pythonaut_16

This is asinine. If the government wants to tax all transactions you make they'll tax all transactions you make. This doesn't make that any easier.

This is the government adding reporting requirements for transactions that are already taxable. It's just covering a gap where transactions weren't being reported.

This is not an MIT or open source license then.

What if I adapt your code under MIT and distribute it. Can someone else then use it commercially? Or do they pay you? Or me? The answer is your license either isn't open source or it is easy to bypass.

Dual license copy left on the other hand works because the stipulations and restrictions are compatible, i.e. not overlapping.

Seems pretty impossible to enforce otherwise with how the web currently works.

At some point the website is sending you HTML and JS to be interpreted on your computer.

It's not helplessness it's communication.

> It doesn't matter how much suffering and misery and other negative externalities went into something

This is uncharitable. It could be as simple as an $8 Big Mac changes the value proposition (quality/cost) enough that people move elsewhere.

If the main selling point of your product is that it's cheap are people wrong to not buy it if it's no longer cheap?

Regardless of the actual policies and intentions, a person who pays money to the government in taxes is going to see someone getting money from the government as being partially funded, or taken, from themselves.

For what it's worth though I agree with you. Government programs should be funded and planned based on net-benefit to society not strictly on an individual idea of fairness.

An example would be homelessness or drug rehab programs where it ends up being cheaper and better for society to help people than to continuously ignore and/or punish them.

> You realize the top 1% have stolen >$10T from us overdecades of tax evasion

You're gonna have to provide a citation for that kind of claim.

That's why the key is to help people understand the cost and benefits of the system overall and not try to change their perspective on individuals.

If the system is effective for the vast majority and the cost of those abusing the system is less than the cost to prevent the abuse then that's generally a win. (Of course you have to be careful of second order effects and unintended consequences. If people can easily get away with abuse will abuse of the system grow?)

In other words, you don't need to convince people that abuse of the system isn't wrong or that it is impossible, i.e. the "don't judge" comments, you need to convince them that the system is effective in both costs and outcomes.

Ironic how uncharitable you're being while accusing others of the same.

It's pretty easy to understand why someone who perceives themselves as working hard and paying taxes would be upset when someone else seems to be using their government benefits to buy more than the "bare necessities" without the hard work.

Whether that perspective is helpful, good, or correct is a different matter but it's certainly not an affront to "freedom" as you mentioned. Money from the government might not be less worthy but it does come at the cost of someone else.

Why is that depressing? Unless you have some silver bullet to remove the need for oil or prevent any future oil spills it seems like creating innovative technologies to detect them as soon as possible is a good thing.

It would be like if someone developed a cheap, non-invasive technology that could detect cancer extremely early, and then you complained because they hadn't cured cancer instead.

Unrelated to the outage, but I hate headlines like this.

Facebook is down ~5% today. That's a huge plunge to be sure, but Zuckerberg hasn't "lost" anything. He owns the same number of shares today as he did yesterday. And in all likelihood, unless something truly catastrophic happens the share price will bounce back fairly quickly. The only reason he even appears to have lost $7 billion is because he owns so much Facebook stock.

These types of alarmist headlines are inane.

Yep. The decision for Google to have access to the contents of my email is mine, not Amazon's (or whoever else). It's the decision I make when I use a Gmail account, and it's up to me to decide that based on Google' privacy policies and reputation.

If I don't want Google to have any access then I'll use a different provider or self host my email. If I want to publish all of my emails publicly that's also my decision.

I think the term echo chamber specifically denotes something bad.

An echo chamber happens specifically when a group's internal belief's enter a positive feedback loop and become insulated from any external (and often internal) dissent.

What you've described sounds more like a group with common belief's that has not devolved into an echo chamber. And that is what we should all strive for.

B2B SaaS have a much clearer/easier value proposition than B2C.

There's already a cash flow and profit motive in a business, so if a SaaS can demonstrate that it enables more value than it costs, there's a tangible advantage to paying for that service.

That's why it matters that it's also open source.

It's similar to Big-O notation, seeing that it's in Rust gives me an idea of performance profile to expect. If it's a Rails project I know that the best case scenario is fairly resource intensive, no matter how good the code is. If it's Rust then I know that for an average quality open source project it will be lower resource usage. If a project ends up being terribly inefficient after that, I'll drop it regardless of what stack it's in.

Knowing what tech stack something uses is a valuable first signal.

It's a useful signal though right?

This being written in Rust tells me it's probably going to be fast/lightweight. Go would be a similar expectation. If it's written in Rails I'd have different expectations. Python or Node might fall somewhere in the middle.

This project is a webserver you can host yourself, so having an idea of the resources required is very helpful.

The long term consequences of those things are fairly well known/intuitive at this point.

People are bad at optimizing for low and long term risks, but doing something knowing it's bad for you is different than being anxious about what unknown effects a treatment might have.

One thing I've picked up on that I especially hate is when a cut scene has you press buttons solely for the sake of interactivity, i.e. they don't utilize game mechanics.

"Press X to..." in a situation that you will never encounter again or press X again in. Like the cut scene isn't teaching you a mechanic, it's just making you pay attention.

The legal form of "but I had my fingers crossed so it doesn't count"

That's the exact problem with the bill. Of course a car that refuses to be driven drunk sounds like a great way to stop drunk driving.

But the technology to feasibly and reliably do that does not exist.

Bands still seem helpful to the discussion. If Mark is making 60k then its clear the company is valuing him more and that might open the door to a beneficial discussion.

Seems like it at least gives you some metrics to compare to rather than just favoritism.

I honestly don't understand what you're getting at.

In the above comment you seemed to suggest that companies would already be charging more for rental cars if they could.

So I pointed out that consumers might be willing to pay more for a rental in return for a higher perceived value in the form of extra features being enabled.

Charging a new owner to unlock the feature again is slightly different than charging the original owner a subscription.

However, I still see selling features as a software upgrade strictly as an alternative means* of selling upgrades. So the upgrade should be tied to the car, not the owner. The added bonus here would be that a second owner could unlock features that the initial owner didn't want.

*i.e. Tesla might decide it's better just to put the heated seats in all cars rather than manufacturing cars with and without.

Customers will pay more if they think they're getting more in return.

If they can increase the rental prices without extra features, then they can charge even more for extra features.

Ultimately it comes down to the business's own calculus of costs, prices, and demand.

That's really the only answer. Do the research and the math for your own business/use and see if AWS is a better value than colo or your own hardware.

A rental car would at least make sense though. You're already paying a cost for temporary access to the car, adding on extra features doesn't seem outrageous.

It could improve availability of those features because a rental company could order a fleet with those features on all cars in their fleet and then customers who want it would be able to pay the surcharge, instead of being constrained by the portion of the fleet with those features installed.

Of course it would likely just be used as a way to increase rental car prices.

Paying a one time unlock fee and paying a subscription on a hardware feature are vastly different things. You might still disagree with both, but they are different.

Heated seats are a pretty standard upgrade that people will pay for, so I'm not sure that it makes much difference whether it's a physical upgrade or a software unlock, and there are valid reasons Tesla might choose a software unlock.

But charging a subscription fee on heated seats on a non-rental car is outrageous.

You would declare a higher valuation and get taxed extra... all while still not preventing Jeff Bezos or anyone with sufficient wealth from swooping in and buying it.

This is outrageously favorable to the uber-wealthy (and anyone who is an order of magnitude more wealthy than you.)

Piss someone off? Maybe they'll just come in and buy your house. Cherished one of a kind item? Jeff Bezos likes it, so it's his now. Property developer wants to build something on your land? Get ready to move, no questions asked.

That's an argument for a tax on those assets then. Corporate taxes for stocks, property taxes for real estate, etc.