I certainly keep a latest-gen console around so that I can play cross-play enabled games with my PC buddies. I don't have the patience or space for another computer, so a console is the next best thing. I will never have the best graphics nor control over performance, but the trade-off is worth it.
Ah! No, sorry, I meant that there are quite a few HNers that have some origin in the Bukkit/Spigot scene, e.g. they once wrote plugins for those platforms.
I know someone who wired their turn signal / high beam stalk to need to be pulled while turning the ignition key. Back in the early-mid 90s, my dad had a tiny light switch that needed to be toggled before starting the car.
It's ridiculous this sort of thing is needed, but it's sort of...fun?
I'm oversimplifying here, but carmakers do need EV divisions to bridge the gap. They need to be independent but be supported by the top of the organization. There's way too many stakeholders involved in the ICE orgs that could hamper progress here.
Another thing - these companies need to commit to building actual EV-first platforms instead of doing the weird platforms that supports both ICE and BEV which come with tradeoffs in packaging and driving dynamics.
On an income of $200k in California, for example, your tax rate is something like 8% (marginal). If you total it up with federal taxes, it's something like a 27% tax rate.
Most likely your parent misunderstands the _marginal_ income tax rates.
That said, income tax is not the only kind of tax. In the US, federated government entities mean a mesh of taxes accumulate. Income tax + Payroll Tax + Social Security + Medicare + Property Tax + Sales Tax aggregate. CA and NY are a little higher than other competing states, but not by much.
While the overall isn't as high as 50%, at $200k, your marginal income tax rate is 42.75%, a sales tax rate of 10%, and a property tax rate of 1.25%.
So, after $185k, while you've probably already paid 7% ($14k prop) on your home, and probably another 1% (2k sales), leading to what could be considered 50.75% tax.
Wow and you have an appreciating asset(not really) and are buying stuff. It's way lower if you have a corp/LLC and just expense stuff along with reloc and depretiation.
That said having a job sucks anywhere as you are the tax base.
That appears to be the effective rate for income tax, but there are also sales taxes, "stamp" tax on things like houses and cars, excise taxes (especially on fuel), property tax, and inflation. I'm pretty confident you can get above half at a high income in California, New York, or especially Massachusetts.
You do get something for that, but it is surprising (to me anyway) for example how similar the percentages of GDP spent on social welfare are between the blue U.S. states and Australia, and how much more the Australians seem to get for the money.
> You do get something for that, but it is surprising (to me anyway) for example how similar the percentages of GDP spent on social welfare are between the blue U.S. states and Australia, and how much more the Australians seem to get for the money.
Most social welfare programs that people can get in NY are niche. You generally have to meet certain demographic requirements. It also takes years of paperwork and waiting to get into anything if you aren't a single/battered mother.
I paid well over 40% of my income in taxes and had no hope of ever accumulating any assets or meaningful retirement and zero safety net if anything went south for me. My friends in Denmark and Sweden only paid a little bit more for what is effectively a cradle-to-grave nanny state. And they all manage to own their apartments.
> You absolutely have the choice to avoid implementing bad designs - that's your job!
Ha, seems like this someone doesn't know when and where to pick their battles. Yes, sometimes you can really push for change when you come up with a real, convincing argument. Or, A/B test the crap out of it.
When I was on the front-end of the stack, it really taught me "disagree and commit" often with product and design. Unless it's something existential, there's almost no reason to accept "good enough", move forward, measure, and iterate.
Hard agree, I'd rather not leetcode-ify* the health system. Nor do I want to see swaths of businesses dedicated to cracking the medical leetcode interview.
*because it really feels as if some companies translate leetcode skills to actual skills
Agreed, but I have my gripes with the system. We waited a long time for Apple Music to come to the infotainment - and even then it's slow, you cannot adjust to a higher music quality, you can't download playlists to local storage, I need to login every month, etc.
Additionally, my 2019 Model 3's infotainment is noticeably slower than a 2023's. I'd hate to be limited by compute in a car that I'll probably replace in 8 years. If it's my phone, the replacement time is much shorter (and much more affordable!).
It would not stop me from buying another Tesla. The infotainment is generally fantastic (as is the rest of the car). But CarPlay would make the music and podcast experience so much better.
Tesla started shipping the new AMD based MCU3 at the end of 2021. MCU2 in previously Model 3s is an Intel Atom architecture.
Previously Tesla offered MCU1 to MCU2 paid upgrades for Model S/X owners. It seems unlikely that Tesla will offer anything similar for MCU2 to MCU3 but not impossible that it could be done as a 3rd party retrofit. The connectors and physical dimensions are different so it’s not trivial.
On a personal level, yes, I'd be much less concerned with China having my data than my own government.
On a national scale? Well, I certainly do not want an adversary with an interest in overtaking the U.S. have both data and means to manipulate the opinions of its citizens.
Is it really? Both look like hallmarks of an authoritarian society to me: you don't want your subjects to have access to any information that might lead them to inconvenient questions, and you also don't want your subjects to smuggle out information that contradicts official reports.
It seems that you may not be fully informed about the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, often referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act. This significant piece of legislation aimed to shield American citizens from being influenced by propaganda disseminated by organizations such as the CIA.
In 2012, the act was updated to accommodate the prevalence of the Internet, and has led to an increase in the spread of government propaganda. Individuals who unwittingly perpetuate these false narratives may inadvertently be contributing to the deterioration of the Western world, all for the benefit of a select few who manipulate situations for their personal gain.
It's essential to recognize that remaining ignorant on such matters is not acceptable. We must strive to educate ourselves and be critical of the information we consume. If this is your first exposure to the Smith-Mundt Act, it may be time to reflect on whether you have been misled in the past.
Also, "whataboutism" only serves to stifle meaningful conversation and hinder our ability to understand different perspectives. To foster a healthy exchange of ideas, we must commit to evaluating arguments based on their merits, rather than resorting to discrediting tactics that have been employed by evil political parties you think you're against.
If you ever have conversation with people in meat space and wonder why they don't listen to your incredible wisdom, consider that sounding like a condescending, well, I can't say it on HN.
Being condescending does not help you win arguments.
After I got past your tone, I saw you completely ignored the part where I said my disapproval of Chinese spyware does not imply approval of American spyware.
EDIT- Let the record show that infamouscow substantially edited their remarks above without noting it. The tone was indeed condescending and referred to me as a marionette.
I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives.
If one chooses not to actively participate in the exchange of ideas, it may lead to a perception that the informed individuals are being condescending, when in reality they're sharing knowledge and perspectives.
You edited your original post to be more acceptable, didn't acknowledge it, then doubled down on implying I don't want to engage. Shame on you.
I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives.
I am willing and able to debate the nature of all governments and to acknowledge history. I don't enjoy sarcasm, snide remarks, and unacknowledged bad faith edits.
I apologize. I edited the previous messages to come across less snarky; that was not my intention and is why I quickly deleted my comment about being a marionette. I genuinely value open dialogue and the exchange of ideas. However, I must point out the irony that while we both claim to be interested in constructive conversation, this discussion has yet to delve into the substantive aspects of the issue at hand:
"One is my government, one is a hostile government."
Instead, we find ourselves focusing on peripheral points and accusations.
This situation brings to mind the tactics employed by the CIA to discredit truth tellers like journalists and academics. These tactics often involve diverting attention from the core issues, creating distractions, and undermining the credibility of the individuals presenting the facts. Engaging in this behavior we inadvertently contributes to a climate of misinformation and confusion, which hinders productive discourse and prevents us from reaching a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
The primary focus of the discussion has been on the potential influence of the Smith-Mundt Act on one's opinions and understanding of the issue at hand.
Engaging in a deeper analysis provides a more stimulating conversation, as opposed to simply expressing superficial agreement or disagreement, which isn't thought-provoking or worth commentary in the slightest.
The central point is that when presented with the factual realities of the Smith-Mundt Act being repealed, it's crucial to reevaluate one's opinions to ensure they are not influenced by tainted information. By not acknowledging the impact of the Smith-Mundt Act, it's unclear whether the opinions being expressed are free from propagandistic influences.
I urge you to consider the implications of the Smith-Mundt Act and its repeal in the context of your viewpoints. Engaging with this crucial aspect of the conversation allowing for a more informed and nuanced understanding of the issue at hand, and to help ascertain whether opinions are genuinely untainted by external manipulation.
So is that a yes, that you agree completely that it is correct to be more concerned about actions of hostile foreign governments, and it's Ok to ban those things first?
Because that sounds like a yes to me!
You didn't say no! So I can only assume that this is a yes.
If you do not explicitly include the words "yes" or "no" in your response, I will assume that your answer is "yes".
Actually you already basically said yes here: "The claim on its face was never in dispute".
> One is my government, one is a hostile government. Why do you suggest they are the same?
Your government was the one kidnapping its own citizens through 'rendition flights' totally outside the legal apparatus and holding and torturing them whenever it wanted. It still does that.
Your government has power over you. Not China. If you would be concerned about 'opinion manipulation', there is still the open issue of the Iraqi WMDs lie and the entire false reality created by that very government of yours and its private sector extensions. If you are not worried about that, you would have no grounds to be worried about 'hostile' governments.
And what does 'hostile' even mean? You think that China or any other country cares about what you do as a singular American? And their hostility is toward you, the random American in god knows where in the US and not instead towards your government that is openly, explicitly, directly saying that it is targeting China in total violation of the international laws? Are you aware that any such threat or open admission of intent of economic or actual warfare from a country that can follow up those threats gives a legitimate casus belli against the targeted country and triggers the Article 51 of the UN convention?
Its amazing how the Americans think that they have anything in common with their government and establishment and they literally claim shared interest...
> whataboutism
There is nothing wrong about 'whataboutism'. Those who make moral, legal, ethical accusations have to provide an objective framework for their accustion. You cant just smear others while your own side does even worse things than what you accuse others of. Without an objective framework, any kind of moral accusation becomes a mere smear.
Chinese government does not have the power to abduct you without telling anyone, hold you in an undisclosed location for however long it wants without telling anyone. The US president does. No other president and government in the world has that kind of openly legislated power. Not even any secret service anywhere has been given that power. And yet you worry about 'other governments'.
This behavior pattern seems more like projecting the troubles at home to abroad to avoid cognitive dissonance than any actual concern...
