throwawayfire

It would be unsurprising to me if Amazon had buried this claim and didn't want it to be repeated, because in my opinion that would be clear evidence that they were breaking labor laws.

> Your comment sounds like a rationalization from a middle/upper income person.

In most countries that I am aware of, the tax rate becomes essentially flat at, or relatively close to, a median income.

If you tax people on a lower income at that same rate, then that is highly punitive and is likely to put people into poverty.

It's immediately advantageous for governments to set a "progressive" lower tax rate, to avoid paying the cost of resources dealing with poverty.

Aside from this, governments are continuing to tax people up to and approaching median incomes at the highest rate that they can bear.

It's only once you get significantly above median that the tax rate doesn't continue to be punitive - for example, in terms of young people being able to access security of housing.

I'd argue these [existing tax schemes] aren't therefore progressive at all. It's just a different mechanism to provide minimal/essential support to people in poverty.

Everybody thinks we are in a golden age of television series, don't they?

I don't claim that these examples have the same history as music.

> What evidence is there that Trump or anyone else had a financial incentive to untowardly push HCQ?

I assume you are not denying that they did push it - so, I want to ask in return: for what other reason did they (specifically Bolsonaro and Trump) push it in this way? Given that it was not backed by science.

If someone said "about fifty bucks" and it turns out to be $62.17, I'd immediately understand them to be scamming me.

I think this essentially agrees with my point (that there was more creativity in the broad space of 'pop music' when pop music was a newer phenomenon).

I appreciate the reminder that a lot of pop music has a longer history as it developed from Black music styles. Thanks.

>Source?

https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100

You can change the week yourself.

If you pick a few random weeks before 2000, you likely won't find this pattern that I identified, with the same artist in the Top 20 multiple times.

If that's not enough evidence then there is a Python web scraper: https://github.com/jocelyn-ong/data-science-projects/blob/ma...

> Everyone says music "used to be better" but that's just survival bias.

Not "just" survival bias.

I think it's quite reasonable to take a position that there was more innovation and creativity in pop music in 1950-2000.

As the genre has matured, popular/commercially successful music has depended more and more on fewer and fewer producers.

Indeed, there are fewer commercially successful artists: the US Billboard Hot 100 Top 20 this week contains 3 tracks by Justin Bieber, 2 by the Weeknd, and 2 by Drake. That would have been unheard of.

> You can't enforce a DMCA claim against an entity without ties to the US.

This is less obvious than it might appear - the US has pushed to include DMCA-equivalent claims in international trade deals.

E.g. The proposed UK-US Free Trade Agreement explicitly includes negotiation around intellectual property rights: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Summary_of_U.S.-UK_Nego...

This was a deliberate form of copy protection.

A little bit sub-optimal in terms of communicating that they wanted you to purchase the game: if they told you this was copy protection, you could have just got copies of the relevant materials instead.

Maybe that there is a customs border internal to Norway?

Right.

The result for headlines of 65 chars - shared 50,000 more times than 60 chars or 70 chars - seems too incredible to occur at random and suggests instead that a popular news source has implemented a 65 chars policy.

[Edited to note: Yep. YouTube is dominant as the popular publisher in this review, and truncates headlines at 66 chars - that's what this article observes]

You understand that you're characterising crypto as a pyramid scheme, I guess?

This is a tricky one.

There is one route to revoke consent and another route to object to legitimate interest, and it doesn't seem that you can precisely follow both routes. I assume the second option does both, but it's not clear.

I've seen this same pattern in English also, so I'll include my translation:

Meer Opties (More Options) -> Gerechtvaardigd Belang (Legitimate Interest, small link on bottom left) -> Bezwaar Tegen Alles (Object to All) -> Opslaan en Afsluiten (Save and Close)

Citymapper at least tries, but is still bad for bike+public transport.

I look at the options that Citymapper gives and then have to recalculate the route, in my head, correcting for wrong decisions about where I'll have access to a bike.

(Yes, it'll be quicker if I cycle my own bike from my home to the nearest station. No, I won't be cycling a hire bike 111 minutes away from its closest docking port.)

> it consumes the battery (increasing carbon footprint)

Using web-searched estimates, the carbon cost of leaving this on constantly for a full year is approximately equivalent to the carbon cost of one single liter of petrol.

Gambling-adjacent reasons are: it's difficult to tax in a fair way (what proportion the capital gains due on crypto have been paid?), and has potential to be used as a front for organised money laundering.

Considering that life expectancy for a 30 year old man is around 79.3 in Germany 2018, and you're reading it to be 76.9 in 1930, that's far less change than I have ever heard anyone previously suggest.

One could argue this to be evidence that Apple is willing to disagree with an authoritarian government.

This is just saying that rich people are rich.

Someone with obscene wealth can be imprisoned and still buy a yacht - even incarceration has a much greater impact on a poor person.

As such, I'd rather fine them in proportion to their wealth.

That's a great business model if you have investors. You get a proven long-term return of 25% per annum.

If you're doing it out of your own bank account, you'll bankrupt before realising this return: it's not a lifestyle business.

> "Here's what I want to do"

By saying only this, you might give me sufficient information to allow me to gauge how you value my service.

I don't have to ask "what's the maximum you will pay" directly, and you won't know that I asked it.

> There are a lot of sharks swimming in the capital markets with deep expertise.

I would argue that you have proven my point - if I have a bunch of money, I can pay for expertise/management that is going to net me a higher return.

>the cost for a ~$1 million mortgage

The scenario in this thread was originally "the house they live in just happened to appreciate significantly and is now worth over $1mm". You're describing quite a different situation.

That owner by definition does not have a $1m mortgage - or if they do, they have quite literally cashed out.

That owner is, in fact, saving a proportion of everyone else's general housing costs, compared to new buyers and ongoing renters.

Someone with a $1m mortgage is in quite a different situation (while likely very rich in terms of net worth, does not have to be a millionaire in terms of net wealth).

If so, they still have $1 million more to spend on rent.

> It's as hard to do as turning $10,000 into $1,000,000.

It's hard, but provably not as hard. If you don't need the money, you can afford to take more and better risk with it.

More risk is enough to get this article (not even necessarily better risk) - if 100 people take a pure 100:1 bet, then 1 can get an article like this.

[As mentioned in the sibling comment, if you have enough time, then hard becomes easy]

> it's likely that a lot of people ended up saving time on their routes.

It's theoretically possible this describes a Braess paradox, whereby everybody loses: https://image.slideserve.com/280060/braess-s-paradox-l.jpg

One or two developers working and testing on their own machines will have an awful experience trying to make their app work multi-platform.

This type of app is going to be valued higher by Mac users.

> The disruption will have introduced hypotheticals

In general, temporary disruption has some long-term positive economic effects (which is directly why 'disruption' is valued in Silicon Valley).

For example, during London Tube Strikes, commuters find different and more efficient routes and 5% ended up permanently changing their route on public transport: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tube-strike...

I agree that it wastes space to represent time on one axis, if space is a resource that you want to conserve, and I see how that has historically influenced music notation. But, I have a digital screen that can scroll at a specified pace, so I don't find it necessary to conserve space.

> If you can remember the duration of notes based on a few different symbols

I can do this but I find it a heavy cognitive load to translate symbols into duration while I am also reading/playing music: that was my point.

> Could you tell the difference between 31 and 32 1/32 rests?

Yes, if there was an adequately marked time scale/axis. There are already bars: just turn them back into the equal areas they are already abstractly representing. (I'm not suggesting that you notate a rest with only blank space - you can still explicitly notate a rest).