src: https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/state-and-local-ta...
922 karma · joined April 30, 2014
src: https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/state-and-local-ta...
Are you suggesting that this is not a big deal? $6B feels like a lot but sounds like in the scheme of things it isn’t as a fraction of trading volume. Is that right?
“That was the last hritten novel by him. His a-level simulation took over the writing after.”
I wear contacts and I’m surprised that there aren’t more cases of infections from lack of proper hygiene and care.
> In 2023, a major eye drop recall was called after drops … were found to be contaminated with a deadly bacteria. Overall, 81 patients were sickened, 18 suffered permanent blindness and four died.
> the drops were contaminated with the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is resistant to standard antibiotics.
> It can infect the eye, leading to vision loss and, in extreme cases, it can spread to the blood and trigger the potentially fatal complication sepsis.
How prepared are organizations or households for that matter?
I think a better solution would to mandate that platforms offer a ranked feed and a chronological feed and make the setting sticky for users.
I think giving users the agency over how much they consume is good but mandating a “UX” pattern feels too specific.
The headline seems to imply that he custom built a telescope for his gameboy.
I wonder if the cost benefit analysis would show that this is still the best policy - I.e. are more people dying because of overdose of acetaminophen than would have from “behind the counter” + controlled acquisition of codeine products.
I would also imagine that the compliance / nationwide tracking is now much easier than when the legislation was initially conceived.
Shedding low value users to others makes you stronger and them weaker.
I’d posit that even if you somehow do this in a neutral way, consumer adoption will fall in three buckets: (1) largely supportive, (2) largely unsupportive, (3) ambivalent/silent majority.
People who are largely supportive are already seeking out additional data points in their news consumption. Similarly, people who are largely unsupportive will gravitate towards their chosen echo chamber. The silent majority will remain largely ambivalent and, if they vote, will remain single issue voters.
The risk is that the government doesn’t find an effective neutral way for deciding what’s included and what’s not.
I grew up reading NYTimes on the weekend with my parents. I held them in extreme high regard when it came to their news and journalistic integrity. Over the years, I've shifted to think of them as another data point. For the industries that I'm most familiar with (Tech, Finance, and Pharma), I find their reporting often shallow, lacking in nuance, or intentional/unintentional misreporting. And I often wonder if their reporting of other areas is similarly lacking.
Now, they are just another data point, which is sad.
Why does Apple always get a free pass?
This feels like a really niche use case for SSH. Exposing this more broadly could lead to set-it-and-forget-it scenarios and ultimately make someone less secure.
> In one screenshot shared by the agency, a person identified as an Argentine national said Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”
You’re creating an absurd standard “repeatedly return large expensive items” but even every day things are way easier in the US.
I have long suspected that the sequencing data isn't valuable except to law enforcement.
If it were as easy to link sequencing to diseases, we would have seen a rapid advances in our ability to address those diseases. The genetic data alone isn't enough of a predictor.
This feels like a pretty non-partisan issue.
I wonder if the strategy behind the CHIPS act is to have enough “backup” capacity in the US that it isn’t completely vulnerable.
Is the argument that governments don't have a good reason to mandate record collection?
Why can't I ask my government to keep me safe from terrorists but also expect that companies will not just be careless with the data they collect as part of that?
We wouldn’t be involved / concerned with NATO unless we valued democracy and freedom for our partners, no?
If the FTC considered this material information, they should have asked to review it back then. If they requested it but Meta didn’t provide it, then it is an issue.
However, if the FTC didn’t consider it important at the time of the merger, it can’t go back and argue that something is valuable because the acquisitions turned out to be more valuable.
For example, if India and Brazil decide that WhatsApp needs to be able to see messages and break e2e, WA instantly becomes less valuable.
Or Snapchat could have eaten IG’s lunch.
Would FTC still have made the same argument?