I might be an outlier, but I grew up listening to some genres that have fallen out of fashion, and I don't feel like I need more songs from them--we've explored enough of what they can do. What I miss from the 90's isn't third-wave ska as people trying things and bizarre songs becoming hits.
Heh, haven't heard of this but as a frenchie who sometimes hears swedes over the internet, I find that the permanent snus makes it sound like the person can't stop keeping some gum in their mouth, refilling mid-sentence because they really, really can't help it and it's more important than your interaction.
And so, having grown up hearing "audible gum chewing is rude", that sometimes feels rude to me. And it's not even in person!
> he bigger thing here is just the idea that the alternatives are "Boeing assembly plant" or "data center".
This is a false dichotomy, though. That region has enough land that you could do both. There just isn't much demand for manufacturing in the Upper Midwest right now.
Ya haha, I was going to say, land destruction is not particularly fun for anyone but the pilot. Never heard of someone getting Wastelanded or Stone Rained over and over with a smile on their face. Lands used to be such a cool deck, too. Loam plus the occasional Marit Lage was such a badass concept.
My doubts in the architecture is how different they are from human intelligence. They need an inordinate amount of training data and lack any sort of generational architectural intelligence.
Indeed, this is why I eventually stopped using it; sometimes a random site wouldn't function properly, and took time to figure out it was uMatrix. It was a nice plugin indeed though.
Yeah true, but I had many sites that I manually white-listed scripts / external resources, and was succesfully using those sites. But then some particular functionality of the site you rarely use once stops working, and you later find out uMatrix was still messing with some stuff, even if you whitelist all resources.
It's more like "We really value face-to-face interaction, so we're going to track that with your total travel spend. We don't want to get in the way, so there's no budget."
The California Billionaire Tax is a bad idea. It's not that wealth taxes can't work (most of the US taxes property just fine), it's that taxes need to be fair and predictable. The phase-in is too narrow and its implementation is too arbitrary. Why $1B? Why $5%? Why won't CA voters hit up billionaires again?
I feel like every opposition I read to wealth taxes is someone saying that we shouldn't do it, because it won't be perfect. Without offering an alternative to the status quo, which is nothing.
We can iterate on taxes if they're ineffective, but it's unforgivable to not try and do something in the face of so much inequality.
I sort of implied that it needs to be predicable (annual) and less arbitrary (bracketed). A one-off tax sends the message that you can be taxed whenever and for whatever. Unpredictable policy sends a message that somewhere isn't a stable place to live or do business.
This is not my reaction to just you. This is my reading of "any time a wealth tax is brought up." My recommendation to you, given you seem to be acting in good-faith:
Make it clear "What you want a wealth tax to look like instead" But also, it's easier to destroy than it is to create, so I think any state setting the grounds for how they're going to try this, is worth supporting and iterating on.
reply