skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If you own shares in a corporation, on every dollar of profit that corp pays 21% tax.

No, it doesn’t, which is why many corporations with large profits still pay ~$0 corporate tax. On every $ of retained profits not negated by some special tax deduction, they pay 21% before considering special tax credits, sure. But the 21% is, as a result, an upper limit on the tax on retained profits, the lower limit is zero, and the biggest corporations tend to also have the most effective tax optimization (and also lobbying, so that the rules favor them from the outset) and so end up toward the lower limit.

> The investor pays 23% on what's distributed.

Nope, they pay the same rate as long term cap gains, 20% max (not flat, can also be as little as 0% depending on thr taxpayers income.)

> Fed: 28 cents (corp tax) State: 8 cents (corp tax) Fed: 43 cents (Biden admin proposed top capital gains rate) CA: 13 cents (Top CA income rate) Shareholder: 8 cents

Earlier, you correctly combined taxes where one applies only to the residual, despite the other misleading elements, but here tou seem to have forgotten how to do that and are, in addition to the mistakes made earlier, treating personal maximum tax rates applicable to distributions as applying not to the distributed amount but the amount before corporate taxes. This further overstates the total tax take.
What sort of systems are you building ? I’m guessing some variation of CMS, shopping cart or simple crud backoffice reporting systems.

I’ve spent 14 years working for a small agency building these sorts of systems. I kept up with all the cool new stuff that’s come out and played with it but all we ever needed was 2 load balanced app servers with a single instance Postgres database and we ran some pretty chunky systems.

I’m now looking for a new position and this attitude has come up to bite me. I’ve always been dismissive of the new dangled complexity but turns out there are systems out there that churn through so much data that mongodb makes sense, and large teams of devs where splitting systems into separate services and writing reusable components is required which is where frameworks and inter process communication tools come in.

Most things exist because there is a need for them.
> If you’re applying arbitrary invariants that aren’t codified in the type system, you may as well just use raw pointers.

This isn’t really true, as the character of bug produced is quite different between the two cases. If you make a mistake with offsets, you’ll get a runtime panic that tells you exactly where the problem occurred. If you make the same mistake with raw pointers, however, you’ll get corrupted memory somewhere which won’t necessarily show up as a problem until long after the erroneous code is executed.
But it should be possible to get 100% recall with higher than 50% precision if you have a good classifier right?
China Railway Map (2021)
> men find fertile women more attractive

Do they? How can they tell? Do they ask to see the eggs first?

> Genes which caused men to find unfertile women more attractive quickly died out.

Die out? I don't think genes work that way. But maybe language is a stumbling block here.

I will grant you that fertile women have been fertilized historically because tada - here we all are! But that does not in any way mean that all sex was for the sake of fertilization. Or even between semen- and egg-bearing people. And the amount of non-child-producing sex both today and historically seems to suggest that fertility is not the primary concern, let alone cause for non-childbearing sexual urges to "die out."
Ethereum? This is a pretty small minded view, considering the amount of talent and resources dedicated to building blockchain and crypto infrastructure.
It would be great to think that this would result in more recycling and use of old components, but I doubt it.

I’m fairly sure there’s enough old unused raspberry pies in peoples drawers that could be reutilised.
> The human element, where a reasonable person can watch a ball go across the plate, and it's just outside that little box the broadcast booth puts on, the ump calls strike three, and you as a fan let it go because, ya know what, "ehh he coulda hit that I think".

I am baffled because I don't understand how that is "the human element" at all. I don't know if you can explain that in a different way? And you could still have the same situation happen with a machine calling it a strike, couldn't you?
Dude. 5 different ways to handle asynchrony and zero consensus on which is best. A dynamic type system that contains errors like "null is null or not an object". A number system that consists of entirely of floats. Var let const. hoisting. Classes that are sugar on top of prototypes. Classes intermixed with prototypes. The fact that typescript exists says so much.

I think of javascript like perl. It makes things work where you need it but god I don't want to work on a codebase of more than a few files.
I used to work at Uber. This is not uncommon. Back when Uber was operating in china this was a massive problem - there would be farms and farms of fraudsters using the driver perks that Uber handed out to make crazy money.
Not judging (I think he’s great!) but this is probably some mixture of 1) social signaling (here’s how much I care about old fashioned traditional dress codes, and, look, I have the sufficient status that I can get away with wearing this) and 2) just plain fun. Maybe heavily weighted on #2, but #1 is also fun.
As a Cal grad, I think this hurts more people from my lower/middle class background than it helps. I see the SAT as a way to even the playing field. Now rich people can just pay for ‘experiences’ to game whatever holistic bullshit the admissions are looking for.

Reason N to not donate to my alma matter.
That obviously does not compensate the loss on fuel taxes unless it dramatically increases.
Cellebrite, the company, wouldn't be the one getting hacked. It's the police agencies' equipment that could potentially get hacked.
> But once your assets cross a certain threshold, almost all your spending is relative to the Joneses. The amount of absolute wealth no longer matters — what matters is the amount of wealth relative to your peers.

This seems to be the premise of the whole article: that being rich is some kind of big competition.

It feels presumptuous to me.

Perhaps there are people who are rich because they are smart, worked hard, and are fortunate. Perhaps these people generally also wish well for their peers?

Such a cynical view of motivation that this article presumes.
Follow the rcgroups threads.
When I was a child, I thought every animal should be my pet.

Decades later, I'm amazed this works at all.
Show HN: Tools to Protect Network
Arguments and opinions should be up for discussion regardless of who the author is. No one is questioning the validity of the author's interpretation of the law itself.

It sounds like you're making an appeal to authority rather than an actual point about the article.

The discussion isn't about how a law is being interpreted. This blog article is about how the Signal article can be interpreted by a tech informed lay person vs a judge and the security theater surrounding it.
Signal hasn't hacked Cellebrite, to the best of my knowledge.

They just pointed out that the software is poorly constructed in a blog post.

Any claims otherwise are premature.

Even their claims they they might put such exploit files on Signal devices were written in such a way as to be plausibly deniable.

Until and unless a Cellebrite device is known to have been exploited by such a file, we are speculating idly.

(FWIW, Signal doesn't even need to deploy the files now to have tainted the evidence that comes out of any Cellebrite device. The blog post was sufficient.)
You are right. My math in the post-distribution was wrong.

But the implications are still valid. There is a considerable tax on investment income.

And yes, corporations have figured out ways around paying the tax, but not in an efficient or socially useful way. Corporations are forced to reinvest beyond their competency instead of just distributing returns and allowing investors to re-allocate capital.
You're replying social sciences to a biology comment, where the mechanism described above can absolutely be shortened to "genes die out" in a given population pool.
You could listen to the podcast "Darknet Diaries". It's got pretty engaging tales from the "dark side" of the web - including hacking.
I'm at a FAANG-adjacent big company, we use what seems to be an in house tool. Twice each year I fill out a form in which I describe what I did, what I plan on doing, and how this contributes to my goals as well as to our shared goals of Diversity and Inclusion. Then my manager fills our the same form about me from his perspective.

Simultaneously I am encouraged to request feedback from my colleagues and they from me, in the same system. Also via the system, my skip-level sends me a request for feedback about my manager, and I have the option to make it anonymous to her (the skip), regardless it will not be visible to my manager.

Less formally, my manager periodically emails me asking for feedback about my colleagues, a few weeks later he shares with me what others said about me (anonymously).

I don't know how this process plays in to the raise and promotion discussion, it's opaque to me. Filling these things out is not my favorite task, it creates stress for me. I'm not sure if it's overall a good thing or not compared to my previous job where we had none of this, as well as no job titles, levels, promotions, etc. We just worked and got raises now and then, sometimes you had to ask and sometimes you didn't.
Why wouldn't you adjust his back to be facing you where you could accurately strike? Instead he does a reach-around strike which would be less accurate and would reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of said "fix". It's things like this where injuries probably stem from a person who is "trained to punch you in the lower back", considering this person doesn't have doctorate or nearly the extensive training to use physical abuse to fix someones back.
>It's nice for the tool to get better "for free" but if it's so far from becoming the right tool for certain tasks, what's the benefit?

How about 30 seconds of my time saved everytime I run a 1 minute current script? Which I might do dozens of times every day?

(Actually I run huge pipelines that include pure Python processing, and I would absolutely love a double-the-speed raw python).
Bunch of short UI strings in a spreadsheet don't work well. You need screenshots or English builds if possible, and the shorter sentences become, more context explanation become necessary, unless you actually want:

- "Kill them, they're Russians"

in place of "Remember - [say]No Russian[words]"[1]

- "Province"

in place of "State[as in status]"[2]

- "Scheduled installation time:"

in place of "Installation start in[at following directory]:"[3]

- "Preparing Phacochoerus africanus"

instead of ... "Loading Warthog"?[4]

- "An error report has been created. Would you like to send it?"

when it should say "[x] Send error reports automatically"(IIRC this one was in DisplayLink Windows driver)

Human language relies a lot on contexts, and without it there could be multiple technically valid candidates of interpretation that make no sense. Translators need the picture of the situation the text is used to narrow down the valid ones, and the easiest way is convey the situation is to just give them bunch of pictures.

Even something simple as "Back" could mean:

- "[show] Back [side]"

- "[go] Back [one step]"

- "[on] Back [of body]"

and there's no way for translators to know from "English: "Back", Translated: _____" form. And only one of them is correct.

Machine translations are hilariously worse by the way[5][6]:

English: "DO give methods names that are verbs or verb phrases."
MT Japanese: "Do-not-verb or verb phrases specify name of a Method."

Ref., (most is in Japanese, sorry):

1: https://news.denfaminicogamer.jp/gamenewsplus/200402i

2: https://blog.netandfield.com/shar/2020/07/sql-server-3.html

3: https://sccm.jp/2020/12/06/post-2871/

4: https://twitter.com/skb_apos/status/1338001444138467329/phot...

5: https://github.com/dotnet/docs.ja-jp/issues/118

6: https://cpplover.blogspot.com/2018/07/blog-post.html
A human would have seen what all the other cars were doing, and emulated that eventually, even if the construction was poorly marked.

It was incredible to watch how Waymo was able to plot the huge number of cars accurately around the vehicle throughout the drive. But as soon as something creative was required, it all fell apart.

I still remember a talk where someone from the original DARPA challenge was recounting an episode where two autonomous cars arrived at an intersection precisely at the same time. They deadlocked because they were waiting for each other to go. A programmer added jitter to work around that situation, but it is one of those things humans innately would figure out.
Double booking is a consequence of shortage. You can't separate it out. Longer lead times make it harder to predict future demand, and perception of scarcity leads to overbooking that exacerbates the negative consequences of underbooking.
No, getting richer is a side effect. They very much intended to get rich to make the first billion. It's the investments after that that aren't intended for wealth building, but are intended to fund things they think make the world better.

> The article is trying to provide a framework for why it is that very wealthy people might be vocal supporters of taxes.

And I'm saying that it's wrong. They are vocal for higher taxes because they know that higher taxes reduce wealth inequality, and we know that inequality is bad for economic growth. But they also know that they can't just give their own money away to solve inequality, because then the people who aren't giving it away will just collect what they give away.
https://www.youtube.com/user/BirdTricks Cautionary/educational link for anyone who wants to adopt a parrot. They have a handful of species themselves, and release videos on several other species.
My advice to anyone who talks to me about wanting a cockatoo, or any large bird really, is don't. If you're asking me about them, then you don't know what you're getting into. If you don't intend to devote a substantial portion of your life to that animal, it will not work.

Personally, I'd never own an animal smarter than a conure. And a conure is really pushing it. If I ever get the cats wrangled well enough and am willing to give up my non-stick pans, I think I'd like a couple parakeets. Plenty smart, sweet, interactive, and I won't have to feel guilty about providing enough metal stimulation for what is essentially a 2 year old kid.
I got curious and looked at a non-Mercator map and it seems Cairo is 7-8hrs away. Damn, Africa is huge.

Interestingly India got separated from African continent. West cost of India snugly fits on the right edge of The Horn of Africa. India collided with the larger Asian land mass resulting in the formation of the Himalayan mountain range. It’s fun to think about that the western coastal mountains of India are much older than the northern mountains!

Geography is lot of fun!!
This entire essay is a “[citation needed]”.

Aside from the lack of evidence given for basic claims (like that the rich support higher taxes), it seems to take as a given that all tax codes are regressive (what about wealth taxes?)—a critical assumption in its argument.

Yet even if the evidence were presented, causality would be tough to establish. An easy reason to assume, hypothetically, that countries with a higher degree of inherited wealth would have more popular support for higher taxes is not that taxes are a ploy by the rich (what?) but that democracies tend to favor higher taxes when wealth distribution appears less fair—and that getting rich due to the luck of birth appears especially unfair.

What’s especially irksome about this essay is that, if it has a policy argument, that argument seems to be, “give up on public policy. The rich will just pervert it anyway.” That’s very disappointingly cynical.
I think the point is that there is a systematic difference in experiences between people writing about diets and the general population that skews the debate in an unrealistic direction.
Arizona DOT publishes this data and it sometimes contains this information in at least text form. I'm almost certain Google parses that for maps, but I doubt Waymo uses it for much more than graylist avoidance areas and prioritizing where they'll send mapping cars, if even that. The data simply isn't detailed or reliable enough to use directly.
Judging from the downvotes, a good portion failed at thinking about it. Answer:

In the 20th century, we commonly expressed the year by its last two digits, you know this is why we talk about "70s", "80s", "90s". It's a small number, not ambiguous, and it also happens to be "the number of years since 1900". So of course a computer in the mid to late 20th century would choose this base. IT means the number is convenient for display, but also works for the machine, because "years base 1900" is a valid machine model as well. And it became a popular time format others picked up.

Lo and behold, though, the world didn't end in 2000. What do we do? Well, let it go over 99 and we add "1900" to it for display purposes, so we can maintain BC.

There. That's why we didn't choose any other base from 4.3 billion years or whatever.
We've already picked a few places out in Europe that fit our description perfectly but thanks for your concern.
Why a link to some aggregator site?

Here is the real link: https://cmsinstallation.blogspot.com/2021/05/24-html-tags-yo...

As for the article's content, only a handful are ones that I've never seen - neat! - but a handful are used _often_. Not sure why the author thought nobody used them.

<code> and <pre> in particular are still used quite frequently.
unfortunately it seems pretty clear to me that it'd be a CFAA violation:

"(A)knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;"

if Signal downloaded Cellebrite-pwning shellcode to its app, that shows intent.. it's "knowingly causing transmission" in the sense that worm authors knowingly cause transmission of their viruses by equipping them with exploits (and are thus responsible for damage wherever the worm goes.)

if that shellcode does anything at all - deleting files, adding files, bricking the device, that falls under the CFAA's definition of "damage," since it affects the integrity of the extracted files.

you could argue that Signal doesn't knowingly intend to infect "protected computers," but unless these updates are, say, geofenced to not hit the US, it'll be obvious to the court that they could anticipate government machines getting hit.

the smartest thing would be for Signal to follow through on delivering these files, but have them be cat pictures. troll Cellebrite and muddy the waters for prosecutors. no CFAA violation, but Cellebrite can't ever be sure (and prosecutors can't ever prove.)
You are missing the 3.8% net investment income tax on capital gains.

I acknowledge the math error in a sibling post.
That title makes no sense.
I can't tell if you just missed the point, lack the background knowledge to understand it, or are pretending not to understand it for some kind of political reason, so I'll try to explain it in a different way.

Men who only sought sex with other men* or with postmenopausal women may have had a lot of sex, as you say, but they also have no descendants (unless a fertile woman raped them at some point, or they were born late enough to donate to a sperm bank). So their genes died out. Even a fairly small inclination in this direction is enough to produce a very large difference in gene prevalence after many generations. In only 200 generations, an allele that gives you an only 5% lower chance of having children will decrease in its relative prevalence by a factor of thirty thousand (0.95 ** 200 = 3.5e-5). That is the way genes work.

Of course most sex among humans (and hominins in general) doesn't produce offspring, and in humans and bonobos (but not chimpanzees) most of it can't possibly produce offspring. That's fine. Sex isn't a limited commodity. Sex is abundant. But hominins, especially humans, are choosy about who they have sex with, and any alleles that can get them to be choosy in a way that will increase their chances of reproducing will become more abundant over time.

Is 200 generations a long time? Hominins are about 300,000 generations old. Australopithecines are about 200,000 gnerations old. Homo is about 100,000 generations old. Homo sapiens is about 10,000 generations old. Agriculture and Catal Hoyuk are about 500 generations old. So I don't think it is.

Does that help?

______

* Unless those other men they were having sex with were trans men equipped with a fertile uterus, anyway.
My only issue with CSS is the absence of container queries [1]. Now I need to rely on size listeners of the container element to make my components truly responsive. Media Queries do not work for components. CSS Grid & Flexbox are nice but not enough to achieve radical layout changes for certain breakpoints.

[1] - https://css-tricks.com/say-hello-to-css-container-queries/
Not saying that this is the right example, but usually when throwing in some emotional things to get attention is considered egocentric.
I am not sure the fire hazard argument hold. Would you remove any Californian forest for that reason?

Only a very small portion of earth is not able to generate a forest when left alone
But when you don’t allow drivers to take over, you need be perfect in all situations or your end up in this type of traffic circle all the time (or have to limit coverage are severely).
You're going to have a long way to go to claim that Signal publishing files onto hundreds or thousands of devices is obstruction of justice.

The law doesn't look kindly on prior restraint.
Second the cockatiel recommendation!

They are very rewarding pets, if still demanding... you get out what you put in.

Parrots lead active emotional lives. Relationships mean a lot to them, they come with expectations, and they know when they are not being taken seriously.

I think there is a common misconception in the bird owner universe that a cockatiel is some kind of starter parrot, and to get the full experience you need to get a larger cockatoo, a macaw, or some other bird that can live more than 60 years, scream as loud as a jet engine, and take your nose off... it’s not true. Give a cockatiel companionship and respect and they’re every bit as engaging and interesting (and loving) as anything bigger or more exotic.
Definitely New England clam chowder. I'm not sure I'd like Manhatten style. You're just teasing me now with this Hatteras style. I don't think there's a good way to get decently fresh clams to the middle of the country.

I don't have a taste for grits. I finally came around to gravy on my rice, but I'm still iffy on grits.

I'm holding out hope that there's a decent lobster roll around here somewhere. You can get live lobsters here. There's no real reason you couldn't do a good lobster roll.