xracy

Came here looking for this response.

My follow-up question is "What percentage of the 'totally independent' group, are parents with adult children?"

i.e. there's almost an interesting statistic here about what percentage of adults have "no option" in relying on their parents for financial help, and what percentage of the remainder still do rely on their parents.

But once I had this question, I realized that I needed to be suspicious of the % itself.

I feel like market cap valuations should have some way to factor in the supply/demand constraints. I know that float exists as a concept, but I think it's insane to call SpaceX a Trillion dollar company, when if it started selling significant stock tomorrow, it would probably be selling pennies on the dollar.

yeah, I mean, if you don't engage with the comment, then you're not going to understand. So maybe you should take your own advice and actually read what I wrote.

It is not a naked image of yourself.

If I show you a picture of yourself that is a perfect likeness of yourself, And do not tell you how it was collected/created.

Is that an image of you?

It looks exactly like you, and you have found yourself in a similar or same situation at some point (what do you know your memory is human).

You're saying you can't say one way or another whether or not that is a picture of you without knowing where it came from, but I'm saying it doesn't matter where it came from, it is your exact likeness, it is a picture of you.

What do you think my comment was responding to? Literally those are the words that I was responding to.

Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image is exactly the kind of lawyer-brained wording I was referring to when I made the comment about the mirror. "It's not a picture of you, it's a picture of a reflection of you."

If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.

"You see, your honor, it's not a picture of them, it's a picture of their reflection in the mirror."

I feel like this discussion is a question of what the exact structure of the hydrogen-filled blimp should look like, and not a discussion of the fact that THE BLIMP IS FILLED WITH HYDROGEN.

Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words, that we skipped right over the clearly wrong/awful intent.

I've been having this thought for the last month.

The giveaway was my Medical Professional father thinking that AI was really good at things outside of his area of expertise, and really bad at things inside of his area of expertise.

also assuming there's signal in that noise...

I think it's reasonable for governments to signal a decision like this that parents can ultimately choose to bypass. So it's both to explain the harms and posture to reduce those harms to children, and to leave the final decision to parents.

No, this will force the first person to be creative. Not even necessarily kids.

That's justifying this because we've had rampant runaway inflation...

There's nothing special about the number $1T.

I think I'm looking at general "retirement funds" which are a little more opaque. e.g. Vanguard/TD retirement funds, when I looked into them, didn't have any information on "what is in them." Just general breakdowns.

Is it?

Given that they've had to change the rules of index funds to allow for this, yes, this is not what people expect.

Curious how someone with a 401k, who didn't want their retirement to be used by these companies to buy at an inflated price, would go about opting out of this.

Typically I just have my 401k in an index fund so that things have to become established before they're added. This seems like it's circumventing that, and I would be inclined to vote with my wallet. But everything around 401k index funds that I see are very opaque, so it's not totally clear to me how I would avoid this if I wanted to.

Who invests in an index fund for "moonshots"?

Everyone I know who invests in an index fund is doing so to mitigate the risks of things like "moonshots" which are typically much riskier investments.

This feels like the kind of thing where, "you must be at least this human to pass" and that it just otherwise mostly wastes your time if you're a robot would cover most of what Captchas are useful for.

Like, if it takes you 3-5 seconds to get through a captcha as a human, as long as every single event has that effort added, the impact to something trying to use/reuse the end-page is way worse if you're a robot than if you're a human.

I can see a few usecases where it would still be valuable to continue the game of cat-and-mouse, but I feel like solving for consistency of human experience of your website, may actually be more punishing to anything trying to bypass it.

Huh, for someone whose "about" page says: “Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.”

You seem to be pushing an ideological agenda around wikipedia by posting opinion pieces about "how biased" wikipedia is.

I think the thing you have to understand is, there is no "unbiased" so treating wikipedia as "biased" in a vacuum misrepresents the fact-checking processes that go into validating articles written on wikipedia. Wikipedia does more to unbias the topics than like, 99% of the news media, and probably 100% of the substack/op-eds you appear to be consuming about wikipedia...

For example, this op-ed doesn't site a single counter-factual primary source.

Seems like a pretty political take on a wikipedia article, and none of it seems to take issue with the facts presented in the wikipedia article either. Just general mistrust of wikipedia construed as "whitewashing" which isn't even a correct use of that term in this day and age.

Gotta love "I don't need to show my work! It's self-evident!"

It's not self-evident, or the person wouldn't have asked for a source.

And you have numbers that you're pulling from "somewhere" without sharing a source for them, which means it's even further not self-evident.

This is not my reaction to just you. This is my reading of "any time a wealth tax is brought up." My recommendation to you, given you seem to be acting in good-faith:

Make it clear "What you want a wealth tax to look like instead" But also, it's easier to destroy than it is to create, so I think any state setting the grounds for how they're going to try this, is worth supporting and iterating on.

I feel like every opposition I read to wealth taxes is someone saying that we shouldn't do it, because it won't be perfect. Without offering an alternative to the status quo, which is nothing.

We can iterate on taxes if they're ineffective, but it's unforgivable to not try and do something in the face of so much inequality.

There's an old Chemistry joke, that I've reapplied to Software Engineering, and it goes something like:

A New Engineer (NE) shows up on their first day on the job, notebook in hand ready to learn. They get assigned to shadow an Experienced Engineer (EE) for their first day.

EE: Now, the thing is, for any project on our team, you only need to change about 3 lines of code. NE, preparing to write down notes: Which 3? EE: Well, it depends.

(Originally about Material Safety Data Sheets, and there only being 3 relevant lines on them).

I think this is what people miss about Software Development.

I feel like we need to hold Gov't Contractors to higher standards.

Like half of these ballooning budgets are things that Private Businesses brag about on the other side. "I got a $200B Private contract with the CA Gov't." Is a big win for the company, and a big loss for the taxpayer. To some extent I think CA should be able to reclaim a large portion of their contract (in some way) because costs ballooned.

The same for Military contractors. There needs to be better enforcement of "this is the budget that you bid, we won't increase that, and you still have to deliver."

Imagine if companies ended up having to sell part of their company to the gov't if they failed to deliver their contract.

You misunderstand me.

I think I’m okay with there being some remaining consequences for things you do to other people,

I would rather live in the world where they hadn't done those things to other people. Not that I would rather people forgive them and let them into a pizza shop. It's a pizza shop, who cares, they have a million other ways to get pizza if they want it. Ostracism is the last response we have for the wealthy doing unacceptable things.

Yeah, why don't people talk about how my model s tried to drive itself into oncoming traffic more? Not just anyone can drive themself into oncoming traffic.

But like, actually the reason is that the cars consistently make dangerous decisions when they're not being used as "glorified cruise control", and the sensors mean they only even get to do that during "perfect driving conditions"

Feels like the world that he created by hoarding vast sums of wealth, and limiting people's free speech, and cutting social safety net programs that put more and more people at risk as the world becomes less and less stable.

I would much rather have lived in the world where he could walk into a pizza place without security and fear. But I also would much rather have lived in the world where people had healthcare and they didn't have to fight companies like UHC tooth and nail to avoid getting their claims denied at every turn.

And the stability of this all comes from trust in Government regulation. Which he gutted, when he gutted the programs that were targeting him for committing fraud.

The wildest thing to me about the 2010s, was that the war on taxes got framed as a "class war". And everyone didn't understand that to mean "a war on anyone who is not the top 1%" Even reading through this comment section, people mistrust that Taxes are useful to prevent undue power gathering in the hands of a small number of people. They also then help fund programs which can help the underclass.

But the fear and dislike of taxes has clearly been weaponized by the ruling class to wage war on minimum wage workers and immigrants, in order to funnel as much wealth and power to the elites as possible.

The war on taxes was never "America vs Taxes" it was "The Wealthy vs. The Poor" and the wealthy were able to leverage the media to trick the poor people into reacting in fear that "The gov't is coming for your money." By just parroting their own fears about the gov't coming for their money and saying "it could happen to you too."

TBF, the Media really let/fueled this happening, likely because they were captured by corporate interests.

Site looked interesting, so I was just like "what would it look like to have a top tax rate like we did in the 1950s-1980s (Before Reagan dropped it)?" [1] And the hilarious thing is the propaganda it spews without any backing of data:

At a certain point, increases in tax rates will not raise more revenue. Once someone's tax rate becomes sufficiently high, they might work less or try harder to evade taxes. Based on existing evidence, this simulation assumes that increasing this group’s tax rate beyond your current level is unlikely to raise more revenue.

And then it pretends like the maximum amount of income you can get out of the richest 1% is $203B.

This is rich people's propaganda that we've bought into by pretending that Rich people don't need this country. But that's a lie. If it were true, they would just move, instead of fighting tooth and nail for tax cuts in every single election.

Also the breakdown of spending categories and the way they're represented are pretty clearly politically motivated, and the Numbers look a little suspicious to me. They don't even align with the CBO numbers.

Another really obvious thing missing is a "Capital Gains Tax"

Which is currently pegged to like 20%, and how CEOs get all of their income. So If Capital Gains was taxed as income, I think that would at least start to make the Income tax realistic.

[1] https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder...

I need you to reread my comment, and then paraphrase what you think I said, for me. Cause I don't get how this is someone's response to my comment in a million years unless it's like intentional rage bait, or something.

Sorry, this is russell's teapot falacy. "the burden of proof lies with the person making an unfalsifiable claim, rather than on others to disprove it"

If there is evidence this is related to cameras, then the onus is on companies making these cameras and claims to provide the data. Not on others to prove that they don't stop crime.

There's a reason you always start with the null hypothesis.