jfactorial

In my experience with this question, whichever answer you want to find, you can find research useful in defending it.

* https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-research-is-there-into...

* https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-research-is-there-into...

TL;DR: recent changes in Section 174 IRC will _incentivize_ R&D spending, not cause layoffs of researchers and developers.

Section 174 allows businesses to deduct their domestic R&D expenses.

In 2017 Trump made businesses have to amortize these expenses over 5 years instead of deducting them, starting in 2022 (it is common for an administration to write laws that will only have a negative effect after they're gone). This move wrecked the R&D tax credit. Many US businesses stopped claiming R&D tax credits entirely as a result. Others had surprise tax bills.

Trump's second term work is now to undo the disaster he caused (S.O.P.). Congress has reversed the amortization rule and businesses can again deduct R&D expenses immediately.

This is a good thing rolling back a bad thing. The bad thing might have been responsible for layoffs a few years ago, but it will have only positive impact on 2025.

A rat done bit my sister Nell, with whitey on the moon.

Her face and arms began to swell, and whitey's on the moon.

I can't pay no doctor bills, but whitey's on the moon.

Ten years from now I'll be payin' still, while whitey's on the moon.

The man just upped my rent last night, cause whitey's on the moon.

No hot water, no toilets, no lights, but whitey's on the moon.

I wonder why he's upping me? Cause whitey's on the moon?

Well I was already giving him fifty a week with whitey on the moon.

Taxes taking my whole damn check, junkies making me a nervous wreck,

the price of food is going up, and as if all that shit wasn't enough:

A rat done bit my sister Nell, with whitey on the moon.

Her face and arm began to swell, and whitey's on the moon.

Was all that money I made last year for whitey on the moon?

How come I ain't got no money here? Hmm! Whitey's on the moon.

Y'know I just 'bout had my fill of whitey on the moon.

I think I'll send these doctor bills

airmail special

to whitey on the moon.

—Gilbert Scott-Heron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DUxzAD6RZ0

But if we asked users "Choose one: the ideal convenience of being able to log in with just your username (but anyone who knows your username can login as you), or the inconvenience of having to enter username plus a secret password?" almost all users would choose the security over convenience, because they would understand the risk/reward. I think users care more about convenience than _theoretical_ security, and that we owe them education on how security impacts them directly.

The key to lucid dreaming for me is to question reality regularly, and as a result do things in waking life to test if I'm dreaming. About once a month I will legitimately wonder whether I'm dreaming and press my hand into a solid object expecting my hand to sink into it. This has helped me go lucid in a dream a few times. It's made me seem nutty a few more than that.

Eventually someone is going to have to be the first person in tech to be pretentious. ;)

Elon Musk is actively supporting AfD, the current far-right nationalist German party whose members have been caught sharing Nazi memes on Facebook with one another and, well, just read about them. He interviewed their leader on X in which the two of them agreed to rewrite history by saying Hitler wasn't far-right and was a communist. He wrote an op-ed in support of them. He stood behind a podium with the Seal of the President of the United States on it and did a Nazi salute two times in a row.

> broadcasting Nazi ideology and making Nazi salutes

This is a fact, not a rhetorical device.

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

That is a better one. I don't know why three rich guys investing in a new company would result in a slowness that Trump could fix, though, and a promise to rush or sidestep regulatory approval still sounds nefarious.

A rat done bit my sister Nell, with whitey on the moon.

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

This is my question too, but I haven't seen a journalist ask it yet. My baseless theory: Trump has promised them some kind of antitrust protections in the form of legislation to be written & passed at a later date.

An announcement of a public AI infrastructure program joined by multiple companies could have been a monumental announcement. This one just looks like three big companies getting permission to make one big one.

Start a Slack and invite your community to it. Moderate it graciously with a simple, public, fair code of conduct. Make sure all the FB users are invited. The features just beat Facebook IMHO.

I agree with you about trying to avoid thought stopping terms, and the desire for more specific language in important topics. It's tempting to think that history repeats itself, but it doesn't. It really doesn't. Historians will find ways of comparing and contrasting one moment with another, but whatever is happening right now is not determined by any historical law playing out.

Our language is bending as it ever does to help people explain these political shifts—often people who see what's happening but don't have much education on the matters of history, political science, philosophy. Bear in mind that 21% of US adults are illiterate, and far fewer are even equipped to read, say, Thomas Paine.

We need ways of talking about the values that are winning (nationalist theocratic autocracy) and the ones that are not (the open society, secular liberal democracy), and the word "liberalism" in the US has beenn so tarnished, so I think "fascism" today has come to mean "anti-liberal." I'll take what I can get.

I think "techno fascism" is a term people are using to describe tech company CEOs operating as unelected oligarchs embedded within the new US government.

If you're looking for a better term, we could call it "technocratic anti-liberalism" to perhaps cover all the bases. People are attempting to describe the current situation in which the wealthiest humans in all of history are supporting an anti-liberal executive by making financial donations to anti-liberal leadership and making changes to their products to further the messages thereof, e.g. broadcasting Nazi ideology and making Nazi salutes.

"Wealthy" as in "holding more personal wealth than the bottom half of the US population"; "anti-liberal" as in "espousing and acting in opposition to classical liberal values of consent of the governed and equality under law by denying the validity of elections, attempting to overthrow the US liberal democratic government with force, pardoning foot soldiers found guilty of such an attack, utilizing king-like executive direction to undermine the highest law of the land, avoiding all punishment for his own guilt, and so forth.

That's how I interpret the term.

What's your opinion of "architect" as a verb? I was in a workshop once wherein the instructor paused everything to beratingly correct someone for 5 minutes on how you can't "architect" something because, he insisted, that word must only ever be a noun.

They're perfect for each other.

I'm consistently baffled by the rarity of a product owner improving their bottom line by simply improving their users' experience.

Which nation's constitution is built upon the annihilation of Israel?

> Western media is also very anti-Israeli

Taking nothing away from your personal local experiences wherever you are, I don't think this is a generally true statement.

https://institute.aljazeera.net/en/ajr/article/2871

https://www.protect-journalists.com/

This article is not peer reviewed. It says monkeys look less at masculine features than feminine ones and thus they often look more at the loser than winner of a US election. The monkeys always fail at predicting female winners vs male despite voters selecting female candidates about half the time. I think the title of both paper and post are funny but wrong. A monkey predicts election outcomes as well as a coin with “the manly one wins” written on both sides (not well).

After he's done with v2, might I propose...

THE GAMEY GAME 3D ??

https://threejs.org/

I started coding at 9 as well (which was a long time ago now), so I was very happy to play and see this today.

"Burn the books" is a rather large task for most published books though.

I just beat the pounder monster AND got all the math questions right EVEN the division ones and the arithmetic ones where you had to carry a one, so THE GAMEY GAME has me feeling pretty good about myself today.

Fun fact: The Taco Bell bell gong sound is an E on the DX7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DBrC_l-VCs

I was imagining a few limitations to help with consistency: all scenes have the same number of edges (say, 10) ensuring there's a limited set of scenes you can navigate to from the current one and previously generated scenes can get reused, and no flying, that way we can only worry about generating prism-shaped rooms with a single ceiling and floor edge.

I suppose this is the easy part, actually; for me the real trouble might be collision based on the non-deterministic thing that was generated, i.e. how to decide which scene edges the player should be able to travel through, interact with, be stopped by, burned by, etc.

I'm opposed to airplanes flying in the airspace of a country whose people have outlawed them for whatever reason.

Do you propose any one group can have the right to put whatever they want into the sky of every human on Earth?

> does not impinge in any way life on earth

A good portion of the life on Earth looks up at the Moon, often with magnification. Treating it like a nature preserve would be a gift to all posterity and they would praise us for it. Treating it like another resource to harveest will ultimately mean covering it in colonies and forever changing the face of an astral body that has remained virtually untouched for all of our species' history. Presuming to utilize it for industry or colonization is so short sighted a view I can't believe anyone harbors the thought.

Only if there is no policing of it. Natural preservation from mankind's industry is possible. It's quite a depressing thought that anything belonging to humanity is doomed.

No, I'm describing the first bullet point of the Outer Space Treaty:

"The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind."

Outer space meaning the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere, and Province of all mankind meaning an area of special knowledge, interest, or responsibility belonging to all mankind. Perhaps others don't read it this way, but this is the meaning of my comment.

> When we build a colony on the Moon, we aren't taking land from Moon people

I think the key distinction in this discussion is your view that the Moon belongs to no people yet, versus the opposing view established by the Outer Space Treaty that the Moon belongs to all people.

I don't hate humanity but I'm firmly on the side that says the lit side of the moon should be left untouched from here on out. The night sky belongs to all of Earth's inhabitants. None of us has any right to decorate the moon anymore than a technocrat with the means could claim the right to make all the oceans glow.

If we do allow building on the lit lunar surface though, props to the first telescope company to build a sign that says "You'd be able to read this better with a Celestron."

I wonder how much of the remaining work boils down to generating a new scene based on the camera's POV when the player hits one of the bounds, and keeping these generated scenes in a tree structure, joining scenes at boundaries.