ulyssessword
No bio...
User ID: 308
ulyssessword
3mo ago
So you end up having to sell a pretty big chunk of your stake.
31%, if I calculated it right. You would have $3.1B of realized gains ($1.36B tax) and $6.9B of unrealized gains ($1.73B tax).
Let's say you start with 100% ownership of a $1B company, then start paying your capital gains taxes with your capital gains. When will you become a minority shareholder if it doubles in value each tax season?
- Year 1: $1B to $2B total valuation, you have $1B of gains, sell 0.31, and keep 0.69, ending at 1.69/2 = 84.5% ownership
- Year 2: $2B to $4B, you have 1.69B of gains, sell 0.52, and keep 1.17, ending at 2.86/4 = 71.5% ownership
- year 3: $4B to $8B: 60.34% ownership
- year 4: $8B to $16B: 50.98% ownership
- year 5: $16B to $32B: 43.08% ownership
What about 10% annual gains?
- Year 1: 1 to 1.1, keep 1.069/1.1 = 97.2% ownership
- Year 24: 10 to 11, keep 50% ownership
That isn't even a particularly slow form of asset seizure.
ulyssessword
3mo ago
I like something like $300k over-a-period-of-time ~= $100k down-payment + 10% extra annual tax based on your income for 5 years.
I'd flip the sign on the tax: $100k down payment, and $40k - (10% of your taxes) per year. If you're paying $400k in tax, you get in for just the down payment. If your taxes are only $10k, then you pay an additional $39k per year.
You want to encourage (and select for) taxable work as much as possible.
ulyssessword
3mo ago
I'm with you. It's an easy line to draw in a law somewhere, but I'd call pasties less modest than simply being topless.
ulyssessword
3mo ago
If you weren't talking as a mod, then it's a low-content comment. That's what the downvote button is for.
ulyssessword
3mo ago
I suppose this is as good a place to ask as any: Why do non-freestyle swimming races exist (also, race-walking)?
Is there a reason why people would want to use a slower swimming style in everyday life, or what?
ulyssessword
3mo ago
Among the people who catch the double entendre, how many would A) be dissuaded by it vs. B) have it stick in their mind in a neutral or humorous way.
I'm guessing B is more common.
ulyssessword
3mo ago
I thought I just saw something about that: The parents of Philadelphia teacher Ellen Greenberg, who was found dead in 2011 with 20 stab wounds in what was deemed a suicide, have won the right by the PA Supreme Court to challenge the suicide ruling. The state is fighting their attempts to get it reclassified, but at least they're losing.
ulyssessword
3mo ago
Or here's a billion dollar idea, just turn on a goddamn windows machine locally with your patch before sending it out. This patch broke ~100% of windows machines it came across, so you just needed to have done 1 manual patch of 1 fucking machine locally to have discovered this bug.
That brought it home for me. Our IT department (a total of three people, one of whom never touches these projects) created a bug in their software and only caught it on the "trial" rollout. That caution might have saved nearly a dozen man-hours of workers waiting for them to revert the changes.
If we can get that right in a small company that barely touches software, how could a multibillion-dollar corporation that focused on security fail?
ulyssessword
3mo ago
the solution would simply be to make sure to win
Your solution to turnkey tyranny is to...win every election forever? That doesn't sound stable to say the least.
ulyssessword
3mo ago
I feel like you're skipping half the argument, and I can't fill in the blanks on my own. Is it:
- ...because voting patterns would change to match the new system (why?)
- ...because the past 35 years (containing one election with Republicans ahead in the popular vote) are typical. The 130 years with only two mismatches are too old to draw conclusions from.
- the votes wouldn't change, but the new counting method would affect the results
or something else?
ulyssessword
3mo ago
The electoral college is DEI for white people
Explain??
ulyssessword
3mo ago
You're literally waging the culture war.
"Cunthair" is bog-standard slang for the smallest perceptible distance on construction sites (and, I've heard, in many other red-tribe blue collar industries), and language policing is one of the classic culture war tactics.
If my guess is correct, you would defend the use of African American Vernacular English, and object to most attempts to suppress it. I think that's a decent policy, and also apply it to Construction Worker Vernacular English.
IIRC, someone deleted their comment between you loading the page (and seeing the bell) and you loading the next page (and seeing the inbox). EDIT: Nope, see above
ulyssessword
3mo ago
See also Alberta Premier Marlaina Smith bans kids from going by their preferred name:
“Demanding everyone around you call you by a new name one day out of the blue is not a viable option,” said Marlaina Smith, who goes by Danielle.
“We have to respect the given and family names our ancestors carried for generations,” added Premier Kolodnicki.
ulyssessword
3mo ago
What about when you're quoting someone who says "Jay Dee Vance"?
ulyssessword
3mo ago
ulyssessword
3mo ago
A bit of a tempest in a teapot, leading to a tangent:
A manipulated video shared by Musk mimics Harris' voice, raising concerns about AI in politics
A manipulated video that mimics the voice of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris saying things she did not say is raising concerns about the power of artificial intelligence to mislead with Election Day about three months away.
The video gained attention after tech billionaire Elon Musk shared it on his social media platform X(opens in a new tab) on Friday evening without explicitly noting it was originally released as parody.
(emphasis added)
I remembered seeing it in this format, with the disclaimer intact, so I thought it was a classic "don't trust your lying eyes" situation (not helped by the refusal of every site except CTV and Business Insider to actually link to the tweet). But...
Link and screenshot to the tweet in question, and link and screenshot to the post he was retweeting.
X changed its layout recently, and the text of the original post wasn't carried forward in the retweet. Their claim is accurate.
I'm guessing that there was a slow rollout of the new layout, so some people saw it in the old format and some in the new.
I would like for primary research to build common ground off of a shared foundation of facts, but that can't happen if the results are different based on the person looking. You can (presumably?) see it with the website's layout. It happened with personalized Google recommendations here last week.
I'd count when I almost missed half the context in a post last week (not helped by bitrot in the top level post), and noticing all of the intact teleprompters (so Trump's ear wasn't hit by glass in the assassination attempt) as marginal successes in primary research, but who's to say that the next issue won't be "personalized" so I can't actually see what other people are talking about?
ulyssessword
3mo ago
How about a corporation as an ideal Socialist organization?
It has strong central planning (by the CEO), often with literal five-year plans. Good managers will distribute tasks based on each worker's ability, and assign resources according their needs.
Where are the capitalist corporations, you ask? They took one look at the downfall of Sears, and decided that Socialism is best.
ulyssessword
3mo ago
I think you got the same as me. An apparent typo on the autocomplete, that goes to the real results when entered: https://imgur.com/a/eNXCArL
ulyssessword
3mo ago
I suppose it's possible that Google engineers intentionally removed "Trump" from the predictions, but the reason for doing this eludes me
I put it in the same category as Google Gemini refusing to show white people. It's a hamfisted way of manipulating the prevalence and salience of a topic.
When I try "Attempted Assassination of Trum", the first autocomplete is "Trump" (guess those Google engineers weren't vigilant enough!) and the second is "Truman."
That query gives me Truman only: https://imgur.com/2ElIZQy
No hint that a person by the name of Donald Trump was ever the target of an assassination attempt. "Donald Trump Assassi" doesn't autocomplete either, and "Donald Trump shot" corrects my apparent typo to "...shoe".
There are quite a few hypotheticals that would move it to "regrettable (but not punishable) mistake" territory, but I'm having a hard time getting to "good shoot" without completely disregarding the agreed-upon facts.
If she was closer, faster, and aggressively flung the water at an officer, then I could forgive him for acting rashly in the heat of the moment. The best option would have been to manage the social interaction better, and the fallback would have been to manage the tactical situation better so that the limited range and one-shot nature of the pot mitigates the threat. Failing both of those, boiling water is dangerous enough to merit deadly force.
I think there's enough there to drive some debate if you're just reading commentary, but I'm firmly in team "bad shoot" after watching the video.
EDIT: found the second camera angle. With a bit better aim, the officer would have been hospitalized. The situation is close enough to my "hypothetical" (lol) that I'm applying that judgment.
-She flings the boiling water at him. It does not connect.
-The cops shoots and kills her.
I don't think that's correct. My timeline is that the first shot was at 14:19.16 and the water became visible at 14:19.28.
Did I miss an earlier indication that she was throwing it?
EDIT: nevermind. I was going off of the first camera only.
The body cam footage shows...
Link's down for me. Here is the canonical source.
Right before she is shot the body cam just barely picks up Massey throwing the boiling water toward the officers,
EDIT: I didn't realize there were two perspectives posted. This is the first bodycam only, and I haven't edited the following paragraph.
The first gunshot is at 14:19 and 16 frames. The water splash becomes visible beside the counter at 14:19 and 28 frames. Half a second of lag doesn't require that she was in the middle of throwing it as she was shot (but that's still possible), and it definitely wasn't before they fired.
EDIT: and the second...
Dammit. From 28:21-28:22 she's throwing the pot. She left it on the counter (with potholders on her hands), then reached up and grabbed it and threw it. There's no sound, but amateur synchronization puts 14:19.28 at 28:22.15, which puts the first shot in the middle of her throw.
ulyssessword
4mo ago
Wordpress-style blogs instead of Substack. BBS instead of Reddit. IRC instead of Discord. All paired with some form of easy web hosting (lol).
With large companies, you can be kicked off of a friend chat or fan club for your conduct in a news discussion group.
See my run through the numbers here.
If you pay off your capital gains taxes by selling your capital (and paying the taxes to pay your taxes), then you'd sell off half your stake by the time it gets ~10x the value (higher multipliers for faster growth). And you'd still have to pay 44% for the part you haven't yet sold.
In that scenario, you'd be purely better off with a 70% (realized only) capital gains tax than the 25% unrealized + 44% realized tax.
EDIT: just realized you had already responded to my comment before posting this one. My numbers are completely incompatible with your description of the "net change", so it would've been nice to have my math directly challenged rather than pointing out an exception for private companies.
More options
Context Copy link