skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
States like the US can just spend in advance without taxing, there’s no necessary relation. We’re not on the gold standard anymore. The point of a tax isn’t to pay for things, it’s to attempt to control inflation and the money supply, and to combat inequality. The idea that a state (read nation, for US states things are different) would become reliant on such a tax to pay for things doesn’t hold water. It may become ‘reliant’ on it as a means to reduce inequality but that’s another matter.

The avoidance issue is a big one and the mechanism of making sure people pay is at least as important as where one sets the floor. Cross border capital flows can be pernicious.

Piketty gets into how different rates of capital accumulation create huge rifts between people who own appreciating assets like land and equities and people who don’t who primarily earn wages. The idea behind the wealth tax is to try and narrow the rift.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Show HN: NCF 2.0 – The platform for No-code Founders
> And because that liquidation or transformation is a taxable event, and holding the wealth is not, people are far more likely to hold onto wealth rather than try to transform it.

But if wealth is never liquidated, then how is it anything more than just a life high score? It's inconsequential to the outside world.
> That's a good thing. Taxing wealth more, and income less, helps equalize wealth disparities over time.

It also slows economic growth over time, because most of the tax money is redistributed by the government, not invested, while the wealthy generally invest their wealth.
I always like seeing competitors to GA but the website could really use some more information on why you should use it and the features it gives you. It's hard to beat top competitors in a saturated space.
Postwoman Is Now Hoppscotch?
What would be the implications for a lifestyle businesses that does not intend to scale?

It seems that a rapidly growing startup would be constantly investing its wealth, but a successful lifestyle business makes relatively close to the same income every year with little growth. Would the lifestyle business' wealth then be chipped away at year after year?
Though, tread carefully there. If the thing that makes it append only is that you're just not using its destructive update features, then the store isn't really append only. Just because everyone agreed to limit the ways they interact with the data store doesn't mean you can trust buggy code, sloppy programming, and attackers to honor that agreement.
As someone who knows some Category Theory, Algebraic Topology, and a smidgen of Algebraic Geometry, I totally agree. Category Theory is a very useful and essential tool in those subjects.

However, to me it reminds me of String Theory, in that it has been sold as Theory of Everything for Mathematics and adjacent fields.

Category Theory might even be somewhat useful for language designers, but, I agree that it offers little benefit for programmers even with languages like Haskell.

Even Bartosz said that Adjoints aren't that interesting in Haskell because every functor is an endofunctor.
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-utils/-/issues/177

Wasn’t the MTAs, this time.
As a rate - but not as what matters - actual money. I would expect wealthy to pay a smaller percentage. As an example - 1% of $1B = $10M. 30% of $40k = $12k.

They still pay more in actual dollars. Dollars are what people are after here.
That's an interesting point.

I just switched back to iOS about a year ago and I haven't seen an ad for it in the app store or had it recommended for any of the music players I've test driven since I switched back.

I'm not sure if that's just bad marketing or is it Apple not pushing its own products in the app store?
That’s a lot harder to pull off. What methods do you use to accomplish this?
I think you might be underestimating the potential of biological engineering.
Not to derail the topic but “taxing the rich” was one of the bullet points that was supposed to answer where the money for a UBI system would come from.

This is exactly how globalization will impact UBI as well, because at the end of the day the manufacturing firms, big corporations and everyone else who is vested in making money will uproot and go elsewhere, where they won’t be taxed so harshly.

And just to add, that France even tried to pull that stunt without asking “what happens when they all leave?” is just silly negligence. Of course these people are not dependent on any particular country - they’ve diversified their assets long ago.

Strikes me as incredibly narrow minded thinking at a country level. Unbelievable.
Blockbuster drove itself out of business Possibly more so than Netflix because of billionaire investor Carl
Icahn.
Genuine question: If there was no wealth tax and your 100M remained as 100M till the end of your life (no money was spent either) - that is zero growth, wouldn't you say you have been a failure as a VC, Investor, or Startup founder?
Just out of curiosity, why isn't property tax considered a form of wealth tax?
My parents have owned their home for about 50 years now. If they sold it today and turned around and bought another house they pretty much could get about the same sized house. The about 20k they paid for it 50 years ago in some places would not even get you a down payment.

Wealth is not the same as cash value. It is easy to miss the distinction. We may be agreeing? We also already have a 'wealth tax' on many items already. We call it property tax.
> Someone forgot to model growth in the value of the asset, and/or putting the wealth to use.

It's surprisingly not different.

If you have an asset that is dormant, is $100, and you tax it with 1% for 20 years, you get to $81.79 by calculating 1000.99^20.

Now suppose instead, your asset grows by 10% a year, and you have no tax. That asset grows to 1001.10^20 = $672

Now suppose that prior to the investment each year you tax it with 1% and invest the rest, for 20 years, again at 10%. So you get 1000.99^201.10^20 = $550

That $550 of $672 is exactly the same portion as $81.79 is of $100. In other words, growth or no growth, it has exactly the same effect, either way a 1% tax over 20 years takes 18.2%.

> Penalizing static value seems almost reasonable.

In the philosophy of taxation there's a different approach. Money you own is money you earned. Typically earnings are taxed. You produce X value, and a small portion of X is allocated to a general pot of money to fund general things in society, e.g. infrastructure, rule of law etc. But after that, it's your money. If you then invest it and earn more, again, a portion of those earnings are taxed. But if you don't do anything with the money, for the government to take it, is seen as a form of theft.

The principle why the one form of appropriation is okay and the other isn't, is because when you earn, you benefit. And the government benefits, too. When you just store, you don't benefit, and taking it is a purely negative experience. Many people are willing to share part of their new earnings. Few are willing to give up something that has always belonged to them.

Inflation is a natural penalty on static value anyway. So are opportunity costs. Plus, actually static value is quite rare, money in a savings account is being put to work by the bank. The amount of really static money (like money under your mattress, or a permanently vacant home) is quite a small portion of the financial system and again being penalised by inflation and opportunity costs already.
Also let's not forget 83B is a thing, and let's you opt in to practically having LTCG on grant price instead of vest price. If you have a vest schedule for founders, with this calculation, income tax is worse than the wealth tax, probably, under STCG.
Very Groovy.
"Society creates government, not the other way around..."

And government supports and enriches society. It's symbiotic, not parasitic.

"claim credit for what people have created on their own"

Nobody creates anything on their own. Full stop. Every single citizen is supported by countless public infrastructure initiatives, from transportation to safety to education to etc etc, without which no significant achievement would be possible.
It was more about Jimmy Iovine and Dre and less about headphones. They had a star team, Ian Rogers, Jimmy Iovine, Dr. Dre and Trent Reznor as creative director... and somehow we ended up with Apple Music. sigh
It's probably personally advantageous to diversify in that situation. But if you get recruited by a $100m startup that's not yet profitable, and you hear that the founder sold half her stock last year, is there any chance you're working there?
tl;dr: compound interest works both ways

This is a shallow analysis. It doesn't anticipate any sort of growth in the value of the stock.

If you can't find a way to grow $50M at even 1% per year, I fear for your fiscal health.
Here is another to add to that list. They just hit 2.0 this week.

https://github.com/electerious/Ackee
This is pretty accurate. There are a couple more interesting elements to it as well (at least in the security clearance side of things, and not "criminal proceedings" side):

1. there is a lot of stress around the fact that if you don't pass the poly, you don't have a clearance and so you don't have a career

2. you will "fail" at least one poly in each cycle so the stakes are raised in subsequent interviews RE: #1
The Recent Clearview AI News Story We Should All Be Aware Of
Forget what I said about PhpMyAdmin, you can't edit serialized blobs easily. Wp-cli is the way to do it.
Boooooooo

This is just bad (bad == misleading) math. Where's the appreciation of the assets? Where's the real examples from other countries that have tried wealth taxes? I don't know what he's _trying_ to do, but the effect of his rhetoric certainly seems to me that "If you won the lottery, you this would be bad for you! [but if you don't, it'd be great for you, and really only bad for ultra-rich people like me]"

I'd love to see some real numbers on "how much paul graham would pay" vs "how much your average startup founder who fails a couple times and has a moderate success or two" would pay.

Also we're talking about "over 60 years" - this isn't "government swoops in and steals half of your dragon's hoard of gold" this is "you pay taxes to support the society that allows you to safely hoard gold in the first place, and oh by the way you're still richer than anyone else and certainly wealthy enough to live a stupidly comfortable lifestyle even if 95% of your $100M assets got repo'd and you somehow managed to never appreciate your assets at all"

If it wasn't obvious, I'm clearly pro wealth redistribution, and I get that many people are fundamentally against that. It seems dumb to me to think that modest wealth redistribution is unjust or bad unless you are currently a member of the ultra rich. (and just to be clear, I feel that even a 5% wealth tax should be described as "modest")
Abos are not Australians

Australians are WHITE

Australians came from UK and EUROPE

------------

If anything it shows the lack of culture that abos had before white man showed up

- No farming

- No sewage

- No government

- No animals domesticated

- No currency

- over 70 languages

--------------

They were conquer , just like Indians and other races

time to deal with it and move the fuck on
Why wouldn't they just extend their existing syntax?
i.e. something like

if (p is Point(x,y)){
//p : Point, x: int, y: int
}

or hell, adopt any other pattern matching syntax.
"Either they adopt the java syntax or are missing features" seems like a false dilemma to me.
ClamOne - An Open Source Linux Front End to the ClamAV Antivirus Engine
There’s many sites you can use to see where something is. Inconvenience still but only one step first.
Indeed, nutrient and calorie density + the quality of proteins in the food source are all important.
It’s often not even self interest; fairly often it’s obvious that some participants in these discussions are searching for arguments to validate pre-held beliefs and policy positions.

Although sometimes self interest is also a factor.
Opposite. I can't stand languages that require programmer to do menial tasks such as add additional punctuation to indicate blocks that are clear from indentation. Or for end of line when there's a carriage return.

And that produce visual noise and based on many formatting standards enforce wasted vertical space (curly on its own line) being able to see more code on screen without scrolling.

I have to type that whutespace. Whitespace indentation and line breaks are the most significant visual elements. Why would the compiler ignore that?
Always Sell a Big Idea
Old Hollywood died when they stopped creating anything and started doing nothing but sequels and comic book films.

The record industry died when it stopped discovering, polishing, and promoting real creativity and instead started manufacturing pop that all sounds the same because its written by the same couple Swedish guys. There have been no major new breakthrough styles of music since the early 1990s because the industry stopped performing its talent scout function, which was its primary value add.

People will support you if you have something to support. Add no value and you are redundant and the market will go around you.

If the streamers ever stop making fabulous original content, they too will be disrupted.
Yup. I do all of these things, and also put my phone on DND at the end of my day.

I still wear my normal "work shirts" (button down jos a bank clearance shirts, ftw!) and get tidied up since I spend a decent chunk of my day on WebEx.

I also sit at the "wrong" position of my dining table, OR sit in our spare bedroom / office, which I only use for work, and only do work on my work laptop.

The only thing that causes problems for me is my phone buzzing or alerting because of email / calendar / slack / texts from colleagues.

Between the "fuzzy" work day from COVID and a worldwide team, there's always stuff going on. I have to occasionally go on DND to really "unplug."
Not at all, it is very common in ML languages, Smalltalk, and even Groovy already had it.
> no, only the most obstinate would not diversify their holdings once they reach tens of millions, let alone billions.

Just do the math, you need to divest a significant percentage of your own holdings in order to re-invest it into diversified portfolios sufficient to pay a wealth tax. The vast majority of founder paper-billionaires haven't come remotely close to doing this.
Sure, nearly every opinion or argument is fallible. I'm not explicitly trying to create a slippery slope or fear monger. A slippery slope tends to lead to unintended consequences. I don't think expanding the net is unintended - I believe it's the deliberate goal. Our history suggests this w/r/t income taxes, etc.
Why would you pick the most trivial example, rather than something that shows the high-level expressiveness of J et. al.?
Using NumPy to Optimize Your Code: Internals, Strides, Reshape and Transpose
Do any cloud providers create backups on top of replication though?

Backing up databases (terabytes) is feasible, they're not that big.

But an entire cloud storage for photo and video for millions, we're talking maybe exabytes. The notion of making "separate" backups seems cost-prohibitive.

I am curious, though -- for services like Dropbox or Google Drive, how many replicas are there of your files? I know there must be redundancy in case a disk fails, but do they keep 2 instances of your data or more? And are the instances spread out geographically, some or all?
> The other thing going on is that Netflix' DVD service drove Blockbuster et al out of business and now the Netflix back catalog is pretty terrible.

I subscribe to both Netflix DVD and streaming.

I don’t much like serialized shows and maintain streaming mainly for my partner and the occasional one off.

Netflix’s DVD back catalog is thinning and I’m sort of at a crossroads about what to do.

I wish Netflix would spin off the DVD service and give it a chance to thrive.
It's no more immoral to avoid taxes (legally) than it is to make money. I wish you much success!
No not at all. Nobody has ever quit under my management.

People quit bosses, not jobs and I've always kept my people. So I think I've been pretty good
S3 bucket with object lock is as offline and convenient as it gets
I understand that the CBI (California Bureau of Investigation in case it's not obvious) used to employ psychics. Not that psychics actually exist.
>I wish more companies would value those who "challenge the book" instead of "follow the book" or that I could find a way to obediently follow it instead of challenge it.

it sounds like you've identified a personal problem with a clear goal, the next logical step would be to shop around therapists who think they might help you achieve that specific goal. and i think it's very important to shop them. Maybe even read a few books on how to find the right therapist for you. It's important to not get stuck on one who you don't like or who isn't interested in help you the way you want to be helped. I've found with therapy that sunk cost fallacy is real when you've found one that really doesn't fit with your goals.
Given the downvotes, my humor is either too subtle or just plain annoying.
The employees receive "cash dividends" that are typically lower than market rates for a salary plus the second they leave for a new job they will likely end up creatively shafted out of the difference in salary they effectively invested in good faith.

Because they're not working there anymore it's "demoralizing to others" if they retain the ownership that, again, they invested a part of their salary for in good faith. You've probably heard that one before.

It is absolutely outrageous to tell an employee that they're getting paid less in exchange for equity and then turn around and declare that the equity doesn't count the same as if they got paid market rates and just invested a portion of their salary.
But not with 100% tax. Your wealth still increases.
Btw, the above was an attempt at a GPT3 trap. I could tell by the sentence structure that the person I was replying to didn't seem normal
Not that you're necessarily wrong, but I find it fascinating that the state of social trust is so low in the united states that the most powerful and resonant arguments against potential laws are even if the law is good, a future law in the same vein might go too far and thus even the good law should be shot down.

You can see this on a variety of topics. Gun control legislation, immigration reform, healthcare reform, etc. Reasonable laws are perpetually overshadowed by the boogeyman on the horizon.
I've used https://count.ly/ instead of Google Analytics to gather exception data and business analytics from mobile and web apps. Relatively cheap for decent scale and they're very nice and helpful.
No I don’t think most people would agree with you. Outside of the USA, the idea of leaving healthcare and education and environmental sustainability up to the market is laughable, and scary.
I have sued Jill Selkowitch. My lawyer says that it will cost $40K, at least, and take more than 6 months before it gets before a judge. Jill Selkowitch has now filed to get the case dismissed trying to argue (for real) that there is no conflict for a judge to rule on. So now I have to pay to respond to that. I also can't keep suing anyone who files a complaint. Apple allowing this is the real problem.
>The point of a tax isn’t to pay for things, it’s to attempt to control inflation and the money supply, and to combat inequality.

A significant proportion of Americans would disagree with you that it's the government's business to "combat inequality". Most people agree with taxes to help the needy and fund infrastructure, but it's a harder sell that the government should punish people just for being too successful.

>Piketty gets into how different rates of capital accumulation create huge rifts between people who own appreciating assets like land and equities and people who don’t who primarily earn wages. The idea behind the wealth tax is to try and narrow the rift.

But he doesn't outline clearly what the problem with this rift is. To quote the criticisms section of the Wiki page on his book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...):

"One strand of critique faults Piketty for placing inequality at the center of analysis without any reflection on why it matters.

According to Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, he merely assumes that inequality matters, but never explains why. He only demonstrates that it exists and how it worsens.[36] Or as his colleague Clive Crook put it: "Aside from its other flaws, Capital in the 21st Century invites readers to believe not just that inequality is important, but that nothing else matters. This book wants you to worry about low growth in the coming decades not because that would mean a slower rise in living standards, but because it might ... worsen inequality."[35] "
Agreed. If someone's barrier to creating a startup is "but when I get unimaginably rich, the government is going to take some of my money!" then good riddance. Take that self-centered, unethical nonsense elsewhere.
Down the Rabbit Hole: The world of estranged parents' forums
This is not at all what the article is about? I do not think the Chinese are as unified as they are made out to be.

I think it's a joke to pretend that China is some ideal to aspire to, but sadly, I think the West will have to use similar tactics to continue to compete.

I believe a big part of China's current strength is by actively exploiting the weaknesses of Capitalism. For a long time, they've exploited the race-to-the-bottom of pricing, and they've gotten rich from it, partially through the sacrifice of their people.

Now that China has that new-found wealth (the country and the people), they are using that wealth to exploit Capitalism in a different way. Since Capitalism is inherently less directed and "top-down", now they're able to manipulate industries by being a big buyer instead. This is inherently part of Capitalism, but since the Chinese government has a more direct control of their economy, they're able to leverage a huge amount of economic power in a more directed fashion.

You want to sell that product here? Well, you're going to have to do it our way. Western governments will have to do the same, putting restrictions on what compromises Western companies are allowed to make, and putting restrictions on Chinese products as well.
I thought this was quite well accepted. I can't speak to the FBI, but for CSIS, the Canadian Equivalent, the "polygraph tech" who pretends to just be working the machine, is actually a psychologist watching your responses.
The website explains that on the 'How it works' page: https://1eurohouses.com/how-it-works-and-benefits/
What they want and what they end up hiring are very rarely the same.
That’s often reported but factually incorrect he did not own 100% of Ikea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_INGKA_Foundation. That charity was valued at 36 Billion in 2006 and controls most IKEA stores and assets.

The family owned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interogo_Foundation which was valued at 15B in 2011 which controls IP and collects 3% of revenue from each store.
There are researchers using functional MRI (and machine learning presumably) to try and detect lies. There may even be some trying to use it commercially.

I imagine it's about as reproducible as most fmri research, as in not.
Their jobs depend on the polygraph existing as a credible institution
Most people here not in the US will tell you that there are two things that are incredibly expensive in the US because they are controlled by the market instead of by the government like they are in almost every other country (healthcare and higher ed).
I think the argument that you're making is that the existing estate taxes need to close foreign asset loopholes, but that's about it.
This sounds a bit like "fixed role therapy" [1]

[1] http://www.pcp-net.org/encyclopaedia/fixed-role-ther.html