skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you are some low level employee, certainly, the liability is too much.

But very higher level employees and Zuck himself? I would have to see actual proof of very secure lockout and segregation policies and procedures with zero exceptions or higher level administration access across the entire company to even have a chance to believe it. And that is way more effort and organizationally burdensome and costly than just trusting a few people to not be morons and be available when needed because you pay them enough money to not blab or give out access to others.
I didn't mean it's a weakness. I mean it's not as amazing of a selling point as it was made out to be when the language first came out.

If you're using something only rarely and not touching it again, there isn't much of a difference between go.New(func(){}) from some "go" package, and go func(){}.

To reiterate, I'm not against the "go" keyword. It's whatever ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Get a cheap flip phone to receive call and make them.

When you got enough money, buy a phone. Not Google's one obviously. And transfer everything from the pixel to the new.

Keep the pixel for the incoming lawsuit.
Well this seems pretty easy to check, has inflation adjusted median household income also gone up by 50% during this period of 50% GDP growth?

It turns out it hasn't, it's only gone up by 25%. Which is clearly better than zero, but definitely not the expected amount.

But I'd add one more item, housing costs have skyrocketed during that time. And while overall inflation has gone up notably, I believe housing costs have gone up more - and I wouldn't be surprised if most of those gains in income have been eaten up by having to pay higher housing costs. So all in all possibly no net gain.

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
classic race to the bottom :(
Making Flow – Interview with Director Gints Zilbalodis
There will never be a starter kit for you when you need it - Einstein's Theory of Relativity or something
With eval rate numbers:

- phi4: 12 tokens/s

- mistral-small: 9 tokens/s

On Nvidia RTX 4090 laptop:

- phi4: 36 tokens/s

- mistral-small: 16 tokens/s
> Indeed, revamping tax laws are definitely on the table

Except it's not on the table. In Trump's first term corporate tax rates declined:

https://itep.org/iteps-top-charts-of-2024/

> Tariffs will also indirectly and partially compensate for those avoided taxes.

Tariffs will just get you counter-tariffs. After Trump's direct threats to Denmark, the EU is working on a bundle of counter-tariffs to apply if needed. That will equal lost export revenue as US products get priced out of the market:

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tariff-threat-denmark-showdow...

> "I don't really care, Margaret."

It's better to be involved in the world than to be a hermit kingdom. North Korea is a good example.
>You might do that. That does not mean everyone organizes things like this.

Most people do organize things arbitrarily based off of their own categorizations and opinions. In fact such an overwhelming majority of people who use operating systems do this that it's pretty much universal.

>What your chicken/egg example fails to realize is that things rarely just belong in one category. Chickens can be animals or food.

So what. I choose not to eat my chickens. So I Choose to categorize it in a way that makes sense to me. Why should I conform to your point of view? Why should I conform to golangs point of view? Why can't you and I choose how to do it?

>To me it just sounds like you are trying to write another language while using Go. Of course you will see problems. Just as you would see problems trying to write Go code when using Java.

No. I'm complaining about go. I think it's dumb. I'm not doing OOP here, I hate OOP. Go is waaay better. This is orthogonal to that problem.

>In the end it comes down to this: if the language does not fit your mental model on how to do things, don't use it. But don't go around shitting on the language just because you are used to using folders differently than other people. Using a language also means learning and using the conventions of that language.

Yeah that's how all complaints and criticisms are sidelined. "You don't like it, don't use it. Use something you like." Obviously.

I'm doing exactly that, while saying that go packages are a poor and horrible design decision.

I think a lot of people hated java, and found go and they think because go is so much better then java then that means go can do no wrong.

I don't think you realize there's stuff way better then go out there. But that's besides my point. What I use is separate from my point: Golang packages are poorly designed.
I did work in the industry briefly and can confirm it is actually full of people who would post a comment like this. Just in case anyone needed another reason to avoid it!

Work on real problems. Try to make real people's lives better and happier. There are real problems in finance but my feeling was it's all very simple and solved decades ago, now it's just pointless complexity that isn't solving anyone's problems. I recommend John Kay's Other People's Money for a primer on what finance is actually good for and where it's gone wrong.

The real big problem in finance IMO is digital cash. Bitcoin started out trying to solve that problem, and there are still some people in the community interested in it, but it's mostly of interest to the finance guys now. Just another "instrument" in their "portfolios".
Corporations get to pay their costs before paying taxes on what's left.

Only the population pays taxes before their costs.
vi is also pre-installed on kindles.

Yes you can ssh into your kindle paper-white.
Curious how many times that has happened. And presumably there are typosquatters on .co domains corresponding to valuable .co.uk domains.
Some other interesting things in the "capture more with clever hardware" bucket:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_field_camera

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle-sensitive_pixel

Also, something I dimly remembered about using hard-to-forge glass spheres as physical security tokens, taking advantage of their inner structure:

* https://news.mit.edu/2002/gershenfeld-0925
My father restored paintings. There are a great many fakes in circulation, either consciously or unconsciously.

A classic case is when an heir discovers that one of grandfather's badly preserved paintings is on the side. If it's not restorable, a new painting is made and reintroduced to the market in place of the old one, which is destroyed. The new painting benefits from all the traceability of the old one. Many experts are not fooled, but they don't get a commission if there's no sale, and nobody wants to have proof that their painting is worthless.

Fakes are only revealed when their number affects the quotation and sale. As long as everyone's making money, no one really cares.
> breaks for executive options

Difficult to tie this to executives versus shareholders. Options are taxed.
> either when Tesla shareholders sell appreciated stock, when the company makes distributions or when they liquidate.

Feels like a fatal flaw in the law if you can bypass paying the corporate taxes in that way.

That is individual tax - not the tax payed by the corporation. Normally the tax is payed twice. Tax from the corporation profits and then the individual employee/shareholder tax based on their income.
>> Yes, it is maybe monolithic (but so is the Linux kernel).

> it really isn't, it's largely a collection of relatively small binaries that do one thing well but they are designed to work with each other.

So where are all small the projects trying to replace the small parts of systemd? AFAIK there are no stable or convenient APIs in all those parts, so even though technically systemd consists if many binaries, it is monolithic.

This is exactly what people call "forces distributions to use it", i. e., you must choose all or nothing.
You don't need s whole compiler for that... You can use `unsafe`. Sometimes you don't even need that either!
Trailblazing
I'm pretty confident the copyright office was massively overthinking it in 1965 and knocked it out of the park far beyond the watered down and ignorant arguments we hear today. It's sad really.
This is why it's table stakes for a decent type-system to have both product-types and sum-types. They comprise both sides of the coin, and you use the one that actually makes sense for the piece of code being written.

A justification for Go's deficient type-system I've seen repeatedly over the years, along the lines of "Well actually the occasional function can legitimately return both a result AND an error" is nonsensical. It's basically excusing giving 98% of error-returning functions a semantically wrong return type (a tuple) because it happens to be correct in 2% of cases.

Every function should have a semantically correct return type! If a product-type is occasionally correct for an error-returning function, use one just for those functions! And use a sum-type for the other 98% where that is correct for them!
Again, we have a meta-study that has looked at all of the available evidence up to ~6 months ago, and has found no strong evidence that DBS is a promising treatment option. Better devices to achieve the un-promising treatment won't change that fact, not significantly.

Since Parkinsons is for now an incurable and barely treatable disease, it makes sense to try even things that are not very promising. But that doesn't mean we should hold out much hope for them, when all evidence suggests that they are not going to pan out.

Your points are all things that the authors of the meta-study should have looked for, or irrelevancies (anecdotes of people feeling better at some points after they underwent major neuro-surgery are entirely irrelevant to the complexity of a very slow acting degenerative disease).
> No language is perfect, they are all trade offs.

Uh, no they're actually not. A tradeoff means you accept some downside and get some upside in return.

Initially go was designed without generics. The tradeoff here was you got a single pass compiler which was faster. Well, actually, you could have a single-pass compiler with backpatching, but I get it, that's hard. It's a crap tradeoff, but okay, I can accept it's a tradeoff. And everybody at the time said, "Go doesn't need generics, they complicate the language." So we casted our nested types in and out of object and lost all type safety in that code, but hey, tradeoffs.

Except everyone kinda realized it was a crap tradeoff and so `go generate` was proposed as a solution. In a 1984-esque revision of the past, suddenly, having a second pass is okay! Never mind how important it was that go is a single-pass compiler. Nevermind that this is basically macros with all their pitfalls. But now we can generate 3 different versions of the parameterized type, one for each nested type, so we get type safety. 2 passes, macros, downsides, type safety, upside, and a pretty big upside at that.

But, here's the problem: now you have two different systems that are used for doing a lot of the same things that don't interoperate with each other very well. And that's not a tradeoff, because there's no upside. It's not "I don't like this but it works great for others" because it doesn't work great for anyone. It's not a tradeoff, it's a side effect of having chosen wrong the first time.

And... now Go has generics. And yeah, generics aren't really a tradeoff, they're just obviously pretty good. But, now we've got 3 different systems for doing a lot of the same things, which again, don't interoperate all that well with each other.

And here's the thing: from a language design perspective, this was extremely obvious that Go was going to need generics. Generics are pretty much the clearest win from the ML-family languages which had already made it into C# and Java by the time Go was conceived. It's absurd that this feature wasn't included in Go from the beginning.
The appeal of Go is that it has just the bare minimum feature set to be useful for modern backend engineering. It's a language that you can completely fit within your head within a few months of using it, as opposed to certain languages like C++ (or say C# to a lesser but increasing extent) that most will never know completely even after decades of working with it. It's basically the RISC of programming languages.

And if I had to guess, it doesn't have enums so that it can remain flexible when serializing/deserializing enum-like types over the wire. Imagine you can't parse an incoming payload containing an enum field because your service is one version older than the one that extended the enum type (or the enum type is defined in a package dep... you get the idea). Enums are actually a terrible idea now that I think about it.
Java.time basically is based on joda time and aside from slightly different package names is largely the same thing. That happened to more parts of the Java API. The concurrent package also started out as a standalone library.

Joda time has inspired spinoffs on lots of platforms. Including js-joda for the javascript ecosystem. I'm not sure how much the new Temporal approach is based on that but it wouldn't surprise me that that was one of the starting points for the new standard.
Any plan to implement Copy Mode similar to WezTerm?

https://wezfurlong.org/wezterm/copymode.html
> These titles don't exactly sound communist to me...

Then we have a very different understanding. And yes the post war heist that destroyed long term economic common sense all over the western world turned into a permanent ongoing shakedown
Like Carter deciding to not share his private opinion on Three Mile Island because it would had been very unpopular amongst his voter base?

There was a period when being a pro nuclear liberal/central-left politician was politically suicidal.

> connected the dots and shown that had any tangible effect.

It’s not my job to put in significant amount of effort to try and change your opinion (which is worth exactly as much as mine is).

> The nuclear renaissance was going great

That’s an exaggeration. Even back then nuclear was hardly seen as cost effective without a lot of squinting. The number of new reactors was hardly significant.

> Public opinion isn't driving any of that

You mean currently? Perhaps. Don’t see how is that an argument when talking about the 80s.

> Public opinion doesn't seem to have any effect on that

That obviously not true. Unless you ignore how, when and by whom the decisions to close the remaining nuclear reactors in e.g. Germany were made. Especially considering that then (before cheap renewables were available) we already knew that nuclear was cost competitive if negative externalities are accounted for (which was only partially the case back in the 80s).
At least today the corporate tax rate is 21%. Individual tax rates in California are as high as like 52%. In almost every scenario you'll see a higher rate on the distributions and buybacks than you would carrying it forward to the following year.

I guess you could make a case for double-taxation but... why?
Yes, but that’s not the whole picture. If the value of the company goes up, shareholders capture value as capital gains which has a very low tax rate.
If we can be confident of that, then most of the worst problems with AI are already solved.

Part of the problem is that "do what I said without question" will lead to disasters, but "figure out what I would approve of after seeing the result and be creative in your interpretation of my orders accordingly" has different ways it can go wrong.

(IMO, RLHF is the latter).

Both of those seem to be safer than "maximise my reward function", which is what people were worried about a decade ago, and with decent evidence given the limits of AI at the time.
ALL OF WHAT AI HAS BEEN TRAINED ON IS HUMAN INPUT
My sense about Tesla: They have nearly all of their R&D in the United States, but they have large global footprint with very large factories in Germany and China. I think a lot of the US-based R&D costs can by used to offset US-based income. Also, does "income" mean "profits" in this context? It is unclear to me. They did not clearly define the term.
> Normally the tax is payed twice. Tax from the corporation profits and then the individual employee tax based on their income.

Payroll tax is the second check you're looking for.

Tesla is almost certainly fucking around. But the concept of taxing corporate profits--versus earnings--is solid. You massively favour high-margin (tech) over low-margin (manufacturing, service, anything with physical assets) and incumbents over new entrants if you tax the top line.
And minimize ads served? Unlikely
Kids, do your forgeries with Latex, the default font hasn't changed in decades.
This article is such a cheap and generic anti-corporate jab (Tesla not being unique here at all). Don't get me wrong, I too disagree that expenses can only be written off by corporate entities, but that is just the way it is.

I'm sure if we really unpacked the numbers, we'd see that all of Tesla's employees' salaries that were exempted from Tesla's "taxable income" meant plenty of income taxes being paid over to the government for social welfare and other spending.

No one wants to go down that rabbit hole, because we'd then have to have an honest discussion about why I, as a human, don't get to deduct most of my personal expenses and only pay tax on my "saved" or "non-spent' income. At that point, we'd be getting almost 0 tax income because most people spend a huge chunk of their income on necessary survival and arguably in the "cost" of being an employee.
I think capitalism or socialism are neither problem nor solution; they're just tools, frameworks. The problem is greed and our willingness to accept it.
Low... ish... depending on where you are. Short term gains are taxed as ordinary income, long-term gains are taxed up to 20% (already the corporate rate) and states like California treat it as ordinary income exposing you to another up to 13.3%
> Only the population pays taxes before their costs

Not that simple. Plenty of individuals pay a negative income tax. Plenty of individuals deduct various expenses.

And if you're a sole proprietor, you get to deduct expenses like a corporation. Labour v capital != corporations v people.
"Your phone battery has degraded and cannot run the CPU at full speed. Please replace the battery."

this dead simple warning message + a switch to toggle CPU throttling is all anyone ever wanted.

However that would require them to respect their users' intelligence - not Apple's style.
So in politics companies are people but in taxes they are not?

Or why do I have to pay taxes instead of nothing because I invest in my company aka me?
.sucks is "only" $200!
>However I can't understand why systemd is the point of so much disagreement.

I think the simplest way to describe it is that it's a religious conflict.

A not insignificant segment of people who develop and/or use Linux are fervent followers of POSIX philosophy, the Unix heritage, Free Open Source Software development, and the Anti-Microsoft Church (note: Poettering is a Microsoft employee).

These people have a religious duty to hate systemd, it's essentially heresy. It's not a disagreement based on technical or even practical merits, so the conflict can't be addressed with technical debates and will continue for the foreseeable future.
> Individual tax rates in California are as high as like 52%.

Is that a marginal tax rate (not very useful for comparison) or an effective tax rate? Also, can you explain why income level is required to achieve 52% "individual tax rate"?
I'm sure citizens United was purely well intentioned.
"Those are taxable events for the people who sell the shares Tesla is buying back."

But in which jurisdictions is that tax payable, and at what rates?
Essentially. More likely, without straying too far from the original, you would have something like `animal.Egg` and `food.Egg` (although it is likely that you would want to stray from the original in an actual setting).

You are going to do that type of thing regardless of the language (and especially in languages with more advanced type systems!), even where circular imports and other code structure methodologies are supported. You wouldn't want your `scrambleEgg` function to accept an egg intended to be hatched. The bones are unpleasant.
I tried it out.
It did not feel like a good tool to use in the current iteration, multiple choice questions, with 4 very distinct and narrow choices.
It was way too easy to skew the results.
If I would have been given the test/assessment in a real process, I would not have been able to complete the test/assessment, because none of the choices fit my answer for the question.
The concept is interesting, but they really need to polish a lot more before it will be useful.
> It is only your opinion that it is better to have "buggy" networking than to have "not buggy" networking that you think is difficult to configure. That is the exact opposite of "objectively."

I never said this.

Fix the bugs. Don't fill the well with yet another equally shite solution.
> Standard for every company.

That Apple, Google, Amazon, etc do not pay their taxes either makes it worse not better.

The rich have accumulated a lot of money, that is killing the economic system. Redistribution of that wealth is needed for the system to continue working, and taxation is part of the solution.
There's no general answer to that question. It depends on how long you held it for, where you're resident, and your specific circumstances.
I have income and I have costs. Why is my income not completely offset by my costs? I'd love to spend more money to pay fewer taxes.
My labor is turned into profits for my employer and similarly their profit is eventually taxed. In that sense my labor doesn't have to be taxed directly either. Why is it? I think it's absurd that one the hand they are reporting revenue to shareholders and on the other hand they are reporting no profits to tax authorities. Am I misunderstanding something here? I think it's an arbitrary choice that people are supposed to pay for the expenses of the state and corporations are not. I don't think that's a good choice, but that's partially subjective.
Isn't capitalism based on the idea that everyone is greedy and we should exploit that for betterment of everyone.

And socialism based on the idea that everyone is greedy and we should prevent that for betterment of everyone.
Dockerfiles for Absolute Beginners [video]
> does "income" mean "profits" in this context?

Net income. The article's $2.3bn 2024 "U.S. income" lines up with Tesla's (global) $2.32bn net income (on $1.6bn operating income) [1].

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/29/tesla-tsla-2024-q4-earnings....
Don't use LLM to do something that some python + panda lines could do better.
Buy a data scientist a coffee and have a chat.
> Corporate tax is quite misunderstood in my opinion.

Yeah, it's mechanically different from individual income taxes, but in general Americans don't know how taxes work.

I've had coworkers in the past who believed that if you made juuust enough money to enter a new income tax bracket, you'd actually have less take-home than before. They thought that the entire income was taxed at a new rate, instead of just the marginal dollars that spilled into the new bracket.
Even canadian highlander is barely an example. That list is pretty small and for most decks it's only blocking a couple cards from being included. A typical deck is around 60% rares.
Yes, the top marginal rate is 37% federal + 13.3% state + 0.9% surtax -- and note the state tax is generally double-taxed at this income level thanks to the SLPT cap.

Can it also be an effective rate, yes, pretty close anyways.
It may not be that simple, and there are definitely exemptions to what the OP posted. But the principle of it is what most of corporate taxation is built upon, and it's fundamentally different to how taxation works for individuals. Is it logically consistent and/or fair? Doubtful, but it is the way it is, and until we get a law change to happen (in any country - doubtful the world over), it'll stay that way.