be a strong case that they regretted the action, but I can't think of anything that would count as proof that it was an accident.
OTOH, I don't even expect a public appology. And THAT'S not proof that it was intentional. Proof that it was intentional would require something like a note from a manager to the legal department, which isn't to be expected even if it happened.
At the moment you can reasonably decide either to believe them, or to consider them bare-fced liars (or both). The evidence isn't conclusive.
It's also true that if you issue a DMCA takedown request in "good faith belief" that it's at the behest of the copyright owner, then no penalties apply. And if you are a lawyer (or clerk?) you are allowed to have a good faith belief in you client (employer?) even if he has often misrepresented his ownership previously. And the person requesting the issuance of the DMCA takedown notice has NO penalty, even if it can be shown to be malicious.
So individuals are at a decided disadvantage.
I think you may be optimistic. Much of the change is already inevitable due to high levels of CO2 already in place and rising ocean temperatures. That commission normally makes predictions that are as conservative as reasonably justifiable, or even a bit more conservative. Historically (well, a short history) they've underestimated both the current temperatures and the predictions. They go out of their way to avoid appearing alarmist.
If they predict a conceivable rise of 3 feet by the end of the century, then one should assume that a rise of 6 feet is probable. (Well, after all that *is* a rise of more than 3 feet.)
Probably a rise of, say, 1.5 feet is already committed to, even if we were to totally cease contributing CO2 to the atmosphere today. And that's clearly not going to happen. (I am not a climate scientist, so that's a WAG. But SOME rise is guaranteed based on already commited values.)
The only possible alternatives would involve quite speculative terraforming. If the albedo of the poles could be raised, e.g., that would help significantly. (We need to increase the difference in temperatures between the poles and the equator, and it's been decreasing, slowing the jet-stream, among other problems. This is why most sun-shade proposals are "bad idea"s.)
Yeah, and those maps were generally accurate before a lot of current construction, creek re-routing, etc. were done.
IOW, don't trust them at all. They may give a hint, but examine the land as it is now, and be accompanied by a decent hyrorlogist (who will probably refuse to give an opinion without taking sample cores in many places).
FWIW, I currently live on a hilltop that's marked at in the 100 year flood plain. This is because before the creek was re-routed it flowed through a small valley that is now a street. It was rerouted about 200 yards away (at this point) and there's a set of small hills between here and there. And it's in a deep channel. The heaviest of recent (decades) rains hasn't resulted in ANY significant flow down our street, much less any flooding. This is true even when the creek has significantly overflowed it's banks.
So I have reason to doubt those maps, even though they MAY be correct, if there's been no significant local "terraforming".
Corn ethanol fuel was NEVER intended as a solution. It was intended as a political sop to the mid-west agricultural combines that wouldn't cause massive upset to the green folks. I've never heard a green activist of any stripe support it, but they don't feel comfortable denouncing it either.
In fact, most of the "green" actions of the US govt (I can't speak for Europe, but I suspect the same of them) were actions primarily directed to achieve political goals, and frequently didn't have any significant genuine ecological content. OTOH, governments can't micro-manage well, and so if they need to make decisions about, say, CFL lights vs. incadescent, they can't chose the decisions that are optimal in local situations (say your attic). Unless you want them to try to develop techniques for micormanaging you shouldn't ask them to. (I'm sure they are devoting effort into doing so already, but should that really have political support?)
It's like health care. There are good solutions and bad solutions, and the government ignores that distinction to focus on the solutions that benefit campaign contributors. Even though the idea of an insurance model is clearly stupid for that kind of problem, the contributors like the insurance model, because that allows the insurance companies to make money. If you want to use an insurance model, then the default insurance company should clearly be the government, and it should clearly cover everyone who doesn't explicitly opt-out of it. (Public health measures are much more effective if they are applied to everyone. Everyone is required to have a sewer connection, you can't just flush your toilet out into your yard....except in very special circumstances, when a spetic tank system is suitable.)
I would guess, without checking, that the quote is from Stalin. If so, I deny that he was ever a communist. He was a gangster, who was also good at political manipulation. Even the government he was manipulating wasn't communist, though it was trying, at least officially.
FWIW, there has never been a communist group ruling more than a small village. This is because the system doesn't scale at all well, and only works when EVERYONE knows EVERYONE. (Not everyone needs to be trusted, but you need to know how much trust to give to everyone.) Even Oneida didn't work after it got too successful. I think that was mainly a problem of size, but it could also have been wealth. Perhaps communism only works amoung groups that are really poor, as I can't think of any counter-examples.
Marx was trying to scale up something that doesn't scale well. For a really small group it may well be a nearly optimum choice. (The best, of course, is the "good king" model, but this requires a terminally violent recall method if the current kind ceases to be good.)
What will he tell the IRS? That could get tricky. And if he doesn't pay his protection money, the feds could get impatient with him.
He'd better have really thought things through.
As an earlier post suggested, this may be a number determined by tax laws. If high profits result in high taxes, then the money is likely to be spent on things that, while benefical, reduce the profits. What things are likely to depend on what they can buy from their parent corporation, or from other companies owned by their parent corporation.
N.B.: I'm not asserting that this is true. I am, however, asserting that one shouldn't put too much trust in that number.