Alpha3031

I understand it perfectly fine and I'm still supportive of taxing and regulating billionaires. I just don't see why it would be an issue. Private credit loans now commonly feature payment-in-kind provisions, I see no reason why the tax office can't do the same thing for situations where it knows the payee would likely have insufficient liquidity.

I think their statement is useful to contextualise what people consider leftism though. Looking at Musk's actual political actions, it seems like leftism (or at least the part that directly affects him and his companies) is when regulators are allowed to ask Musk to stop doing securities fraud with his social media addiction, and it's not entirely unreasonable for him to consider such enforcement a threat (though maybe not "a grave danger") in case it escalates beyond strongly worded letters. I am, by that metric, a leftist. Possibly a radical far-left communist, even.

The rocket company is probably more technically impressive anyway but I am disinclined to accept the attempts to rewrite Tesla's history. Maybe it was necessary to force the actual people who started the company out for it to survive and a Series A is certainly important, but Musk is still an investor in the car company and not the person who started it.

> I think what it does is let people play video games and watch porn. I don’t think the majority of the population is untapped entrepreneurial potential.

I don't think rich people are inherently more entrepreneurial so I don't see why they are the only people who should be allowed to have the opportunity to play video games, watch porn, and maybe occasionally start a company with any degree of security.

> You can’t learn how to navigate a professional basketball career AND how to do tech startups. There isn’t enough time even if that information was publicly accessible and teachable.

I never suggested that a public education system means no specialisation. In fact, most public tertiary education systems do separate people into specialised streams based on interest and skill.

> Inequality and difference is a natural part of life.

Again with the naturalistic fallacy.

> So why would or should outcomes be the same?

Why should the opportunities available be different?

> Once again. How can you possibly correct for this? This is basically saying some parents work in tech and some don’t.

Right, there is no possible way of ensuring things like hiring and contract negotiations are conducted at arm's length and in a fair and transparent manner, so we may as well not even try. I give up.

> Yeah I’m not sure “people gather knowledge and guidance from their families and culture” is on the table, or desirable.

Are you missing something like "getting rid of", as in getting rid of that is a way to make things more equal? Because you are aware there are more than one way to make things more equal, right? For knowledge, a well-funded public education system (i.e., not the US apparently) goes a long way, and most people consider that a public good.

Most people concerned about inequality, I would wager, would be more focused on things like nepotism and access, for example I don't have a mum that could get me a meeting with the CEO of IBM to pitch ideas to.

A robust social safety net would probably be helpful if enabling non-already-rich people to take entrepreneurial risk is considered desirable, among other benefits.

There is nothing physical about any financial transaction (except some electrons moving I guess), that doesn't mean that they aren't supposed to approximate something that happens in physical reality. A billion dollars is control.

Traditionally, the value of a security is a prediction of its future cashflow to perpetuity discounted by a capitalisation rate. While it is true that some securities these days are sold as something not dependent on future cash flows, and insiders are paid off by selling something misleading to retail investors, that is known as a Ponzi scheme and is traditionally prohibited by securities regulations.

"Life isn't fair" as if we are physically prohibited from making it less unfair...

It's possible to have more than one reason for getting $75 billion from public markets. Paying off $20 billion of loans from people you don't want to owe money to (who, as far as I could tell, SpaceX borrowed money from to pay off people you really don't want to owe money to) and getting a really big number associated with your name are not mutually exclusive, and from Musk's previous actions (getting large compensation packages approved by conflicted boards) he obviously does want that number.

I don't think putting the scale of dollars aside is reasonable when the entire point is contingent on the scale being at least two orders of magnitude higher and sole proprietorships usually don't scale to the point where fines from ignoring regulations is just the cost of doing business.

If an investment relies on new investors to pay previous investors and exaggerates the underlying value of the investment, that is known as a Ponzi scheme. I don't think we should legalise Ponzi schemes as long as they're fun for those involved, though I suppose coming up with exactly how to deal with them would be something professional regulators would have more experience in and could almost certainly do better than I would.

Doesn't SpaceX charge 2 to 3 times their internal cost to external customers? ISRO is still more expensive, IIRC they charged ~US$60 million (roughly $6000/kg) for the OneWeb launches whereas after the recent price hikes SpaceX is supposedly charging ~US$74 million on a larger rocket (~$4200/kg), but that's far from an order of magnitude difference like your comment suggests, which I assume would be using the $25 million they charge Starlink internally (IIRC ISRO's internal cost is much higher, around $40 to 50 million, but that's still not anywhere near an order of magnitude). Using internal cost from one provider and external price for another is somewhat misleading.

If a conviction really happens wouldn't the very fine people just invade the capitol again?

TIL fascism is when you let states regulate gambling because of the public interest and lack of public benefit.

I feel like the closest analogy to leaving everything set to the default would not be an out-of-tune piano but one that you've left in 12-ET instead of retuning it to just intonation in the key you use. Vim on default configs is still a perfectly functionality piano.

> you can get a good discount by going to that one mall kiosk instead of the Apple Store.

Apple actively impeded third-party repair shops though. Oregon had to outlaw parts pairing for them to change that practice.

Isn't Apple supposedly entering the market this year though? By the time any regulations has passed, they'd probably already be established. Though I agree I don't really see too much point in making batteries quick-swappable rather than just easily swappable as you say considering it's unlikely to be a true hot-swap without requiring a power cycle.

MLS would be the primary standard for group messaging these days with the usual guarantees right? (PFS, backwards secrecy, etc) As I understand it from the RFC, large groups was an explicit design requirement and costs are supposed to be asymptotically logarithmic with group size, so I don't see why it couldn't be used. I feel like Colibri (based on their page) just doesn't believe it's there problem, which seems... irresponsible.

What if you take that risk by putting "crypto" in it? I think it might work out for our founder here but I am not so optimistic about the results for any of the poor schmucks suckered into this scheme.

A comment from Jimbo Wales on WMF Legal's reasoning for the temporary takedown can be found on the on-wiki discussion on the topic, the reason given is to preserve the Foundations ability to appeal:

> Hi everyone, I spoke to the team at the WMF yesterday afternoon in a quick meeting of the board. [...] note that I am not a lawyer and that I am not here speaking for the WMF nor the board as a whole. I'm speaking personally as a Wikipedian. [...] I can tell you that I went into the call initially very skeptical of the idea of even temporarily taking down this page and I was persuaded very quickly by a single fact that changed my mind: if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here. For those who are concerned that this is somehow the WMF giving in on the principles that we all hold so dear, don't worry. I heard from the WMF quite strong moral and legal support for doing the right thing here - and that includes going through the process in the right way. Prior to the call, I thought that the consequence would just be a block of Wikipedia by the Indian government. While that's never a good thing, it's always been something we're prepared to accept in order to stand for freedom of expression. We were blocked in Turkey for 3 years or so, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/1253528244#C...

There have been only about 6 office actions involving content for that 20 years, so one can imagine it might not be much of a priority to spend an entire afternoon doing something they don't expect to use even once a year.

Britannica still exists. You can find it at https://www.britannica.com/

> experts are often not who you want editing an article, because experts are often poorly positioned to know what the general public knows, and what consensus is from outside their area of expertise.

I would argue the opposite, since consensus from reputable sources is not the same as consensus of the general public, and unless it's a subject of study in multiple fields, the consensus in their field is their area of expertise.

Academic scholarship is generally preferred over lay sources, though there are caveats and individual instances of primary research are rarely considered indicative of consensus (usually review articles and other secondary sources are significantly preferred). However, if you do disagree with any information on Wikipedia, even if it's based on only your own primary research, I would strongly encourage you to at least tag the statements with a {{dubious}} or {{disputed inline}}[1] tag so that it can be discussed, or make an edit request[2] if you're not comfortable making the change yourself.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed_inline [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests

The "prolonged" when used to describe ECMO means days or weeks. Economics are not the problem here, it is currently technologically impossible to provide ECLS for an indefinite period of time without escalating risks of complications, including immediate failure as well as issues that result in death post-decannulation. There have been individual cases where patients were put on such treatments for months and have survived, but it is in fact medically extremely risky and should not be done unless there was absolutely no other choice. "Immortality" through such a means is almost certainly going to kill you within years.

Quality of life while undergoing treatment is also entirely non-existent, trust me, you to not want to be "immortal" if it required indefinite ECMO. Unless you enjoy living in hospitals I guess.

Apparently they're working on a DUV 3nm process, which is a little insane if you think about it. Would certainly be interesting to see it working, if it does work.

I feel like the article documents the author's own experiences (which, to be fair, is a valid thing to do) without emphasising, or really even trying to emphasise, the how. Which really makes it less useful for anyone looking for learnable takeaways.

But hey, it triggered this HN discussion, and I see a lot of replies here which seem more useful for that kind of thing.

Sure. Copyright is something that Wikipedia has to deal with, so there's a guide for contributors (which also links to the article on the relevant legal doctrine) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#S...

> People made the same arguments about reusable rockets.

NASA could have totally gone forward with developing the DC-3 if Nixon didn't cut their funding. The lower cross-range and payload were dealbreakers for the USAF but perfectly acceptable for civil spaceflight purposes.

> was there some specific event that triggered the creation and passage of that?

Not really, but the DSA package has been in the works for quite a while now even though it seems very recent. The DMA may have only really come into effect May last year and the compliance deadline was only three weeks ago, but it was first proposed by the Commission all the way back in 2020, and building off proposals from the previous Commission. In a sense, they've been working on it since GDPR in 2016.

... The posession factor is the encrypted file that stores your secrets. It is in fact the same factor that Aegis uses, because it also uses an encrypted file to store your secrets. I'm not sure what you're expecting Aegis to do that is different from storing TOTP secrets in an encrypted file.