skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not proposing anything novel, just describing the Harberger Tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harberger_Tax), or a variant thereof.

In particular the book by Glen Weyl mentioned in that article describes how it could work in more detail, and in a way that address the concerns you have.

A relevant except from that book (which I've got a Kindle copy of):

> For any tax rate below the turnover rate, the possessor will always set a price above the amount she is willing to accept[43]. When the tax rate is zero, the possessor is free to set any price she wishes at no cost and thus would set the monopoly price. When the tax rate equals the turnover rate, she has to reveal her true value. For intermediate tax rates, she will still be discouraged by the tax from setting a very high price, but she will not have a full incentive to report her exact value. Instead, she will set a price intermediate between her true value and the monopoly price that she expects a buyer to be willing to pay. As the tax rises from zero to the turnover rate, the price she quotes will gradually fall from the monopoly price to her true value.

That 43rd footnote in particular further addresses your exact concern (the mentioned "COST" stands for "common ownership self-assessed tax"):

> 43.: This fact helps allay two potential objections to a COST: that possessors may wish to “sabotage” the appeal of their goods to others to avoid their interest in taking the good, and that predatory outsiders may maliciously take goods just to harm a possessor. Notice that neither of these are possible if possessors always set prices above the minimum they would be willing to accept, because in this case the possessor is happy when her possessions are taken: she still profits, just not as much as if she set a monopoly price. Thus “predation” will be nearly as welcome as would be the “predation” of someone offering you out of the blue an extravagant sum for your home and you would never wish to sabotage your possessions as this would reduce the chance of such an exceptional opportunity. Only individuals who fraudulently report extremely low values and try to dramatically sabotage their goods would be open to predation, but so they should, and such individuals are likely to be caught by others before too much sabotage is possible.
>No man is an island; land should be seen as something rented from the people

right but if this is my only piece of land where I live on, I am "the people". I need to live somewhere, I have no choice. It's like asking a prisoner to pay weekly tax for the cell he lives on: He has no choice, he has to live in some cell.
Instead tax it intelligently so that I'm exempt for my first and only house on a moderately sized piece of land.
Not having the bridge blow over or vibrate apart.
I would say if you are building something with the aim to make it a business, make it a business already.

If you're building "for fun" go ahead, with the 100% conviction that you don't need/want it to make money.
Surely more housing also means more working adults and more taxable income, so this could be handled with a local income tax.
I miss google music. It did the job of a digital record store really well
Same thing, it's a bunch of inefficient brats taking my money and not giving me that amount of value in return. I could do things much more efficiently with the same amount of money.

Hence, owning property isn't attractive to me at all right now unless they can stop taxing it.
I suppose an aircraft like this can climb like gliders do, using the streams of air that move upwards. This requires some planning, and likely a skilled glider pilot to help choose the course.
Anywhere, once Bluesky is out of beta.
In case you're not joking, government entities in the US are not allowed to build road structures that will collapse the first time a farmer drives a loaded grain hauler over them.
It's the F-150, but with an electric motor. What's "cool" about it?

There's nothing fresh. Same boring design. Throw in a cool marketing name "F-150 LiGhTnInG" and a battery pack and people think this is "innovation"?

What a joke.
Manufacturers tend not to raise prices when there is a shortage due to supply constraints. This hurts their revenue but maintains brand loyalty. Many pickup truck buyers are intensely loyal to a particular brand and the manufacturers are smart enough not to burn that goodwill. They would ban dealer mark-ups if they could.
I agree with this. If they know some secret sauce, it'd be nice if they passed it on like the Chat LLM people do.
Are you suggesting the rich people form a cartel? Otherwise, if there's more than one rich person they would outbid each other until market rates are reached. That's basically how market rates are defined.

Btw, none of the problems here are specific to LVT. You see exactly the same problems in conventional property taxes: if your land is suddenly worth a lot more, your tax bill goes up.
I used to agree with you, then I read Falkvinge's proposal of a taxless state and it changed my mind. I'm now convinced that property tax (or more accurately, land tax) is the only justified tax, or more generally, that all taxes paid must be tied explicitly and characteristic to a service rendered, and that the only services a state should be allowed to render must be administration of a commons.

You cannot defend your land property from even a marginally better equipped aggressor who seeks to take it from you. You need a court system, or for a larger aggressor, an army, to do it for you. This means that de facto, the state with the armed men owns the land. Land tax is tantamount to a fee you pay to lease it. Also it can be framed as just payment for a service rendered, that is, the service of defending your property for you. Furthermore, any entity that "owns" land property and gets protection of his claim by a court or army that does not pay a land tax is free riding.

Income taxes are unjust. By the logic of the premise, land tax that pays for anything but defense of claim to the land is unjust. Wealth taxes are unjust, as are capital gains. Tarrifs that fund a navy to protect shipments on the high seas would be just, as would registration fees to bay for highway infrastructure. The core rules are, the state must only solve a tragedy of the commons, the tax that funds such an endeavor must derive directly from benefitting from that endeavor and it must only ever be used for that endeavor. With these axioms it is easy to deduce which taxes are just and which are not, they're all payment for services rendered for a service for which a state is the optimal organization to provide.

https://falkvinge.net/2017/03/01/a-simplified-taxless-state-...
Also with land value tax without the proposed land valuation method. The difference is how in one case you're never secure in your home even if you can afford your theoretically fairly assigned tax bill. There is always someone out there rich enough to uproot a family from their home, even if you're otherwise financially secure.
If you need an electric truck - it shouldn't be as big as an F-150 - it should be more the size of a hilux.

There needs to be two kinds of electric vehicles - 250 mile rangers and 150 mile rangers - and the 150 mile rangers need to use Sodium Ion batteries.

Make them cheap - make sodium ion electric vehicles the cheapest vehicle on the road. Put 2013 tech in it outside of the drive train.
thing.Register() may register a route that conflicts with yours and it will never be matched in this case if declaration order was taken into account.
You may discover this too late when you either have missed important calls on that thing or when requests intended for that thing are causing unintended effects on your first declared route.
It would be great to have a server that supports both protocols but that's probably too much to ask for.
The Web Is for User Agency
> [...] and I find it strange that this rarely comes up in LVT discussions.

That's almost the most common discussion point in my experience..
Does that ever lead to old people getting stuck? E.g., you've been getting deferrals for 25 years and now finally want to sell and move to be nearer family, but paying back the 25 deferred years and interest will not leave you with enough after the sale to afford a new place. And so you just have to stay until you die.
Lots of persons both human and corporate that have information about you even though you've never interacted with them. That it's facebook doing it does not make it dangerous. There's no hurt or damage or fraud involved. So how can one justify using force against them to make them act like you want them to?

But sure, go a bit further and set your hosts file so common facebook domains to resolve to localhost, use a JS protection extension, etc. I always have. It seems a sensible mitigation for these types without anything else being required. And it's completely non-violent and non-coercive. Something you as an individual can just do without having to have 300 million other people required to do it.
Yes, Japan, Korea and Signapore are examples where a more efficient property tax system led to a huge economic expansion. Japanese Land Tax Reform of 1873 is probably the most well known example. It also involved lowering property tax rates.
I know a girl that uses LinkedIn for dating. She lives in Asia, so maybe they have a different LinkedIn culture.
Disclosure: I work for GM. Anything here is solely my own opinion or understanding.

For the highest priced and shortest supply vehicles, yes, dealerships added huge "dealership fees"; automakers did quite well themselves. The bonuses (for salaried employees) and profit sharing (for hourly union workers) were good in the past few years.
I'd read that link, but the ads on that site are cancerous.

I didn't know Ford was also operating at a loss on their EV trucks as well.
Those points are neither here nor there.

Tesla has pretty much the best margin in car industry, even when comparing their pure EV production to traditional ICE cars.

Pretty much all other companies, including Ford, loose money on EVs. Some loose more than others.

The difference between Ford pay and Tesla pay is not even close to explain the profitability gap.

It's more about Tesla making way more cars and therefore paying less for components and batteries and raw materials.

It's about Tesla working on batteries for many years and jumping quickly on newer, cheaper batteries from CATL and BYD.

It's about their cars being more efficient and therefore needing smaller (and cheaper) batteries.

It's about vertical integration.

It's about manufacturing advances like giga casting.
Then you have to come up with a way to evaluate the improvements, which might be tricky and subjective

It seems easier to just have a land value tax, so you don’t specifically disincentivize development. Then, you can spend that tax money to provide services that promote the other stuff: beautify downtown and add public transit, that sort of thing.
Really appreciate this perspective.

Unfortunately a lot of folks get promoted into management w/out skills/training, so engineers think all managers are bad. Which is understandable.

But a great manager is a huge value add who will give you what you need to succeed, help you grow, and keep politics from throwing things off track. Once you have a great manager, it's easy to see how valuable they an be.
You're wasting your life dude.

You only get one.
Why not find those? Especially in a dedicated arena whose stated goals are things just like that like openbsd.
The effect of which is, you can be preset damn sure that the JSON is the same as the last time it was looked at and the time after that etc…

Not “truth” in the colloquial sense, which OP seemed to be implying, but not useless.
Under the existing system you are incentivized for your own land to be zoned as highly as possible while your neighbors land is restricted as possible to keep supply low. Since everyone votes against you and you vote against everyone, zoning is low just about everywhere.

Under a land value tax this flips, and the majority vote would go to up-zoning.
pay people what they deserved.

Yeah, that's not the point. The point is that taxpayers receiving services should pay for what it costs to pay people what they deserve, not saddle the future with those costs.
Open question (I don't have an answer and I'm curious):

I have a friend who is an extremely talented musician. They get by, they're not starving or anything, but it's very hand-to-mouth. I have other friends who are massively less talented at other things, but those things are more commercially rewarded (selling, coding, management, etc).

Why does our system (and this manifesto) reward one set of talents and not the other so differently?

Related: are we really, as a society, going to push our most talented musicians/artists/creatives to do other things because of this? If you were born with a gift for music but could also write some software (not badly, but not at the same level) shouldn't we as a society push you to make great music rather than average code?
A buddy runs the traffic lights for a midsized city. One issue they’re running into is sensors/cameras failing after X years and not having the budget to replace them when needed. All the fancy algorithms are only as good as the data, when there is data.
The big problem is the "Markets" section. The author assumes that free markets just happen. But what we see today are monopolies or oligopolies. The end state seems to be 1-3 big players who tend not to compete on price. Price competition doesn't seem to happen until there are 4 or more roughly comparable players. Margins get much better as competition disappears, which produces a huge pressure towards consolidation.

Why this is is another discussion, but it's very clearly the case in the US.
> The U.S. has been booming for hundreds of years at this point.

Glorifying the early US economic system is not doing much for your argument.
US broker fees are absolutely absurd. Fees of 1-1.5% are typical in the UK, and even those really should be much lower since they have remained pretty static while the price/income ratio has doubled in the past few decades with the fall in interest rates.
Your calculation falls apart if you are comparing it against no business - which is what happens when a non-sustainable business eventually runs up against economic reality. The whole business of not-profitable companies growing for years and hiring people on imaginary future money is tech industry magic beans shit. It's divorced from the reality of the rest of the world where people have to really work for a living and don't get paid our astronomical salaries.

I work as a consultant in tech diligence, but previous to that I worked for many many years for small, profitable, Normal Businesses. And the company I work for is a normal business that watches the bottom line and doesn't over hire because we have to be profitable. If you go work for a magic bean company that doesn't think being a sustainable business matters, you are, unfortunately, part of a ponzi scheme that can fall apart any time.
> Land values in cities are directly related to approved zoning (i.e. what you are allowed to build), so the city government can rezone neighborhoods and unilaterally alter the land values the residents pay tax on.

Cities were already able to rezone neighbourhoods and unilaterally alter the values of residents' land (also just through everyday building - if they build a transit station in one neighbourhood and a sewage treatment plant in another, that alters everyone's property values), and this was already a very corruptible process. In theory LVT should improve it a little since now the city has an incentive to increase everyone's land value as much as possible.

> LVT encourages building tall and is hostile to lowrise development and unbuilt/green spaces.

Yes and no - it encourages making valuable use of expensive land, and moving less valuable uses onto cheap land, but it's agnostic about what that "valuable" is. If people prefer - that is, will pay more to use - lowrise buildings or green spaces, then that's what LVT will deliver.
Why build anything-in-anything?

It’s like a true classic computer science meme
The more commitments you have in life, the more pressure there is to align your learning projects with money earning activities.

You can't justify to your family, kids and other "stakeholders" that you spent thousands of hours developing apps just for learning new subjects. In the least, you need some kind of successful activity to grow out of it.

Besides, some parts of a software development project do involve learning, but a huge portion is drudgery. Solving edge cases, doing customer support for repetitive issues, solving that last pixel that is not quite right.

Making apps is great, and it's a sign of maturity to have a concern for how well received it will be.
The nice thing is that lowering other taxes automatically increases the LVT tax take via higher property prices.

You can see that dynamic on the border between Switzerland and Germany: Swiss income taxes are a lot lower, so their property prices are higher. (You can probably see similar things happening on some borders between American states?)

Without an LVT, those higher property prices only benefit the land owner. With an LVT, the government gets some incentive to lower those taxes.

> If the government turns on an LVT, do you trust them to turn off other forms of funding? Or do you think they're just going to decide that their income went up?

I guess it depends. Governments have an incentive to get themselves more budget, but taxes also aren't just ratcheting up all the time. Eg the US still has lower income taxes than most of Europe. And tax rates also change over time.
I'm not sure.

IANAL, but reading the developer policy, reference is made to include the Youtube Developer Site & Services, but is not exclusive of other Youtube API Services.

Whether Invidious uses a Public Developer API, a Broker offering their own API, or a workaround with an internal API seems inconsequential.

https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-polici...

# Client: `"API Client" means a website or software application (including a mobile application) developed by you that accesses or uses the YouTube API Services.`

# Service: "YouTube API Services" means (i) the YouTube API services (e.g., YouTube Data API service and YouTube Reporting API service) made available by YouTube including those YouTube API services made available on the YouTube Developer Site (as defined below), (ii) documentation, information, materials, sample code and software (including any human-readable programming instructions) relating to YouTube API services that are made available on https://developers.google.com/youtube or by YouTube, (iii) data, content (including audiovisual content) and information provided to API Clients (as defined above) through the YouTube API services (the "API Data"), and (iv) the credentials assigned to you and your API Client(s) by YouTube or Google."

I'm not sure how I feel about software that sits on this grey line of legality sitting on the front page of HN.
I literally just met Werner Herzog on a flight to Chicago the other day. He was flying coach, like a boss.
Best Buy will stop selling DVDs and Blu-rays after the 2023 holiday season
I very much dislike import side effects in any language. Im a lot happier where thing.Register() is still forced to happen in the main function.

Still, I can understand it for some components like loggers to not add boiler plate to every library. However, I was very uneasy to see that enabling gzip decompression in a gRPC server is done through a magic _ import. You have to initialize the server anyways, so why not just make it an explicit function argument?
They are dangerous to pretty much anyone and anything not inside of them. Only 15% are actually used for work.
I would say the two sentiments are connected.

If the role of the individual is to serve the needs of the government, it is easy to corporations to control the whims and goals of the government. The individual doesnt have to understand whys and wants of the government, just serve it.

However, if the roles are reversed and the purpose of the government is to serve the individual, than each person can judge if their personal interests are being served.

That is to say, I think the idea of people as a servant of the government is instrumental in corporate capture of the institution. The idea of serving a greater good, without voluntary consent, is just an exploit opportunity for capture by corporations or others.

When people view the government as their servant, they just say no, I dont want that policy.
I'd say "complementary" rather than "antithetical".

Questions of faith are "interoperable" (to use geek language) or consistent with reason (what you call the material world), meaning that if there is a seeming contradiction, you may have misunderstood one or the other.

The world of knowledge is logical-axiomatical when deduction is applied and empirical-scientific when induction is applied. Importantly, neither of the two methods can answer fundamental questions like "Why are we here?", "What are we supposed to do?", "What can we expect?" etc. which fall in the realm of faith.

There are "interface" situations between the realm of faith and the realm of science such as events seen as miracles, which scientifically are just low likelihood events and that is all that can be said about them regarding science, whereas a subject may not be content with such an non-explanation e.g. "Why did I alone survive the plane crash? Why me?"

Or take the historical Jesus: it is evident that a person by that name existed, because the Romans reported so (considering him their enemy makes them reliable sources): the Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. Now Tacitus did not confirm that Jesus was a "saviour", ascribing a religious role to a historic figure is an act of faith, perhaps based on his message of love of neighbor and forgiveness, which at the time was seen as contradicting Jewish commandments (and therefore, predictably, heresy, which calls for death) but was actually a clarification of these, spoken by someone who practiced what he preached.
yeah i loved my first few years at big co which in hindsight was because of my manager. he hired me out of college and somehow brought the best out of me, resulting in many patents, publications, and a huge budget that rewarded our success. then the csuite turned over and my great manager was let go. now i’ve had 3 since and they’ve been progressively worse if measured by team output. so it goes
Babylon Berlin (seasons 1 and 2) were great.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Berlin

This show draws some parallels if that's what you seek.
I have to wonder if part of the attraction of very large vehicles is getting enough elevation so that headlights aren't quite so annoying/dangerous. Driving around a sedan, I'm regularly blinded by oncoming traffic when driving at night.

Something needs to be done. Some of these headlights that people are driving with are not safe for others on the road.
I'm from the younger generation who's been economically forced to move every couple of years because the older generation made it too hard to build houses. So I'll shed few tears for boomers being forced to move once after 20 or 30 years.
I've never had a Linkedin nor any other type of social media, not even a public Github page, and I've received many simply great job offers, especially in 2022-2023.

Putting this out there so people don't think they need to join some absolutely shit random corporate social networks to get a job.