I think the idea is that anyone who’s seen his stupid interviews is a “tainted” juror, so if he’s tainted most potential jurors, it becomes more difficult to try him. Not sure how true this actually is

Very affordable at a price of 16 milliNEOMs!

If I’m understanding correctly, that makes the effective marginal tax rate between 100k and 125k higher than after 125k? Feels kind of crazy

That's correct.

Most people in the UK have no idea that there is an effective 60% tax rate either. It's not an official tax band.

But it's the kind of tax raising governments love doing, by stealth. Don't put up the tax band thresholds causing more people to fall into the higher bands over time. They also remove child tax credit as you earn more. And remove your personal tax allowance gradually over 100k.

> And remove your personal tax allowance gradually over 100k.

Well the that’s the thing this thread is all about so that isn’t an additional thing.

Yeah, bad phrasing! I'm sure there are other examples of stealth taxation.

Shannon was actually involved in the first wearable computer, so maybe he wouldn’t have found it so far-fetched!

https://www.engadget.com/2013-09-18-edward-thorp-father-of-w...

Not an expert but this provably doesn’t add security.

In your example, if sha1(foo)==sha1(bar), then foo, bar have a collision regardless of what you do afterwards.

Maybe there’s some fancier layering scheme that adds security?

Henry Ford paid his workers more to reduce turnover, not so they could afford his cars.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-stor...

According to this guy’s (possible wrong) view of market elasticity.

More food stamps-> each person work more hours to survive-> more labor supply-> lower wages.

(EDIT) Which would make him not like food stamps.

There are other effects of food stamps, but in this guys view, that’s the dominant term. Maybe he’d like it for his own employees, but certainly not for the market as a whole. I guess it’s the opposite of “restaurants have to pay people more to compete with coronabucks” narrative that started a year or two back.

This seems to be the same concept as “the market for lemons”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

Parents of low-cost students can send their kids to the “high information market” (the schools that can reject high-cost students). Parents of high-cost students have to send their kids to the “low-information market” (the public school that can’t reject high-cost students). Any school that can reject high-cost students can make themselves more attractive to low-cost students, which then feeds on itself, as the “low-information” school ends up with more and more high-cost students.

In this case, both schools have the same information, it’s just that one school isn’t allowed to act on it.

There are similarities undoubtedly. I think the major difference is the source of the distorted subsidy. In the market for lemons bad cars are subsidized by people thinking they might be good ones. In the voucher system low cost students are handed a massive subsidy by government pretending they have average cost. I think the voucher market is more dangerous since government ends up on the hook for all the increased costs of education because of the artificial subsidy.

How does this even work? Police officer walks to within 7 feet of you: you’re not allowed to film. They tell you to stop filming and then suddenly you’re allowed to because they’re interacting with you?

Your mental math is correct.

If each temperature was sampled identically and independently, each place’s “time since hottest” should be flatly distributed between now and however long the recording goes back to.