iforgot22

Exactly, seems like the Von Neumann machine assumption is outdated, especially with modern supercomputers. Memory access itself isn't O(1), it's more like O(N^(1/3)) because space is a serious consideration, and that's your distance from a focal point to all other points within a 3D volume.

The argument is that it'll become more stable if it's adopted as a worldwide currency, kinda like gold.

I'd be surprised if anyone really used it there, for technical reasons alone, and not even considering the risk part. BTC is still not easy to use.

"urged officials to limit its exposure" is what the Reuters article said, so yeah. They think El Salvador's ability to repay the loan is tied too much to BTC.

Better article: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/lawmakers-el-salvador...

You mention mortgage interest deduction, EV tax credits, and energy credits. I'm pretty sure corps qualify for all of those, and with no SALT cap. Then they get to deduct food, rent, utilities, and car ownership/depreciation, which I can't. And their tax rate is flat. There's a reason people find loopholes to push personal expenses into businesses, not the other way around. I would most likely pay less tax if I were somehow a corporation, even if it meant losing my 401(k) and HSA.

Of course, you can't literally compare corps to people. Their profits are ultimately paid out to individuals and taxed again. People don't exactly have revenues. So I'm not saying the current way is wrong, but the statement you're responding to isn't ignorant.

Two wrongs don't make a right. A news source that endorses a political candidate is difficult to trust, and plenty of them don't.

"The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations including for-profits, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other kinds of associations."

? I don't see what's insane about this

The owners of a corp aren't the ones paying tax. The corp has its own balance sheet.

I was referring to the advanced depreciation, not the EV tax credits. Tesla's profit margin is more than 3%. Per the calculations someone else did here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42893563 Tesla supposedly got $300M in tax credits, which is much less than 21% of their profit.

How many other things in my life suddenly doubled in price within a couple of years? Can't think of any.

I know prices of everything tend to double every 10-20 years, but that's what happens when you double the money supply every 10 years.

A corporation can't pay taxes? But they do.

I don't believe those things and still don't disagree with the author. Because the article is too devoid of real information for me to have an opinion on this.

Simpler alternative to figuring out the accounting tricks and 1-year deferred taxes: Amortizing their earnings and taxes for the past ~5 years.

Profit means it wasn't reinvested. May be later, or not.

I'll stop "thanking" Obama for the ACA when health premiums go back to something sensible. But honestly I liked everything else about him.

Something is wrong with the tax law if this is an accounting trick that only a few companies can use this effectively, which I suspect it is. I also suspect that the CEO of Tesla supposedly being placed in charge of federal agencies will somehow reduce that future tax bill. Corporate tax doesn't have to be a thing, but if it is, it needs to be applied fairly.

Maybe it's better to say the current administration is battling journalism, in a one-sided way. There's a real difference, but it looks too much like splitting hairs.

The efficiency improvements are generally going to start in the more developed countries and eventually reach elsewhere. But this is less certain with EVs.

It's possible that Apple could be forced to do this, but just want to note that the EU Google and Microsoft thing is different. The EU didn't want them to push their own browsers, search engines, or other software on users.

If they're still not being paid for those choices, I don't see why Apple would do this instead of just making the default Google (or something else reasonable).

So they want more vertical integration?

Does Apple think Google is going to intentionally lose the trial so they don't have to pay anymore :D?

I figured it was that, which is why I even bothered buying more ink. Problem is the printer completely died.

Yep. Last time I thought it'd make sense to have a printer, cause I was printing lots of stuff for a wedding, it ran out of ink oddly quickly then broke soon after I refilled it. Also jammed a lot and wasn't easy to get the right drivers for it.

I forget what I spent, maybe $150 by the end and 4 hours of dealing with it. Never again.

Because it writes to a file like tee.

For timestamps, which are considered fixed points in time, yeah. Dates and times are different. If you block off 12-1pm for lunch in your calendar every day, the actual timestamp of that event might change if you fly elsewhere and set it to use the local timezone automatically. Same with holidays and birthdays.

I don't have any hope for ASICs. GPUs are going to stay, but if enough big countries are only able to obtain new non-Nvidia GPUs, big corps and even governments will find it worthwhile to build up the ecosystem around OpenCL or something else. Before now, CUDA had unstoppable momentum.

Crypto mining was just about hash rates, so I don't think it really mattered whether you used CUDA or not. Nvidia cards were just faster usually. People did use AMD too, but that didn't really involve building up the OpenCL ecosystem, just making it run one particular algo. They do also use ASICs for BTC in particular, I don't think that died.

The related "legalizing weed will make people use it less" was a common argument before it was legal. We were actually taught that in college. Did not seem like a good-faith argument.

There isn't much to be educated about. Scientific research about the long-term effects of any of these is inconclusive, even on alcohol and tobacco which is everywhere. All they know is smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.