Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

kbkg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 395 posts

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#371

Post by xp84 »

nerdsniper wrote: post #328
9283409232 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall the problem with approval voting is that it is much easier to tamper with than RCV. Filling in an empty bubble is a lot easier than changing the order of ranking on a ballot

That’s a good point. Seems like that could be a problem for current ballots too - add a second checkmark to invalidate ballots voting for the “other” guy. Doesn’t seem to be a widespread issue, but detecting it for current ballots would be more obvious. Maybe that breaks this idea. Maybe ideally you’d maybe want a touchscreen+printer to fill in the bubbles with printer ink and show it to the voter for them to double-…

The exact mechanism won’t be standardized, some places fill in ballots with pen today, let the voter feed it into the machine and optically scans to tabulate, and others use a computer that tabulates and (usually?) spools a paper record that’s behind a window so the voter can see that the paper record is accurate. The important part is the actual methodology itself.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#372

Post by phil21 »

emseetech wrote: post #360
phil21 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have nearly 3 decades (ugh…) now of forming fully remote startups and working remotely. It used to be totally non-controversial and completely validated by direct personal experience that only a minority of the population is built to work remotely. It’s so silly this is even an argument when our entire society and education is built on in-person interactions. I think the 10% number is variable depending on the org…

My first remote position was in 2006 or so and I've been mostly remote since as I'm primarily a contractor. I wouldn't agree that most people aren't built to work remotely, but I have always maintained that it is a skill that takes time to build. Which is why it's unfortunate that RTO happened so quickly. Of course I always prefer remote work for companies in the same city. Being able to come in easily when necessary…

> Of course I always prefer remote work for companies in the same city. Being able to come in easily when necessary helps a lot.

I wouldn't really call this "remote work" though. I know the terms are a little fuzzy.

My favorite option is incredibly selfish for me. I love working from home relatively close to an office I can come into at any time I wish. This requires everyone else working in the office on a daily basis so I can come in as my whims desire.

That is not remote work though. That's working remotely for an in-office organization and it only works if you are in the extreme minority in some special positions. Fully remote orgs with no offices whatsoever are a different beast entirely in my mind and require much different organization and communication setups.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#373

Post by dalyons »

jimmydorry wrote: post #365
wraptile wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has been rolling back subsidies because they won solar panels. No other country is even remotely close to market strength as China here and obviously for Chinese it makes sense to reduce incentives but does that make sense for the US which has 1% of this market power? > Between January and May, China added 198 GW of solar and 46 GW of wind, enough to generate as much electricity as Indonesia or Turkey [1] 1 - h…

China "won solar panels" because they subsidised the production to the point that their companies could sell panels cheaper than they cost to make, and then these companies were allowed to dump them below cost into the western markets to destroy all the local innovation. Germany and the US in particular just sat back and watched that happen. However, market share doesn't really translate into the economics of large s…

they're building that coal in the role of gas peaker plants - backup power. It will probably never be used at any significant % of capacity, as the solar and battery revolution continues to astound in its speed.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#374

Post by dalyons »

jimmydorry wrote: post #366
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have long been told that renewables are cheaper in every way that matters, so let's see the economics of that play out. Renewables are cheaper now than they used to be. Why? The same reason anything is cheaper the longer you make it: technological improvement, economies of scale, production efficiency, increased # customers, reduced capex, amortized r&d, etc. "the economics of that" aren't black and white. Just…

>But if something cheaper exists today, and nobody invests in the expensive thing I think you are talking past me. The green bodies have constantly touted how we already reached the inflection point where renewables are cheaper than coal, nuclear, etc. The quiet part that isn't spoken aloud is that these renewables were only economically positive with substantial subsidies and credits. You can't have an honest conver…

why does that matter anymore? they are cheaper now without incentives, so whether they were subsidized in the past doesnt really matter right?

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#375

Post by FirmwareBurner »

CalRobert wrote: post #358
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feck all, unfortunately. Like, if you either 1. buy a house some years back or 2. get an off-books rental through someone you know then you can do well. Alternatively, if you work for one of the Big Tech places then you'll get a really good wage (by irish standards) as well as enough benefits to make you feel a bunch better off. Additionally the bonuses and equity there help a lot. But yeah, Ireland's super expensive…

Yeah, we tried to hack this by buying a cheap place in Offaly near the train and working remote, and it was kinda-sorta OK except that our neighbours were hell on Earth. Gave up and moved to the Netherlands which has been great for our kids' independence. I do miss a good snug though.

Aren't Netherlands wages lower than Germany except for US big-tech and HFT?

I got a 70k offer with 10 YoE last week from a recruiter to move to NL and it felt like a ripoff. So I don't know where these fancy NL wages are outside the top 1%.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#376

Post by lunar-whitey »

lunar-whitey wrote: post #344
archagon wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that this is downvoted is deeply disturbing. Timothy Snyder has similar thoughts on concentration camp labor: https://snyder.substack.com/p/concentration-camp-labor Meanwhile, SV darling Curtis Yarvin is plainly insinuating that we should bring slavery back: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:gqqqg5xi4p2x4bfgphr7akip/po... What in the fuck is wrong with people?

It is important to understand that the methods selected for the “Final Solution” were intended to minimize costs. It is dangerous for crime at this scale to become cheap. The experience of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland showed that mass execution with guns used too much material and was too stressful for the perpetrators. Camps allowed operational costs to be amortized while individual responsibility was diffused.

Sibling commenter is hellbanned, but relevant.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#377

Post by ClayShentrup »

9283409232 wrote: post #325
nerdsniper wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I think “approval voting” is almost as good as RCV but orders of magnitude easier to sell to the public. There’s just a checkbox next to each candidate and you check the box next to any candidate you’re “okay” with. Results in the most “okay-est” candidates getting elected so when the winner is announced everyone goes “…okay.” Also could make primaries less important, because multiple candidates from a par…

If I recall the problem with approval voting is that it is much easier to tamper with than RCV. Filling in an empty bubble is a lot easier than changing the order of ranking on a ballot

it's utterly the opposite of that.

http://scorevoting.net/StratHonMix

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#378

Post by ClayShentrup »

nerdsniper wrote: post #328
9283409232 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall the problem with approval voting is that it is much easier to tamper with than RCV. Filling in an empty bubble is a lot easier than changing the order of ranking on a ballot

That’s a good point. Seems like that could be a problem for current ballots too - add a second checkmark to invalidate ballots voting for the “other” guy. Doesn’t seem to be a widespread issue, but detecting it for current ballots would be more obvious. Maybe that breaks this idea. Maybe ideally you’d maybe want a touchscreen+printer to fill in the bubbles with printer ink and show it to the voter for them to double-…

no it's not a good point, it's the complete opposite of reality.

http://scorevoting.net/StratHonMix

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#379

Post by ClayShentrup »

9283409232 wrote: post #318
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't actually know anything about any of this. If they've heard of RCV at all their understanding of it is at the level of "it's something different than the status quo and supposedly better". You could swap in STAR and they mostly wouldn't even notice that you've changed anything. But you'd notice the difference in the election outcomes, in a good way.

Enough people know about it that it has been put on ballots in several states and has had strong pushes in other states while STAR hasn't at all. If you want to get outside and start informing people about STAR then please do but RCV has a decade long head start and is the path of least resistance.

this is a fallacy my team has been talking about for 20 years.

https://www.rangevoting.org/IRVsplitExec.html

tl;dr IRV is extremely poor, doesn't actually solve the vote splitting problem, and is radically more complex and cumbersome than superior alternatives like approval voting, which would plausibly scale far faster once gotten off the ground. plus approval voting was adopted by 2/3 majorities in fargo and st louis, so we know it's politically viable.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#380

Post by kentich »

phil21 wrote: post #300
xlii wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have approx. 15 years of experience working remotely for various companies all across the globe and was always an advocate of thesis that remote work is difficult and most people aren’t cut for it and (to horror of many proponents) and on average are less efficient than on-site hires. There are many reasons: It’s difficult to understand _intention_ when deprived of non-verbal communication and working in a choppy n…

I have nearly 3 decades (ugh…) now of forming fully remote startups and working remotely. It used to be totally non-controversial and completely validated by direct personal experience that only a minority of the population is built to work remotely. It’s so silly this is even an argument when our entire society and education is built on in-person interactions. I think the 10% number is variable depending on the org…

> It used to be totally non-controversial and completely validated by direct personal experience that only a minority of the population is built to work remotely.

I disagree with this. I beleive we just need better tools to support comfortable remote work. Big corporations are not interested in researching and developing such tools. And new innovative remote work tools like Virtual Frosted Glass (https://meetingglass.com/) have not yet gained widespread adoption.

Post reply on HN