991–1000 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could just allow discussion without worrying too much which version.
What about things like not having algorithmic boosting for the tin-foil hat versions? Some people insist that’s censorship but it seems like a useful way to avoid promoting it to people who aren’t already seeking it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love your consideration for the financial problems of some of the most privileged people in all of human history. I just don’t really care that much if they get a big tax bill (I’m sure they’ll find a way to pay) and for a variety of reasons it will be good for society.
It's not just their financial problem... I'm concerned with triggering an event that could make the great depression look like a tropical vacation by comparison. Just for a second, imagine seeing the sale of roughly 5% of all stocks across the board... what would the side effect of that be? Since all of the very wealthy would be doing the same, that means that the prices will likely go down by more than 5% triggering…
It’s a closed system at the end of the day so the wealth isn’t vanishing into thin air.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love your consideration for the financial problems of some of the most privileged people in all of human history. I just don’t really care that much if they get a big tax bill (I’m sure they’ll find a way to pay) and for a variety of reasons it will be good for society.
They're not concerned about the wealthy, but the state of the economy. Bad things happen when the prices of things change dramatically. E.g., if you happen to own an asset that a billionaire now needs to fire sale, you'll lose out as well.
They will be incentivized to do this otherwise they will get nothing for their shares.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unrealized gains taxes is an extractive and totalitarian tax. Someone is always risking 100% loss until they realize those gains. It's an affront to entrepreneurial risk-taking and it's capricious. It would be just as ridiculous to allow someone to write-off unrealized losses.
The point is that none of these guys are risking 100% of anything. Meta stock is liquid. You can sell it or hedge. You might slip 10% but it’s vanishingly unlikely to lose 100%. The well-known tax dodge is to avoid realizing gains by borrowing against your stock. Say you pledge $1b as collateral on a loan. If interest rates are lower than your stock appreciation, the loan is free. So you don’t ever need to realize th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldnt it be similar to a property tax? That's evaluated on an annual basis. If you feel it's wrong you can appeal
1. Properties are bought/sold constantly around most people's homes. Evaluating a home price is not that hard, compared evaluating how much the remains of the car that Ted Kennedy crashed is worth (I purposely chose this example. The car is "worthless" yet I guarantee you can find a nut willing to spend a fortune to have this piece of political history) 2. Properties are purposely, often by statute, assessed far less…
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.
What about things like not having algorithmic boosting for the tin-foil hat versions? Some people insist that’s censorship but it seems like a useful way to avoid promoting it to people who aren’t already seeking it out.
How do you determine what the tin-foil hat version is though? Turns out a lot of tin-foil hat stuff is true after all.
Not really, no. For example, actual scientists were discussing the possibility of the COVID pandemic having arisen from a lab leak seriously and looking for evidence that could support that theory but the conspiracy nuts were going on about it being a “ChiComm bio weapon” because their goal was political rather than learning the truth. (Only the latter encountered terms of service actions, typically due to racism or targeting specific people, but their supporters often falsely claim they were in the former group)
That’s the easy rule of thumb: is someone approaching the problem rationally, etc. or are they starting from the position they want and trying to work backwards? Are they willing to seek out evidence and adjust based on new information, or do they find reasons to dismiss it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for sharing this, otherwise I may never know tge meanings of the terms on HN. I hope there was a guide. Meanwhile I saw a dead post 0 minutes ago, is is true that someone flagged it immediately? I personally don't find the post evil but only little boring.
If they've been flag killed, it will say [flagged][dead] (and yes I've seen it happen within a minute of someone commenting on very popular threads). If it's just [dead] , you should look at their comment history because chances are they've been banned by dang. Alternatively, some people register on HN via Tor which also auto-shadowbans them until enough people vouch for their comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unrealized gains taxes is an extractive and totalitarian tax. Someone is always risking 100% loss until they realize those gains. It's an affront to entrepreneurial risk-taking and it's capricious. It would be just as ridiculous to allow someone to write-off unrealized losses.
The point is that none of these guys are risking 100% of anything. Meta stock is liquid. You can sell it or hedge. You might slip 10% but it’s vanishingly unlikely to lose 100%. The well-known tax dodge is to avoid realizing gains by borrowing against your stock. Say you pledge $1b as collateral on a loan. If interest rates are lower than your stock appreciation, the loan is free. So you don’t ever need to realize th…
If an issue can be addressed with a scalpel, it should be addressed with a scalpel. Any man who insists a machete is required is just looking for an excuse to swing his machete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well when you have over 100m in assets in your pile of gold in the dragon lair, its time to be extractive. This is emotional pleading, not a serious argument of any sort, based on the core premise of "this person has more money than me, and I don't like that, therefore I should get some".
Its more a question of if the best way to allocate our resources is to allow the bulk of the population to struggle while a lucky few have more money than they could reasonably spend on themselves in several lifetimes.
This is emotional pleading, dishonest framing, and a false dichotomy. Are you going to make a real argument, or continue to engage in emotional manipulation?