Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nkohari's commentslogin

Can you explain how that would happen? This tax is limited to second homes only.

this is literally a cover to overhaul the property tax assessment system in New York.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/new-york-passes-ma...

"While the tax seems large, experts say the city's antiquated assessment and valuation system dramatically undervalues properties, reducing the burden. City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value, they said.

Rather than overhaul the system immediately, the city will gradually update valuations – and the tax – according to the budget documents. Starting in the 2028-2029 tax year, the property values will be based on comparable sales. Since valuations will skyrocket, the tax rates will fall to compensate."

this is, at minimum, a 10% increase in ALL property taxes. And the people most affected will be the lower and middle class.


>> City valuations can often be 10% or less of the true market value

> this is, at minimum, a 10% increase in ALL property taxes

If they're ~10x'ing the erroneously low valuation to true them to market value, then that would be more than a 10% increase.

>> Since valuations will skyrocket, the tax rates will fall to compensate

But as the article points out, this is an expected outcome and will be blunted by subsequent tax rate decreases.

All things equal, undervaluing properties for tax purposes isn't fair, although it may be politically (corruptly) popular.


>>But as the article points out, this is an expected outcome and will be blunted by subsequent tax rate decreases.

the tax rate decrease will be on the multi-million dollar homes.

not on the new property tax valuations of everything else.


That literally has nothing to do with the pied-a-terre tax. The assessment process is not related to taxing second homes. Each can be done with or without the other.

it will just make rent higher.

> Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Applying this broadly to most firms today you can divide this up into:

> 1. The producers and marketers (PMs/Sales). [...]

> 2. The leadership (CEO/VPs). [...]

I'm sorry, what? Product managers are producers and executive leadership are innovators, but engineers are just waste?


It's really insulting to the Stainless team to dismiss this acquisition as some sort of chess move against OpenAI. Give me a break.

I don't think it's fair to consider writing an analysis (even a favorable one) about a topic as _shilling_ for it. It's not like he was pushing shitcoins or minting NFTs.

I have always been (and remain!) bearish on crypto but it absolutely was something that couldn't be ignored a few years ago. Even if you came to the conclusion that it was bunk, there was significant enough fervor that any technologist needed to reckon with their position on it.

For example, lots of engineers proclaimed very loudly that document databases would replace the RDBMs, or that GraphQL was the future of APIs. They were wrong, as it turned out, but only with the wisdom of hindsight.


He actually was pushing NFTs but has since deleted his tweet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26434769

No, I didn’t. I made my account private and stopped using twitter. And the actual tweet says the opposite - that NFTs would need to develop some kind of cultural grounding for them to become a investment, which they didn’t have at the time and never got, and without that this would just be a speculative bubble, which is exactly what happened.

I made it very clear that I thought NFTs were a speculative bubble. I never suggested anyone should buy any crypto-related instrument. The idea that I was ‘shilling for crypto’ is something you would only say if you’re an idiot, as the OP and a few others on this thread clearly are.


[flagged]


That quote is actually from "Scott Rackey" and not the OP: https://web.archive.org/web/20220603095222/https://twitter.c...

No, I've never said that, and never thought that. The actual text in that tweet is: " The blockchain can't lie, but you can lie to the blockchain"

You don't know how to use Search, and this is beyond anything worth engaging with.


It's literally right there on the front page. People should go look for themselves.

We tried Chromebooks for our kids, and the instant I could buy Neos I did. It might just be that we're fully bought into the Apple ecosystem, but I had a hell of a time trying to get stuff like parental controls figured out on ChromeOS.


You don't need parental controls at all. Google will make sure they see exactly what they need to see...

/s


I have absolutely no clue how you could watch the interview and come away with this conclusion. The purpose of an interview is to ask Socratic questions to allow the guest to talk about something of which they have intimate knowledge.

The CEO made it seem like he himself didn't know how the math for the offer worked, and even when presented multiple opportunities to correct that impression, he made no attempt to convince anyone otherwise.


Yes you do. He came away with that conclusion because he entered with that conclusion. When you're already radicalized to a specific outcome, you lose the ability to perform the process of elimination.


In my defense, I had entirely forgotten GME is/was a meme stock. It's been many years since I spent brain cycles thinking about WSB.


I imagine the actual reason why Cohen didn’t answer the question is that he would have to admit that if the combined entity issued enough shares to pay for the acquisition, it would substantially dilute existing shareholders.


I agree, but he had to know he'd be asked the question, right? And he had to know that staring blankly and mumbling about the offer being on the website wouldn't suffice as an explanation. It's just mind-boggling behavior from the CEO of a public company.


> I have absolutely no clue how you could watch the interview and come away with this conclusion.

The reason is pretty apparent. They are bagholders. People like this show up in every thread about Gamestop boasting about how amazing Cohen is in a weirdly personal manner, and have a very fantastical view of how things are going to go -- because their investment depends on it, and they built a literal cult around the idea that GME would make them rich, which necessitates viewing reality a little differently from the rest of us.


For more information, see Dan Olsen's "This is Financial Advice." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pYeoZaoWrA Its a few years old, but gives you some perspective on the weird cult that has been built around GME.

Edit: Where Ryan Cohen comes in: https://youtu.be/5pYeoZaoWrA?t=6629


That's not really true. We've used these for years to control our Hue lights, and they're fantastic: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MMWH2YB


The prevailing theory is that Anthropic doesn't have sufficient compute capacity to support Mythos at scale, which is the real reason it hasn't released.


Thanks. Makes sense


This is absolutely true, but it's also difficult to square the legal restrictions around cannabis while alcohol is freely available (and significantly more dangerous and habit-forming), and nicotine use is on the rise again thanks to vapes and Zyn.

(To be clear, they're all drugs, and they should all be used responsibly if at all.)


That’s the crux of it for me. I don’t use weed but I enjoy a small amount of alcoholic beverages, like a really good beer once a month or so. I can’t go along with any law that allows me to enjoy my intoxicant of choice but throws someone else in jail for enjoying their less dangerous one.


Anything that impacts sleep like habitual alcohol or weed use. Nothing more important than sleep quality for health.


Coffee?


Caffeine and alcohol affect mine way worse than cannabis


I used to work in a suburban supermarket during high school and college, first as a cashier and then as a frontend supervisor and payroll clerk. We had a security booth where you could watch security cameras, and it was literally never manned. Tapes were changed, but they were there mostly in case someone would try to rob the place. Cashiers routinely rang their own lunch up either as 99 cents or as bananas. No one cared.

Supermarkets actually factor breakage, theft, and spoilage into their books as "shrink", which averages between 2-3% of sales. There's no detective building a case, biding their time to bring down the banana bandit.

Although, modern self-checkouts have cameras on the scanner with ML-powered item detection, and they will alert the attendant if you incorrectly scan something that's sold by weight. (I've done this before on accident, fat-fingering the wrong PLU.)


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: