verall

As long as you make the house your primary residence for like 2 years and then you're free to rent it out with your super low tax rate

Yes, but I think the poster's point was that their locality maintained the roads using tax dollars collected from the locality - i.e. their local roads are sustainable system.

All US dollars are created by the US government, the ability of the US government to create valuable dollars comes from the tax base, so of course everything eventually goes back to taxes.

But it's not really relevant to the point.

Most Americans do not drive solely on city/town roads, we rather frequently take highways and interstates which are federally subsidized - not mostly paid for by city taxes.

You or your city may be exceptions, you might drive only on city roads, but the parent comment's point about subsidies is broadly correct.

The point is to push people towards productive assets - investments in people building things - and to generally limit wealth preservation. Unlimited wealth preservation = dynasties, which is not a goal.

Inflation is a sort of (not very effective) flat wealth tax. But inflation is necessary because in a deflationary system the best investment is holding cash, which makes everything freeze up.

Wealth should be (minimally, progressively) taxed, mainly to prevent serious distortions when someone has $1B in the bank and most have $10K.

Taxes, regulations, and subsidies on assets needed to survive (shelter, utilities, food, medicine) are necessary to keep these items available to everyone, because the market tends to break down in these situations.

It was an interpreter for something. I don't remember what

A somewhat related ask for help -

I have seen a program, I think for IOCCC, where the code was aligned in 4 character columns that seemed to naturally fit the code, so it would have code arranged like:

  for( long i=0; i<n; i++)
  {int a=1, b=2, c=3, d=4;

for the whole program.

I lost it though and have been completely unable to find it, despite searching very hard.

Has anyone seen something like this before? I would be forever grateful for any pointer towards it.

> For real estates, but not for other assets classes. Unless you tax the ownership of every asset.

Other assets are (supposedly) productive - investing in companies lets them do research, pay employees, etc, investing in property improvement (as opposed to land) gives more people nicer homes.

> That begs the question, is even more regulation really the best solution?

Even more than what? These regulations would improve things. Which particular regulation do you feel is harmful?

Every local government in America has basically figured out how to value real estate for taxation, although it's not perfect - I think that loans against a property should be limited to it's tax value as a first step, and ultimately land-value rather than improvement value should be taxed based on who else is trying to purchase the land.

And this can be solved with real estate taxes - a disincentive from just holding land.

It doesn't help that in 2024 a $4k sofa is probably crap and you need to spend like $12k+ for something that lasts 100+years

> In fact, the results were actually quite good for the people in the study who got the colonoscopies — a 31% reduction in colon cancer risk and a 50% reduction in risk of dying from it, experts said.

> “In order for a colonoscopy to be effective, you have to have it done,” said Dr. Robin Mendelsohn

Huh? So the study found that being randomly selected to be invited for a colonoscopy doesn't improve your risk of dying from colon cancer, but if you bother to get the colonoscopy, it reduces risk by 50%? Maybe they previously though it would decrease risk by more than 50%.

People regularly kill people with their cars and get less time. I don't really see how this is worse.

Ralph Lauren does sell $800 sweaters, but in America most (not all though) of the "nice" brands have significantly diluted their quality, so in addition to the $800 sweaters, Ralph Lauren also sells "$150" sweaters which are "marked down" to $80 and are really not very good quality, you could roll the dice and maybe get something comparable on temu for like $15.

The brands don't really do this dilution in other countries yet, and temu is still a diceroll, but I broadly agree with the GP

I'm not defending KYC here (tho I think it is necessary personally). I'm just requesting the author actually try to make an argument.

> Realistically, KYC might deter a small fraction – let's say about 1% – of these malefactors.

You may as well say, "KYC might deter a large fraction - let's say about 99% of these malefactors"

There's no evidence provided for these numbers. It's one thing to make an assumption which is counter to your argument - "Even if 99% of criminals are deterred, it creates an unconscionable burden upon those whose identities are stolen" or etc.

It's quite another just to assume your own argument. Let's assume cops prevent 99% of crime - it's worth their brutality or whatever. Let's assume cops prevent 1% of crime - we would be better off with 1% more crime and no cops or whatever.

It's absolutely pointless.

The article goes on to immediately compare KYC with widespread facial recognition. Why are these equivalent?

They could at least try to engage with arguments for KYC - that large financial institutions should not be making life easier for criminals. Historically, a bank obviously knew their customers - they had to open the accounts in person, talk with the bank manager, etc.

"sneak under" vs "comply with"

If the US did not want NV to sell any GPU to any Chinese company, they could make that the law instead

I can't tell if you're like an archeologist of incel culture or a card-carrying member.

If someone makes $300k/yr and can't find a date they have other issues and/or need to move out of the bay.

This is considerably more narrow than the Spotify ToS.

This clause is not fairly standard. This clause is similar to clauses in other services but is considerably worse.

Except that some people born after that date will still acquire them, get addicted, and then what? Prosecute them like drug possession?

It's infantilizing and dumb. Grown adults should be allowed to smoke tobacco if they so wish and smoking rates are already way down due to marketing and alternatives. Noone needs to be prosecuted.

I really disagree with this, C++ is a "choose your own adventure" language, I think this is it's main strength. You decide _everything_, which is conducive to writing systems software at many different levels - 1 language that you can reasonably write HLS+FW+KMD+UMD+libs+CLI+GUI with good support in all cases.

I always think that these "C is a high level language / virtual machine and it doesn't teach you how your computer works because your computer isn't a PDP-11" style takes are very silly.

C is a high level language that maps very straightforwardly to what the hardware does and programming on a microcontroller without an OS let's you eliminate a ton of abstractions that otherwise take years to comprehend.

If someone wants to understand what's going on "behind the scenes" then it's going to be very useful for the to know C before trying to learn how the Cpython interpretor or JVM work.

> 16 H200 GPU along with single digit TB HBM memory stitched together on a single substrate wafer

How on earth would you cool this?

Good for you that you're so good at things but I think it's pretty icky to blame people who aren't as good at things as I am.

I think you're correct for D, but for Rust, we'll see. It's a very slow moving industry. I do C++ work all day (embedded) and while there's no current plans to move to Rust (which means it won't happen within the next 3-5 years), I could see it occurring someday.

We're finally (usually) allowed to use C++17. I had to use C++03 at times circa 2019 - we're finally done with that. It's _really_ slow moving.

Isn't there whole continents of data proving that drinking ethanol causes cancer? Is a strip of bacon more cancer-causing than the bloody mary?

Are you in the know here? Want to fill us in?

It sounds reasonable, but if they diversified quality, it would mean making precision glass and then also somewhat less precise glass. They will not start mass producing large panes of low margin glass. It's not what they're good at and it's not a lucrative market. Like Intel isn't going to start making jellybean parts.

They could license their name to some existing glass company, but they still wouldn't really be the ones producing it, and I think Zeiss has avoided diluting their brand name like this so far.

It's not what they do, like they probably won't start selling lawnmowers either.

It's not.

Walmart is not a 'marketplace', yet they could easily give you a replacement product from a different 'wholesaler', just like Amazon can give you a replacement from a different 'retailer'. There is no material difference here. Amazon owns everything about the interaction, they have just creatively outsourced creating product listings and a bunch of product risk.