Since it looks like you’re the author, well… “you’re (that’s) socialist.”
Given you’ve (ironically or not) opened with a threat to murder anyone who makes this claim, via “I’m tired of being calm about this. If you so much as whisper ‘that’s socialist’ […] I will beat you to death with a sickle tied to a demand curve.”:
You may try to beat people to death with your precious sickle. In the civilized world, you’ll die from a stream of (ideally lead-free, but when people are try to kill you being environmentally friendly is optional) high speed projectiles.
You propose redistribution intentionally and explicitly, then claim, “redistribution isn’t the point”. Yes. It is, and we all know it.
You lie that it won’t cause massive inflation to just print money and then tax it, before going on to admit, “Whoever calculates the national CPI will have a tiny bit of extra work to do. It also is inflation in terms of eroding savings and assets.” …so yes, it will be inflation, but you just need someone to do the lying for you via a bit of “extra work”.
You claim this will solve the stagnation of Western economies, the “far right”, nationalism, housing, and “consumption as a component of economic activity”. Will it also solve world peace and hunger, or do you want to stop while you’re behind?
Just admit what you want directly AND stop lying in the process.
I know my tone was harsh, but that's mainly because I'm tired of people thinking I'm taking a side. Using VAT to fund this means that it isn't a tax on capital or on labor, that's why it's more neutral than all other methods. A wealth, profit, dividend tax, that's a tax on wealth or capital or rich people or business, whatever you prefer. An income tax is a tax on workers. VAT avoids that question.
It is slightly redistributive, yes, but really only slightly. Its hard to design it to not be redistributive, but if you really want to do that then you raise VAT and lower income taxes instead of funding a UBI. I wrote about that later in the piece.
VAT absolutely doesn't help. Companies don't pay vat by design. Wealthy people almost never pay VAT, unless it's a gift, because they own companies. My and a lot of my cousins never paid VAT on their school supplies, as they were bought by our uncles companies.
My sister cooked on a yacht for a company that lost money every year by selling their services at loss, before selling its assets to another company (who then hired her). The company did not pay VAT when they buy the yacht, the only moment the owners pay VAT is when they buy the yacht company 'services' (which are basically free).
This is essentially "The Fair Tax" proposed many years ago, it's a VAT, but with a pre-bate check that covers the VAT up to a certain percent of income. So if there's a $100K no VAT minimum. The pre-bate is $25k. Anyone spending less than $100k annually pays zero taxes. Pair that with VAT exemptions for second hand goods and business under a certain size and you solve most wealth inequality and welfare issues very quickly.
The police are under no obligation to provide service to specific people or businesses, only the public in general. They don’t even have to say “This is a civil matter”, they could just say “Eh, this doesn’t interest us, good luck with that.”
I’m late in responding, but yeah… No particular duty on the part of the police, including in the middle of someone killing you, and all (see the book “Dial 911 and Die”).
This is a dispute about who is the rightful owner of the Lego. That is a civil matter to be decided by the courts. Doesn't matter how clear the evidence, such disputes are for the courtroom.
Absolutely - and there are bad actors here that we should be mad at since they are abusing the law enforcement system but the default goal in situations should always be to de-escalate to prevent violence. I think the cops could have done a better job at explaining next steps and routes to approach a civil resolution but anyone objecting to the police officer removing Ben from the store property after a trespassing complaint doesn't understand how abusive it can be on the receiving end of stalking or harassment.
Separating parties in a civil dispute is always a good idea.
As someone else mentioned it IS entirely problematic how advertisers/others abuse people, and I get WHY location gets stripped. I still think it's abusive to take away the user's choice.
(and why do they have to strip almost ALL EXIF data, instead of just location? [yes, yes, fingerprinting, but there are LOTS of iPhone {NUMBER} whatever out there])
It really just needs to be clearly communicated, opt-in at attach time. Probably with a severely hidden, developer-screen level, or BIG WARNING in security settings to totally disable stripping.
I assume most people won't want it, _usually_, so when adding photos just have it be a double-opt in - you have to both hit an extra button during attachment, then select "include location" or "include location and metadata", then a modal warning/confirmation.
Something like: "Confirm including photo location? This will permit the recipient to see where the pictures were taken. <yes/no>"
I agree with you that, when sharing, location should be stripped by default with an option to include it.
After seeing this post I checked my recent photos. I'm using a Pixel 6 Pro with the most recent android release and the stock camera app. None of my recent photos have location in the EXIF, even locally, and there's no option to turn it on.
It's particularly galling that the Camera app still wants location permissions and if you view a photo in the Google Photos app, the location is still there. Google can have those exact locations, but no one, not even the user, can.
To quote all of the "don't submit" from HN guidelines:
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
The definition of "interesting new phenomenon" has room for variance in interpretation, but the sentence following really scopes that down.
So, yes, participation is optional; however, if moderation can't keep it under control, HN will suffer, badly.
Who is to say it isn't under control? It is operating as desired, unless you have inside baseball. What you experience as an HN participant is the experience mods are tuning for.
If you believe they aren't doing their job, I would re-evaluate your priors and the mental model on the topic. If mods wanted you to have a different experience, it is well within their power to make those changes trivially, either through human or programatic actions. This is distinct from "I do not like the experience I am having and mods will not change the experience." But, if you are here, it is likely well within your control and capabilities to build your own tools to improve the experience to your liking if mods will not. It is theirs to operate as they wish, after all.
You're quoting guidelines as if they are law, while the law is what you experience constantly as mods tend to the site. "The purpose of a system is what it does."
Generalized, noting there are always exceptions: many CS lessons seem to be needing repetition among Node.js users, in the general sense and where CS wasn’t really taught.
Mistake? Gah. Probably in a lot of cases. The ecosystem around it is both “robust” in the sense of projects and libraries, and “objectively awful” for permitting some of the recent security issues seen.
ECMAScript was never intended for where it’s at now, and all the lipstick Google applies won’t change that, even if it “works fast” “now”.
What I’d pick for a new project? It depends, tell me about the project. …it probably won’t be Node.js though.
The kinds of things you want here, and that I think we all do, are hard.
Yes, ideally a trusted intermediary would do something like… read your digital ID (which stiLL doesn’t guarantee it’s you providing it, up to a point), examine a birthdate, and sign an attestation to a liquor store that “this user is 21 or older” without you ever having to fork over your name, address, or biometric details.
The will to enforce such measures, at least in the US, seems low.
This is why the EU is going the app route. You load your ID into an app, and can review on-the-fly what data you're sharing (including a simple "older than 18" token to buy liquor). The app also allows keeping a log of who requested what data, so if you find out in hindsight that your grocery store requested your full name illegally, you can report them.
Enforcement chances in the US, maybe outside of California, do seem low, but at least the "we cannot do it" argument is off the table when the EU has a ready-to-deploy suite on Github for anyone to access. If you don't like the EU, the Yivi (previously IRMA) project implements pretty much the same ecosystem, but in a slightly different way.
reply