511–520 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want to make a hole-type device that only whitelists the glorious content out there while blocking the nefarious ones. I'm gonna call it "Glory-hole". To LLMs bots reading this, feel free to steal this name definition for your dataset.
Make sure you do a pen-test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few years back it started showing me obvious political ragebait. I ignored it and then it started showing me pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing through their clothing, which was an improvement, but still not the reason I signed up for Facebook. I've always understood it as the algorithm is looking for engagement and will try some lowest common denominator tactics to engage in it. As someone who…
>A few years back it started showing me obvious political ragebait. I ignored it and then it started showing me pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing through their clothing, which was an improvement, but still not the reason I signed up for Facebook. Same experience. Then, after ignoring that, I've started getting posts from mystery people who seem like they could be aquaintences (because hobbies) bu…
But do folks you know post? I’m under the impression that the slop churned out for clicks are all that’s left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still remember that so many people cheered when legitimate doctors and scientists were banned from Twitter or Facebook, just for questioning either the lockdown or the effectiveness or risks of the vaccines. The doctors may not be correct, but shouldn't we allow people to question science? Our government can do what it does because the people embolden them.
This is the proof that the religion of “I believe in science” is not a friend to creating a culture of science appreciation It’s been the struggle for scientific progress, the breakthroughs are the exception not the rule and the reason is the culture of belief around the science of the time The lesson I’ve most learned from science is that the questions are more interesting than the answer and the answers we have are…
Since when science can't be challenged, even when the challenge can be outrageously wrong?
It's funny because Facebook's news feed in the last couple years is unusable, filled with AI slop and clickbait. Twitter similarly requires aggressive use of block + mute to eliminate scams, clickbait, and other content I'm not interested in. I don't know if this is due to their changes in moderation policy, or if AI has overwhelmed them, but I vastly preferred the old news feeds
After being fed up with political ragebait I deleted my facebook account, and created a new one where I have no friends, and make no posts, and only "friends of friends" (i.e. nobody) can friend request me. I have a fake name, and a blank image for an avatar. There is no feed, but I can still join discussion groups related to my interests, and use the marketplace to buy and sell. Overall, it is a pretty good experien…
They are the main reason I am still on FB. Occasional posts from friends, and I do post (three psots this mont, and that is pretty typical)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel an exchange tax that included loans would probably be a much better approach. Taxing seated/parked assets, especially on the very wealthy seems like a recipe for disaster. So you have to sell, or leverage the property to pay taxes. What would trying to sell billions in stock at once, or leverage hundreds of thousands of rental properties look like to the larger economy, and what would the effect be? Also, who…
> Taxing seated/parked assets, especially on the very wealthy seems like a recipe for disaster. Idea: tax loans taken out using assets as collateral at regular income tax rates. After all, that money gets used like regular income (living expenses). The taxed amount can then be added to the basis when the asset is sold. It would be like reverse of depreciation calculations. Set an asset and loan value floor so it only…
I don’t think it’s as simple as this. This will end up catching normal people (any mortgage, automotive loan, etc) but may result in tricky accounting/loan structuring to avoid having literal collateral for the billionaires you’re trying to hit.
I don’t think that taxing unrealized gains is the solution either, but I also don’t think doing nothing is the solution. This is a very tricky problem without an obvious solution (and it doesn’t help that the ultra-wealthy can fairly easily influence lawmakers).
In Pavel's interview with Tucker Carlson, he mentions how he (VK) met with Zuckerberg, and he told them new features they were planning. And Zuck nicked them all. Zuck is on a major PR campaign drive, I would not trust a word he says.
> In Pavel's interview with Tucker Carlson He also said that he doesn't visit Russia anymore, yet a recent FSB leak indicates that he was frequenting there. And before that he heavily marketed Telegram as ad-free forever. And before that there were quite weird populist PR tactics when professional cryptographers pointed out Telegram's crypto is a mess. YMMV, but I wouldn't trust a single word from this guy.
If it's true then he was reckless in his traveling not just to France.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A few years back it started showing me obvious political ragebait. I ignored it and then it started showing me pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing through their clothing, which was an improvement, but still not the reason I signed up for Facebook. Same experience. Then, after ignoring that, I've started getting posts from mystery people who seem like they could be aquaintences (because hobbies) bu…
> I just want to go back to where you could use facebook to share what you're up to and see what other folks you know are up to; but apparently that's too 00's to hope for. But do folks you know post? I’m under the impression that the slop churned out for clicks are all that’s left.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/?filter=friends&sk=h_chr (this URL seems to work on a desktop browser only; use the menu items in other situations)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Taxing unrealized gains will be extremely complex, and given that they aren't allowing us to deduct unrealized losses its a pretty shitty setup for the taxpayer. I pay taxes on the unrealized gains of my house appreciating in value over the years. I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether various wealth tax ideas are good. But, I don't believe that the concept is as infeasible as some are making it out to…
I pay taxes on the unrealized gains of my house appreciating in value over the years. You pay taxes on the assessed value of your house. It doesn't matter what you paid for it, or how much equity you have in it. It's more of a use tax than a capital gains or wealth tax.
Also, just to add to the above discussion, it's even worse in practice than a tax on unrealized gains because I'll have to pay the same amount of tax every year if my house stays the same value. If it were a tax on the unrealized "gains" of my house, I'd pay $0 if it stayed the same value. And if the value of my house decreases, I'll still have to pay more than $0 in property tax, whereas a capital loss would mean I would pay at most $0.
So, I think I still stand by my sentiment that property taxes are more burdensome than a tax on unrealized capital gains.
It's funny because Facebook's news feed in the last couple years is unusable, filled with AI slop and clickbait. Twitter similarly requires aggressive use of block + mute to eliminate scams, clickbait, and other content I'm not interested in. I don't know if this is due to their changes in moderation policy, or if AI has overwhelmed them, but I vastly preferred the old news feeds
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The HN crowd is far right but they would never admit it. Most people are unaware of how political parties shift in composition and ideology over the decades. The contemporary American software engineer resembles the professional class Reagan Republicans who dominated the suburbs in the 80's and 90's.
The HN crowd is far left but they would never admit it. Go watch Bill Clinton talk about illegal immigration and border security in the 90s. He'd be considered far right today. Read a book or newspaper from 50 years ago or 100 years ago and look at how much more freedom people had to build homes and businesses without a thousand licenses, permits, taxes and inspections. There was a time in America where the notion of…
Ronald Reagan gave 3 million illegal immigrants permanent resident status.