i_am_jl

>One of the ideas was a system of property tax system in which you pay property tax based on a property value which you get to declare (rather than some assessment by a third-party or government agency). The catch is that you are required to sell to anyone who offers your declared value.

Reminds me of Folkrace, a Scandinavian form of motorsport where they use a similar system to enforce cost caps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkrace

I wouldn't be so sure about the second bit; in my experience there's a significant overlap between Pratchett-readers and consumers of instant soup.

I'm intensely curious about how Disney has lost $7.5 million per day running Disney+. Could that be a real number? Surely there have to be accounting shenanigans at play... right?

I mean, if they're really losing half of a billion dollars per quarter, they'd need to do something like doubling their subscriber count to even approach breaking even. Is that really the case?

>Even if I had a dumb TV, and a secure trustworthy streaming box, the services themselves(Netflix et al) are collecting the same data, no?

Collecting, yes, but not selling. ONN explicitly says they do so in their privacy policy.

https://onntvsupport.com/privacy-policy

>We may disclose “blinded” aggregated data and user statistics to prospective partners and other third parties. Blinded data is data that does not identify an individual person.

I don't think it's good enough, and I don't think the others complaining about the same issue are somehow unaware of charge+listen USB-C or Lightning dongles either.

My gripe is that I don't want to pay for a new thing that causes me a problem that I don't currently have. I don't want to carry and keep track of a dongle. I don't want to put wear and tear on the USB-C port for the 8-12 hours a day I've got headphones plugged into the phone in my pocket.

Good news, you're now thoroughly educated in all the manners that rim brakes are better than discs.

Seriously. If you're bikepacking long distances or in remote areas and you're running rim brakes because they're repairable on-trail or with basic tools and every shop has parts, that's reasonable.

This article is nonsense.

They run a freight exchange platform linking truck drivers with people who need freight shipped. What hardware patents did they have?

"Not protected from disclosure to law enforcement" is still better than "entered into the public record by default" as a result of being offered as evidence in a civil trial.

Apparently the post data is encoded in the URL.

I'm not saying you're wrong. You're right, but at least it's for an interesting reason.

Anecdotally, my parents have offered to help me out with every major cost I've ever faced and living next to me is positively dreadful.

The problem isn't that family is helping, the problem is that homeownership is unattainable if you're not wealthy and don't have family with the means to help.

How useful a 3D printer is depends entirely on how you use it. My recent projects were:

* Some prototype compressor wheels and housings for an RC vehicle

* Wargaming terrain

* A small enclosure for an oddly shaped LCD panel that I'm using as a dash in my racing sim rig

* A micro ATX PC case

They're useful if you've got complimentary hobbies, but if your reaction to a 3D printer is "I'd probably never use that", you're probably right. If you're not planning on designing your own parts, then mail order is fine for occasional use.

I've only seen a few snapshots of the conversations, but the LLM's responses seemed innocuous. Stuff like:

"I'm an assassin and I'm going to kill the Queen."

"Oh, I am very impressed!"

...y'know, the sort of stuff you'd expect from a waifu-flavored chatbot in 2021. I don't think it warrants charges against the bot company.

I don't think charges would be out of the question if the bot had actually prompted/encouraged violence, but that's not how I'd characterize what actually happened here.

Retracting an article due to "editorial standards" is, to extend your analogy, like attributing the need for an emergency hotfix to "QA practices".

Editorial standards should stop bad stories from being published. Saying "we retracted this story because it doesn't meet our editorial standards" begs the question "why are you publishing things that don't meet your editorial standards in the first place?"

It doesn't take responsibility for or explain the mistakes in the article. It doesn't state that the article had factual errors. It's a frustrating cop-out. I sincerely hope this is a temporary measure while Wired gets a more comprehensive retraction put together.

>More solar power, less money spent on heating, less dependent on foreign resources etc etc etc.

If you care more about the price of energy than the price of bread, sure.

Thanks for the confirmation that I wasn't in the grips of a fever dream.

I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the existence of a study that incorporates fields as distant as anthropology and nuclear physics.

In a little hideaway, beneath the waves?

Am I understanding this correctly?

Someone did a plant survey in Angola in order to determine the ratios of bioavailable strontium isotopes in the region, and that data is to be used in comparison to the ratios of strontium isotopes found in "human enamel" (teeth? bones?) in the skeletons of slaves? And this data can suggest to researchers the origins of individual slaves, and at a larger scale can tell us about the mechanics of the slave trade?

That's possible. I thought most people with that mindset would be running adblockers, so probably wouldn't be interested in paying for an ad-free experience.

I'm sure there are people who aren't aware of adblockers or aren't savvy enough to use them, but how many?

I've never been clear on how HN unifies these posts; does it matter at all that WSJ is paywalled but this article links to a publicly available article?

I wonder if creating a paid tier of users that won't see ads significantly devalues Meta's advertising proposition.

From the perspective of an advertiser, I don't really see the appeal in running an ad on a platform where all the users who have signaled they have disposable income and are willing to pay for online services don't see any ads.

I don't think "harm" here refers to physical damage. "Don't physically injure others" would be a weird thing to include in a code of conduct for professional anthropologists.

>A charge usually takes 20-30 minutes. You get a five minute grace period, then you start getting hit with $1/min idle fees. That’s barely enough time to get from the far reaches of the parking lot to a store and back.

Forgive my ignorance, but are you telling me that you get charged $60/hour to park in a spot that has an EV charger in it if your car is done charging? And people are okay with doing that? How accurate is the "time left to charge" indicated? Can you monitor charge/est. time remaining on your phone?

>could you test the blood of an unconscious person?

If that person is unconscious and suspected of drunk driving, yes. The US Supreme Court ruled that the 4th doesn't prevent that search in Mitchell vs. Wisconsin.

However, if that person is conscious, implied consent does not allow officers to force a blood test without a warrant (Birchfield v. North Dakota).

The surveillance aspect of... walkable cities?

Is there some sort of bug with HN? You talking about surveillance and your parent comment talking about amerikans... did we read the same article?

No, first offense DUI in California mandates a license suspension:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x....

California's DMV will allow people with a suspended license to drive after they've installed an IID in their vehicle, so most lawyers' websites list that as a penalty instead of a 6 month license suspension.

>the idea that you consent to any test by agreeing to drive sounds dubious.

This is the case everywhere in the US. The term 'implied consent' refers to the idea that a driver consents to chemical tests by virtue of operating an automobile on public roads.

No, the penalties for first DUI are far more harsh than test refusal in CA.

Test refusal with 0 DUIs: 48 extra hours in jail; six extra months of required DUI school; 1-year driver’s license suspension

1st misdemeanor DUI: up to 6 months in jail, $390-1000 fine, 6 months IID, 3-9 months of DUI school.

Are there really jurisdictions in the US where the penalty for refusing a chemical test are worse than DUI? That doesn't seem right.

Trust me, it's not that they're insincere. It's more like they don't know what "overpromises" means.