It was a fucking ballsy move to advertise their Xmas NFL livestreaming during that trainwreck

This is a bad system for several reasons:

-It requires an arbitrary use-agnostic choice of value. Why 10 million? Why not 5? Why not 50?

-it requires an arbitrary time scale. Why 5 years? Why not 3? why not 10? Why not limit once in a lifetime?

We’re defining a system here with numbers out of thin air with no context around anything. These are fundamentally badly designed systems. No amount of fiddling with the parameters will make up for the fact that it’s fundamentally flawed.

Also, beyond that, you would be amazed how many scenarios exist for people and businesses to secure large loans that this would impact. The goal is to actually tax the super rich who are dodging taxes, not kneecap legitimate useage. You’d hurt hundreds of thousands legitimate borrowers and just shove Bezos and Musk into using alternative mechanisms to leverage their security holdings.

I know you think I don’t understand your proposal. I challenge you to consider that I do, and still think you can reconsider the root cause of the issue and come up with alternative ideas. You’re stuck on the loan aspect. That’s a symptom, not the cause.

They aren’t used interchangeably so this implies a different definition or at least distinct connotations.

The problem isn’t that i “don’t understand the gap”. The problem is that this isn’t what I’m asking.

How do you define for the purposes of this hypothetical law which loans would be taxed as income?

Telling me how rich Bezos is is completely tangential.

I’ve been trying to use the Socratic method to prime the pump that

-The root of the problem isn’t the loans themselves, it’s that they can “realize value” from shares (using them to secure a loan) without selling them.

But that doesn’t seem to have gotten anywhere because of how excited people are to hear any question to be somehow a doubting of how rich these guys are?

If that is the case, and you step back, can you consider an alternative strategy besides just some messy spaghetti definition of “income loans” vs other loans?

My mortgage was many times my yearly income.

So then you just have frequency, which is easily gamed by getting fewer larger loans. Maybe one every three to five years? At that point it really is just a mortgage with stock as collateral rather than a house.

Like, you’re not wrong in your intuition that the system is problematic. Mine (and others) point is that the devil is in the details, and they’re not trivial.

How do you establish that a loan is or isn’t “acting as income”?

Power costs is a poor tax in the same way skipping the dentist and getting a root canal later is.

Also in the process of power efficiency-izing my lab. It just wasn’t a feasible option before, I didn’t have the means. I just paid interest via electricity.

Not in love with the “big boy” from factor but when I believe they’re going to enter “long term support” territory I absolutely would be interested.

I don’t really care what they look like. If any truck actually could meet the promises these made, I’d buy the shit out of them:

-All electric

-Sophisticated sensor suite to improve operational safety

-Working performance comparable to F150

-low maintenance

-Can be used as home power backup

-not a Deathtrap

-not a Killing machine

It hits the electric points, but that’s it. It’s a bad truck. It doesn’t fulfill any of the “smart” promises. Death trap killing machines in constant recall that can’t handle rain… Let alone do work.

The aesthetic doesn’t even make my list of complaints. It’s like the whole industry has been trying to make trucks as shitty as possible for like 30 years. Give me a '94 ranger electric conversion kit and it’s game fucking over cyber truck.

He’s already conditioned his base with fake pictures and videos of tons of stuff. He’s already convinced them to reject a reality they can see and hear and touch.

Putin could release that tape, DNA, and have the Pope and Joe Rogan personally attest to it’s authenticity and it wouldn’t matter.

Trump would say “deepfake” , fake news, radical left fabrication. His base would believe him. We’ve been living in a post-truth world for longer than most of us are willing to admit.

There is no kompromat that could shake his base.

Whisper is fantastic and has different sized models so you can zero in to what gives you the best mix of speed/accuracy for whatever hardware you’ll be running it on

Lol

Useless at preventing fascism… So decided to sit it out and give DT another go. Bold strategy. Let’s see how it works out.

Already swung super anti-immigration as of earlier this year, so the move to Canada plan isn’t going to be as easy either

This guy is the definition of “if your only tool is a hammer, every problem will look like a nail”.

“Leftist Tyranny”.

Considering he asked twitter programmers to print out their pull requests Im not even sure he’s not cosplaying a programmer

If a 45 year old not wearing a costume and strung out on Ketamine says trick or treat at my door, they’re getting candy.

What am I, the fucking Halloween police? ACAB.

I completely agree that if there are tools that can allow a vehicle to “see” better than a human it’s absurd not to implement them. Even if musk could make a car exactly as good as a human, that’s a low bar. It isn’t good enough.

As for humans: if you are operating a vehicle such that you could not avoid killing an unexpected person on the road, you are not safely operating the vehicle. In this case, it’s known as “over driving your headlights”, you are driving at a speed that precludes you from reacting appropriately by the time you can perceive an issue.

Imagine if it wasn’t a deer but a chunk of concrete that would kill you if struck at speed. Perhaps a bolder on a mountain pass. A vehicle that has broken down.

Does Musk’s system operate safely? No. The fact that it was a deer is completely irrelevant.

Yeah. I mean, I understand the premise, I just think it’s flawed. Like, you and I as vehicle operators use two cameras when we drive (our two eyes). It’s hypothetically sufficient in terms of raw data input.

Where it falls apart is that we also have brains which have evolved in ways we don’t even understand to consume those inputs effectively.

But most importantly, why aim for parity at all? Why NOT give our cars the tools to “see” better than a human? I want that!