hyperlinerapp

Remember that in some liberal schools some of these people will graduate to be your doctors or policy makers, especially if DEI or with a degree studying some perceived social grievance.

Imagine this but in hardware.

A million autonomous eye-scanning tiny spiders escape their warehouse and decide to look for people who are in the future going to commit a crime.

And the precogs are also AIs.

These arrays are IN A SINGLE CELL

In America, that would be everyone’s own house plus every dark place where a phone may look like a gun plus every place where a thief comes armed, plus every place where the thief exercises violence and you fear for your life, to start.

“land banking is economically unproductive, and there isn't much dispute about that”

I think you are confusing current utilization with economic productivity. There is an opportunity cost in hoding the land but land can also have economic value in the option. It’s the owner choice if he values its use even if it’s waiting for the option to come through and values it more than whatever alternative a self professed smart politician or OP’s abstract “society” might propose.

Whats’s next? Taxing you for your unused bedrooms, unused cars, unused clothes in your closet, unused nose rings, etc etc?

Just because some policymaker can identify a more productive use for someone’s property does not mean the policymaker knows the owner’s opportunity cost or future options or even risk better than the land owner.

An even better argument might be why do we need to tax at all? It’s not that governments are the pinnacle of capital allocation efficiency. After some useful level, governments are basically corruption machines ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA. Just look at their homeless and illegals industrial complex.

I was pointing to the argument that "you didn't do anything to make it happen. Only right that excess value goes back to society and reduces the tax burden of the working class."

Sounds like Obama's "If you’ve got a business, you didn't build that" argument (though Obama might have just screwed up the words, or maybe he simply had a Kinsley gaffe, aka a Freudian Slip).

The land owner DID work for it. He BOUGHT that land (and also the option that it could go up, or down, in value) with the sweat of his hard earned work or savings, or that of their family or business partners.

OP's wording states that he would favor confiscating value generated by the acquisition if such value happened because the market's perceived value increased.

It's basically a communist wealth redistribution logic.

My point is that if someone were to offer $1M for OP's "bengarcia.dev" domain, that OP would not send $999,988 ($1M minus $12 bucks of registration) to the Federal Government.

Yes Ben, The US Government IS READY TO TAKE YOUR GIFT!

SEE: https://fiscal.treasury.gov/financing/gifts-to-government

"the value of your land just went up and you didn't do anything to make that happen"

Ben, with that argument, when someone wants to pay you $1M for "bengarcia.dev", you would not take it because you didn't do anything other than pay $12 to the registrar.

If the government keeps doing this, land owners will blow their wealth on the only things that government can't easily tax: blow and hookers.

But leave it to the ineptitude of California liberal politicians to always find a way to steal from the citizens that have the ability to produce and save, in order to transfer the wealth to illegals, politicians friends, druggies, and foreign powers.

Berkeley a hotbed of far right?

LOL

Most thieves are dumb. They come armed. All you have to look for is a minor threat, and you can show them some business.

Like this:

https://x.com/libs_ofchicago/status/2099992150532337702?s=46

If someone can steal your stuff without you being able to act, then that is not a free place.

Lores said that: bumper sticker saying "my truck is worth more than your life."

My point is that that is a very sensible bumper sticker, because it only applies if someone thinks they want to steal the truck, clearly valuing their life less than the truck, proving the sticker’s point.

It’s a common sticker. People who are shot in a robbery (or their kin if they don’t survive) commonly claim “why would the victim who defended themselves value their stuff more than the thief’s life” without failing to consider the thief themselves valued their own life less than the stuff they were attempting to steal.

It’s a common sentiment in free places, those who values abiding citizens more than law breaking citizens.

Do you think that the math is irrelevant now that the audience itself has become so woke that it’s basically an echochamber?

I think HN became the CNN of tech news (not journalism but “journalism”).

A person that likes normal non woke stuff and does not like feces on the street?

Seems normal to me.

My point is that the sticker that OP was talking about is perfectly fine, because who in their right mind would think the opposite?

What’s wrong with that bumper sticker?

From my PoV, it seems odd someone would value someone else’s truck more than their own life!

There is! H2A and H2B

What have you done to reduce your gluttony?

There are tons of temporary agricultural and hospitality work available.

You didn’t have to say “in 2026.” You could have stopped typing at “f’d-up.” Never in the history of the world has a political group been so bent on working for foreigners and against its own citizens.

The job of a government is to protect its citizens. There is nothing else more important.

What made you feel that way?

If you are not entirely clear on the reasons, look for the ad and you will become entirely clear instantly!

Maybe if you were hiding under a rock.

Even Jaguar was tremendously impacted by their woke ads.

Having Mike was not being “woke.” Mike arguable was the best player in the history of the game (maybe he still is).

The marketing campaign they launched in April 2023 also deteriorated their brand position. It earned them woke coins, but the NPV of all those future woke coins flows was negative.

There is a world in which weapons are not needed. It’s just not a world that exists where there are humans.

I for one want my country to have the best weapons that kill the most enemy combatants in the most efficient way with the fewer non combatant casualties and with the less collateral damage.

For a world without weapons, I usually go to the fantasy isle of the bookstore.

Presidents change names of things all the time.

Why are people fretting over this change?

Nice. TIL