Renevith

> You can't have your cake and eat it.

Unless you're a man.

I'm not sure if this is the exact situation you're referring to, but you do get interest sent to you if you later amend a tax return in your favor.

Source: I've filed a 1040X twice, both times in my favor (due to my own mistake I noticed on my own later). The IRS issued me a 1099-INT the next year for the interest they paid me. The rate was substantially above market!

Here's the latest: "... while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law." https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf

Previously: "Rent control policies generally lead to higher rents in the uncontrolled market, with rents some-times substantially higher than would be expected without rent control (i.e., between 10 to 25 percent higher). Over time, if rent control does not apply to new construction, there is some evidence that the impact on uncontrolled rents diminishes." https://www.nmhc.org/globalassets/knowledge-library/rent-con...

It also follows from supply and demand. Owners are more likely to sell rather than rent out their places, and tenants are more likely to stay in their below-market rent units, both of which reduces supply for new (i.e. market-rate) tenants.

If there weren't rent control, market rents would certainly be much lower, so it's really hard to say whether your aunt and uncle could afford it or not. Surely you weren't basing your statement on the current market rent in their neighborhood? On what basis are you making that claim?

I can see this being convenient. I'm surprised that json isn't one of the output formats for pgcli, given that there are already tons of formats including one optimized for Jira comments. (https://www.pgcli.com/)

Check out some newer playgrounds. Now that they have this soft rubbery ground, all the "dangerous" stuff is back! :-) I live within walking distance of two different parks that have all four of what you named, in San Francisco.

"You don't get less hate; you just bury it underground and give them they feeling like they're being persecuted. It will make the situation worse, not better."

I think the recent rise in white supremacist violence fueled by viral media on mainstream platforms like Youtube and Twitter is a pretty strong argument against this belief. Any content on such large and familiar platforms gets to borrow some sense of legitimacy, and people who consume the content have some plausible deniability. Furthermore, algorithms that favor "engagement" create the exact constrained hate-filled extremist communities you are picturing... but then actively draw users into them from the rest of the platform!

http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/how...

Having this content "above ground" is truly leading to more hate, not just making the existing hate more visible.

Indeed! It's not even a hypothetical in this case. According to the article, Zoom was just 5 days away from letting one of the domains expire when the author told them.

Yes, this is still true, and it's great. Within the songs and artists that typically play on my Pandora stations, it will play similar songs in clusters, with the exception that it won't play the exact same artist twice in close succession. This makes the playlist a lot better (in my opinion).

The only quirk I've noticed is when the same person has multiple bands... I've had it play Jack White or Les Claypool 4 times in a row, for example.

It's not incompliant when the user does it, as long as the user doesn't copy and distribute the results.

Others have already given examples of how languages with 1-indexed arrays handle this without awkwardness: end-inclusive ranges. I'll just add that end-inclusive ranges are the standard in natural language as well. For example: "Ages 2-4," "please read pages 16, 20 to 25, and 28 to 29," "1941-1945."

0-based indexing makes sense to me in C where arrays are just pointers and the index is an offset, and doing pointer math is a regular part of the programming experience. But most languages have come a long way from that, and collections such as arrays are much closer to a natural metaphor (a list of things). As such, natural ranges (inclusive) seem more appropriate to me.

It seems to be mostly about math, with the only mention of array indexing being that 0 looks nicer. "starting with 0, however, gives the nicer range 0 ≤ i < N. So let us let our ordinals start at zero"

This doesn't seem to be much of an argument so I'm not even sure what to address.

I think it's just supposed to carry the same meaning as "Denial is not a river in Egypt," which is: hey, denial is a real thing, and you're facing it right now.

I'm not the OP but I hope that helps.

Do you mean whole-world maps have Australia in the center? (I assume so, since obviously a map of only Australia would have Australia as the center...)

That's fascinating! I grew up in the US and I'm not sure I've ever used a world map with the US in the center. Curious where you got this impression. I can find some examples if I specifically search online, but they look very weird to me.

Every world map I grew up with has the US on the far left, presumably due to the convenience of splitting the map on the Pacific Ocean. The first example that came to my mind: https://i.imgur.com/FjBKD6k.jpg

It depends on the nature of the harm. If sedentary life reduced the typical lifespan from 70 to 50 (which would be dramatic) but didn't significantly affect your health during your 20s and 30s, it would have little to no effect on reproduction and thus would not be genetically selected.

Exactly, you need to rely on universal truths rather than symbols. The article has an example very similar to yours. They picture a man next to a small tree when he is exposed to the radiation, and then collapsed in agony next to a larger version of the same tree.

They additionally convey a "contamination" of radioactivity that stays with the man over time.

http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/WIPP%20Exhibit%...

Thanks for this tip! I've been achieving this by pointing a symlink at a subdirectory that only exists when the external drive is mounted, and having my backups target that symlink. But this seems cleaner.

That how the conspiracy-minded assume it works because it fits their world view better, but there's little evidence to support it. Insightful finance journalist (and former investment banker) Matt Levine often suggests that the revolving-door incentives are the reverse: Create tough and complicated regulations while you work at the SEC so that a big bank will have to hire you to help navigate those regulations.

Some examples where he has written about this issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11545117

Ironically, this "feature" prevented me from getting good access to Google's own services. I was only getting routed to a saturated Google datacenter (the NUQ range, e.g. nuq04s01-in-f1.1e100.net). When I just blocked all those servers, it detected that and sent me to another range of servers (LAX) that worked much faster... but I used Firefox every time I wanted to open Google Maps because that trick didn't work from Chrome!

I also feel concerts can be painfully loud without earplugs (though I find foam reduces the volume too much, so either we have different preferences or you aren't getting a good seal with the foam).

I have the exact Etymotic attenuating earplugs mentioned a few levels up. They don't reduce the volume as much as foam, but they reduce it enough for me, and the sound balance is much better. I can understand lyrics better with those earplugs than any other configuration I've tried, including no earplugs at all.

They aren't magic and they won't get the volume/balance perfect for you, but for $13 they are pretty great.

Yeah, I also struggled to figure out how it went wrong. Mann of course is a strong director, and the actors are (otherwise) quite good as well. Try Hemsworth in Rush, or Wei Tang in Lust, Caution if you want to see either of them really shine.

Though as you mentioned they weren't quite cast to type. And in Wei's case acting in a second language probably doesn't help. Still the whole thing really underperformed.

Disappointed that nobody has mentioned Blackhat yet. Although it was a terrible movie overall, the computer hacking parts were astoundingly accurate.

When the character needs to elude a police escort that can track his ankle bracelet with their smartphone, he tricks them into letting him have the phone for a sec and surreptitiously drops the update frequency in the tracking app to 24 hours.

When he needs to hack into the NSA, he uses insider knowledge of an employee's name/email and their boss's name/email to write a plausible spearphishing email with a 0-day PDF attachment.

I think there is also some good command-line activity on screen, though it's been long enough that I don't remember.

"The Atheist post seems to imply that they only sent 1 package to Michigan."

"In my experience, more people lie or are mistaken about their package delivery than packages actually being lost."

Read more carefully: they sent exactly two packages to each person, with the only difference being the tape. This isn't affected by some random customer complaining about a package being late or lost; these are people who are each reporting the arrival times of two packages.

"So 178 items sounds like a ridiculously limited amount of shipments to consider."

If you agree that each of the 89 pairs of packages are more or less independent, then we can use p-values to determine whether the results are significant based on the sample size. They are.

There are still plenty of systematic effects that could have affected the study by invalidating the assumption of independence between the 89 "trials." For example, if the customers all knew the purpose of the study, some of them may have intentionally mis-reported their result. So I agree that you can't reach a firm conclusion based on this one study. I just wanted to point out that many of the objections you raised don't seem to apply, and that this is a pretty interesting result not to be dismissed so lightly.

It's certainly illegal for brokers, exchanges, and fiduciaries, sure.

It's certainly not illegal for me to do it, if you happen to tell me your stop loss orders over beers, or if I predict people's stop loss orders using public information and/or a sophisticated model.

So which side of the line is Trigger on? They don't seem to be a broker, exchange, or fiduciary, and they wouldn't be getting the relevant information from those sources.

"The User acknowledges and agrees that upon posting or transmitting information [...] on the APP, the User assigns to the Company [...] all rights, interest and title in and to such information"

If you want to manage your money through a tech startup, I suggest choosing one that is a broker and/or has a fiduciary responsibility to you!

Ah, I did not realize that. Thanks for the info! Still, $250/500k untaxed is nothing to sneeze at. And long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income for someone who's making $100k.

> If you have a job that pays $100,000 and the taxes on your $250,000 house is $7,500 (3% property tax) and the tax quadruples to $30,000 in five years; why would you want the market fluctuations to be able to force an individual to leave their house?

I shed exactly zero tears for someone whose $250k property quadruples in value to $1m in five years. Sell the house and dance with joy at your (untaxed!) $750k capital gain.

The only argument for freezing tax assessments is to soak the new residents in favor of the current residents. It's a result of the absolute worst kind of democracy: voting to make other people pay more taxes.

You use the exact same design as iOS, but with unique keys in the hands of each device owner (in other words, a PIN or password) rather than one key in the hands of the vendor.

Holding bonds to maturity vs. selling them and buying new bonds doesn't actually change the financial result. You could equally say "just sell them and buy new higher-yielding bonds and there's no issue," since the resulting yield over the whole period would be equal.

Whether or not there's an issue depends whether your investment horizon matches your bond duration, or alternatively, whether you're comfortable with (or even aware of) the amount of rate risk you're taking compared with the return you're getting.

Not for 30 years. In fact, as of yesterday 12/15, the 30-year treasury rate was exactly 3.00%.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/i...

Creating additional demand for other goods is not valuable; quite the opposite: it's a cost that needs to be balanced against whatever ongoing value is being provided.