streblo

At this point those are anecdotes, not data

In this case it's good for the individual without being detrimental to society.

Why not invest inside of your tax-advantaged accounts as well?

> The purpose of tax advantaged retirement accounts is to reduce the number of destitute people in retirement. It achieves this goal by providing a tax incentive on regular investment for people who would not otherwise invest.

The purpose of tax advantage retirement accounts when originally introduced by ERISA was to give employees of private companies a safety net in cases where their pension defaulted or when a pension wasn't offered in the first place. There's really no mention of it being specifically for people who are destitute or would not otherwise invest. Traditional IRAs are available for everyone, even high earners, no gatekeeping.

> Pay the capital gains and enjoy your wealth.

Traditional IRAs are taxed on withdrawal and function much like other investments.

Nothing. You still pay taxes on withdrawals from a traditional IRA.

What's wrong with winning? Why not let people keep winning?

> Is that really necessary?

Yes, I'd like extensions, history, cookies, etc to be tied to the account and have them be isolated. I can't do that now.

Here's what I desperately want from Firefox, which I currently have from Chrome: isolated browser profiles tied to an account. I have two browser windows open at all times, one for my personal stuff and one for my work stuff. I want to keep those two windows totally isolated, where I log in with all my work accounts in one window, and all my personal accounts in the other window. Chrome does this by tying the window to a Gmail account, I'd happily sign up for two Firefox accounts if I could do this.

The tone of the original comment suggests that Iceland is in some dire situation with respect to covid, that the vaccine's effectiveness is questionable, and that the vaccine specifically hasn't prevented deaths. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Yes, tone matters. Tone that sends the message that vaccines aren't effective, as the original poster's tone suggests, is misinformation.

> We have a very high vaccination rate here in Iceland but that did not stop hospitalisations, or deaths

Let's fact check this. Here's Reuters COVID data from Iceland: https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-m...

Iceland has had a grand total of 33 deaths since the beginning of the pandemic. There have been 3 deaths total since May 2021, which is remarkable on it's own, but especially since Iceland's infections during the pandemic peaked in early August 2021. So, no, vaccines didn't totally stop the deaths. But vaccines dramatically reduced them and prevented what likely would have been a spike in deaths in August.

Here's more from the Washington Post, which actually seems to remember that Iceland exists: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-covid-su...

> Many of the country’s recent infections have occurred among vaccinated people, but they’ve been overwhelmingly mild.

> Iceland’s rates of covid-19 hospitalizations and deaths have remained low. Of the 1,300 people currently infected, just 2 percent are in the hospital.

> The country hasn’t recorded a virus death since late May. [The article was written in early August before those 3 additional deaths].

No comment on whether you're an anti-vaxxer, but you are misinformed.

Optionals would have been a way to solve this problem

Source? Genuinely curious to read more about this.

Let me know when you figure out who is ethical and who is not

Or, in this case, not locked

> Not every city in America is terrible.

Fine, but MANY are. In the past 5 years I've lived in two of America's biggest cities and only had one ISP to choose from.

> I also don't want the government tracking my internet history in any fashion. Too many government services could tie into knowledge about you and I want the government to have only the minimum information necessary to provide those services.

As if the government can't/doesn't already subpoena your ISP for this information.

> Developers should be required to submit _clean_ PRs, that is, PR's whose git history has been organized and refactored in such a way that it removed "clean up commits", "typo fix", etc.

The only way I've ever seen this accomplished is through Github squash and merge.

Auth is both simple and hard to get right. It's virtually the same everywhere. One group of people getting it right is better than every company trying to figure it out for themselves. It's exactly the right thing to farm out to a 3rd party.

Only on HN will you be told "you're an idiot if you outsource your auth" and "you're an idiot if you roll your own auth" by the same group of people.

I worked for Twitter up until 2017 and when I was there it was much higher than 20-30%, definitely >50%. It's very possibly changed since then, but at least at that point in time Twitter was running Mesos on many thousands of machines.

> it's bad to keep adding all features to all languages

I understand the reasoning behind this take - a lot of modern languages have wound up somewhat bloated, with features that are either non-orthogonal to other features and break the 'one way to do it' principle (Scala comes to mind), or with features that seem tacked-on and feel alien to the language (the latest versions of python come to mind). I understand, in theory, why go tries to buck this trend.

The problem is that in bucking this trend, go has (at least historically) not evolved enough to fix some of its own core issues. And it does have some big issues - nils, zero values, and non-thread safe primitives come to mind for me. I'm all for being thoughtful about introducing changes and making sure those changes are idiomatic and don't violate the 'ethos of go'. But avoiding making those changes in the name of 'keeping it simple' never made sense to me in cases where programmers are shooting themselves in the feet and already not having a simple time with your language.

I'll echo this reasoning as one for choosing GCP. Many of the offerings are fantastic on their own - BigQuery, Pub/Sub, Dataflow, Firestore, Cloud SQL, GKE - they're all (IMO) great products that my teams have used to work wonders. On top of that, they're all well integrated and more seamlessly work together in my experience vs AWS services.

I've also found integrating access controls via IAM to be really powerful and also pretty user friendly. In one experience, this helped us scale the sales process and allowed us to easily address sales push-back on data security and compliance.

Also, engineers really seem to enjoy using the cloud console, even at later stages when it was mostly just read-only and had a lot of access controls. The UX is just way better than AWS.

As mentioned, I've experienced issues with GCP and there are reasons to choose AWS instead. I can expand on these if anyone is curious, but wanted to list out the reasons to use GCP, as I feel like most of the posts you see about GCP on HN skew more negative than my own experiences.

For what it's worth, it doesn't involve really hard work, and it costs nothing. Google pays the reseller, the cost to the 'resellee' is $0.

I've used GCP to great success (with some speedbumps) at 3 companies I've worked for (small and large) over the last 5-6 years. I have a lot of learnings from the experiences to pass on, and one of the key ones is this: work with a reseller.

If you've lurked on HN over the past decade you'll have seen tons of stories about how bad Google's customer support is. I don't think GCP's support is anywhere near as terrible as it is for Google's consumer products, but it does have a lot of room for improvement. If you work with a reseller, you'll get much much better results.

There are several GCP resellers that are really good and knowledgeable, and often are staffed by former Googlers that worked on GCP. The very first thing you should do if you've chosen GCP is to find one.

> Saavy multi-national corporations pay little to no tax here, and it is widely documented.

> Meanwhile, a 20-something engineer at a six-figure salary can tell you how much of that they get to keep.

Isn't this actually a good situation, from the point of view of the tax collector? Corporations can afford to spend a lot of money figuring out tax loopholes and financing schemes so they can avoid paying taxes. But your average high-income individual can't. You might as well let the large corporations have lower taxes, pass on the extra revenue to shareholders and employees, and then tax the shareholders and employees.

The title is kind of inaccurate in describing what's in the article.

Can life not be better for us or our children than for our parents? This kind of thinking keeps everyone down.

I can't read German so it's hard to consider this source. That said, it doesn't square with other sources I've seen that show Germany importing >50% of it's electricity, much of which is generated from fossil fuels:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependen...

Germany imports much of its electricity, which often isn’t generated from renewable resources.

Agree about a free trial. I'd consider something like $5/month for email updates, and then upsell into more advanced features that automate a process for me. If this thing could actually help me buy (e.g. hook it up to my Robinhood account and insert an order opening day) then I'd be willing to spend more.

I doubt many people will see it like that. This tool is for me if I've been missing IPOs. If I've been missing them, I've probably never made money off of one and I have no frame of reference for how much of a return I'd get.

Better off doing a freemium model or a free trial and then upselling the customer once they've understood the value prop.