fsckboy

>Factual statements about bad employers

and how is this hypothetical website you're hyping supposed to uncover the factuality of statements random people from the internet are posting?

>Polestar is done in the U.S. market. Its sister brand Volvo, owned by the same Chinese parent company, was spared. No one has explained why. The U.S. Federal Government is meddling with the automotive industry, the free market, and capitalism.

I'm not saying "trust the government", not at all. But meddling in China trade is absolutely not meddling with the free market.

i want a sleep app that reads me things that will put me to sleep, but i need it to track when i may have gone to sleep, or more importantly when I have not, so i can restart the next night past the point i've listened to. but it needs to be some crazy simple UI, i don't want the light on my phone to turn on, i don't want to fiddle, just skip forward, skip back, that's about it

there's all sorts of stuff that is dry but interesting that I'd like to plow through over time, a few paragraphs a day would suit me fine

what was that item from just a day or so ago where an opensource project had said they developed using AI, and a developer said "take it down, you copied it from us"

I thought of it because this project said they used AI

( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48085993 )

>The political compass always felt like the wrong tool to convey something as nuanced as personal politics

the (I'm going to call it so-called) political compass is a very crude instrument, really it's just "are you libertarian or authoritarian?" as if that's even a spectrum: libertarians are authoritarian about enforcing private contracts, and literally nobody else wants to live their life by private contracts, it's some weird asperger's notion of socializing.

a much more useful political map is the old fiscal and social orthogonal axes, each with the scales "liberal to conservative" where libertarians are fiscally conservative socially liberal.

plagiarism, with heavy sanctions, of self is of course ridiculous, but having as a standard that you should cite yourself when doing it is not a bad standard. As a reader, it might trigger a "where have I read this before" reaction which is akin to confusion; also having notice that there is another paper on this topic could be quite useful.

companies spend money on things, but those things need to be classified as expenses or assets. Items that are not expected to have a value in the future (box of post-it notes, pencils, electricity...) are expensed in the present. Assets are longer term items that will be involved in the creation of wealth/value, so they appear on the balance sheet of a company to give investors an idea of the value of the "wealth creating assets".

https://accountinguide.com/difference-between-assets-and-exp...

"Assets are the resources that have future economic value and they are belong and under the control of the company. They are expected to provide future economic benefits to the company. Assets are presented on the balance sheet which can be current assets and noncurrent assets."

also

https://quickbooks.intuit.com/learn-support/en-us/help-artic...

"Assets are things your business owns that have long-term value, like property or equipment. Their cost is spread out over time. Expenses are costs of daily operations that are used up quickly, such as rent or utilities, and are fully deducted when they occur."

https://www.uschamber.com/co/run/finance/assets-vs-expenses

"To be considered an asset, the item must maintain its worth for at least one year after acquisition."

the wrong technology was at fault.

>That's a strange way to phrase things.

no, not really, you have to order it chronologically: charging interest was verboten and in law it was called usury. later, interest was deemed ok... but charging too much interest was to be sanctioned and usury was a handy word to use.

>Their valuations are always based on expectations of huge growth, not current value. Growth predictions with an extremely low confidence level. VCs make up for it by making a lot of bets.

all valuations are based on expectations of the future, that's what the stock market is. Except VC valuations which are based on how much money was invested, extended to cover all the equity rather than just what was purchased. However, the amount of money invested was calculated based on expectations for the future.

the definition of the term "asset" is "something expected to have a value in the future"

traditional usage of usury was the same, any interest charges at a rate above the lawful ceiling, just where the ceiling was 0% for christians and in a like manner for moslems.

this statement is literally true: this dinosaur has a soar throat.

>the West was complaining about surveillance and scoring system of citizens in China

free speech, civil liberties, voting, are in China all well below the standards of the west. The criticism and complaints were completely warranted and are still true today, whereas your comment falsely implies there is some parity.

could your comment be repaired to be reasonable? why bother, just read the rest of this discussion where people are debating these controls without trying to exonerate China.

I'm not aware that there is any method to dramatically increase SAT scores (and neither IQ test scores). could you point me to your sources?

>Copyright is primarily about protecting your ecconomic rights

no, copyright is about creating an economic right where one didn't exist before.

there are many non profits that rely on volunteer labor, but they still need funds to operate, amounts of $10k can move the needle quite effectively

i guarantee you it was a stock transfer, that's where the real tax write-offs come in.

you give a $200k donation, get a $200k writeoff, saves you about 50% (100K) in taxes you owe, so it's like the government is kicking in $100k and you are kicking in $100k and whatever the govt would otherwise spend the $100K on goes unfunded.

>This is why awards need to be based on % of total assets or revenue of the defendant.

yes! and we need to add the death penalty to the list of punishments for children, because what matters is not the size of the crime, but the harshness of enforcement, that's the real deterrent, arewerite!?

>(Emacs 'windows' are actually more like frames in other apps)

I dont use your "other apps" enough to know exactly what you mean, but it gives me the urge to point out, "Emacs 'frames' are actually more like windows in other apps" :)

"current project is a “Diesel punk” vehicle called the Starfield Dragonwing Intergalactic Speedster"

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DXfDQb7EmU4/

>I do not understand what you mean by "overcorrecting WAY too far".

you wrote this, and I would call this "attempting to correct any misconception":

>This is a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government.

I'm saying that your formulation is not much better than what you are arguing against because you neglect graduated income tax. It's not because rich people have more money, it's because they are taxed at much higher rates, and lower income people are hardly taxed at all.

>We are almost two decades into the age of billionaire philanthropy

10 decades, Rockefeller was the first billionaire 100 yrs ago, and also a philanthropist.

>700k. Still a ton of money, but very very far off from a billion

that 700K is income, but the billion is assets.

earning 700K is the income from $10 million in the stock market (although working to earn $700K is in exchange for you time while the income from $10 mil is passive. OTOH people with the work ethic to earn like that tend to like what they do.

a billion in the stock market is $70 million a year, a large number but far from a billion.

TLDR: 700K compares to a billion 1 in 1000, but the truth is closer to 1 in 100

>a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government

you're overcorrecting WAY too far. Tax rate percentages are much higher on high income people, and THAT is why they pay most of the federal budget, it's forced generosity paying the government.

and it's actually the top 20% who dominate income and taxes, but including that extra 19% is important because that is the class of people ("coastal elites") who have a (all too human) tendency to rig the system in favor of their children in terms of good schools, universities, learning high status pasttimes, "internships" at prestigious institutions, rent paid in high value/opportunity areas after university etc. These high income people basically earn their livings from the 1%.

(that should not be interpreted as a pure sign of oligopoly, capitalist markets measure productivity, and that's how it works out, production in these industries is highly valued by the populace, but turnover of these people is high, where the top of the list is almost invariably new people each generation.)

>rarely seen in the US. In Asia they are quite common

Here's a recent story of what happens when Asian family sensibilities move into a typical American neighborhood

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/realestate/massive-home-a...

neighbors were upset about this addition, built to house aging parents

https://wjla.com/resources/media2/16x9/1280/986/center/90/fd...

>Nothing I said was meant to imply they represented either the EU or the Netherlands as a government.

the sentence you are referring to said (pay attention to the italics): "I don’t think they represent either the EU or Netherlands position when it comes to privacy.

Ok, we've moved the comments thither, except the ones that are only relevant hither.

>As the calendar rolled from 1999 to 2000, we entered a new millennium, century, decade, year, day, ...

no, that all happened when we rolled from 2000 to 2001.

smh, even paedants today aren't what they used to be.

you missed the chance to also say hither

>asymmetric warfare/terrorism is a natural response to violent oppression

it always sounds more high-minded to adopt universal/philosophical wording, but it's highly effective, your point is well made. October 7th was violent oppression, your explanation is sound.