@heavywaternettipot's banner p

heavywaternettipot

Token Midwit

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 08 14:07:24 UTC

				

User ID: 1819

heavywaternettipot

Token Midwit

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 08 14:07:24 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1819

(Mods, let me know if I need to delete this and repost in Small Questions Sunday.)

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) hears Moore v United States today. According to SCOTUSBlog, at issue is "Whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states". Since that's not very helpful, I'll quote The Atlantic's summary instead:

The story of Moore starts in 2017, when President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The law aimed to minimize the incentive for U.S. corporations to hoard money overseas by reducing certain taxes on foreign earnings. But, in exchange, U.S. investors would have to pay a onetime tax on accumulated foreign profits going back several decades—the so-called transition tax. Charles and Kathleen Moore are among the Americans affected by the change. In 2006, they invested $40,000 in KisanKraft, an Indian company owned by a friend. They allege that they never received any payments from the company because all of its profits were reinvested. The transition tax nevertheless stuck the Moores with a $15,000 tax bill based on the company’s retained earnings. The Moores countered that the transition tax is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power under the Sixteenth Amendment. That amendment, ratified in 1913, explicitly empowers Congress to tax incomes. But the Moores argue that unrealized gains aren’t income at all.

Mother Jones, NPR, CBS, and Foreign Policy (of all the friggin' places) are running articles breathlessly proclaiming DOOM! for the US tax code, or at least the ability of Democrats to pass wealth tax laws. This Forbes article seems to be a pretty good explanation of what's at issue but I'll admit that I'm not well-versed enough in tax law to understand the full ramifications of what a Moore victory would mean for the ability of the federal government to raise revenue. On the other hand, I can't say I'm sad about the idea of a wealth taxes getting a bullet to the head. What am I missing or not considering as I read about this from the various outlets?

In my darker (and less sober) moments, I wonder if there's an active campaign against beauty itself. On my local city sub-Reddits I often see people complaining about "wasteful" government spending on a modicum of ornamentation on anything. Faux stone veneers on highway support columns? Wasteful. Planting trees along the highway? Wasteful. Apparently brutalism ugly-ass concrete boxes is the only acceptable architectural form these days.

Edited for Gdanning's pedantry

This is possibly better saved for a small questions Sunday, but can someone explain why is the federal government up-in-arms over Southwest's latest boondoggle to me?

I understand why Southwest is getting hammered by popular opinion and in the press. I wasn't personally affected but I know a few people who were (8 hour delays, last-minute cancellations, etc) and I understand their frustration. I absolutely understand customers demanding refunds on cancelled flights or compensation for excessive delays. This, to me, is the market reacting and correcting itself. Southwest failed to deliver what it promise and it is reaping the economic and PR whirlwind.

What I don't understand are promises from both the Secretary of Transportation and POTUS to "hold the airlines accountable", which just seems weird to me. Is there a regulatory or national security reason for the Feds, much less POTUS, to be weighing in on this? Is it a straight-forward consumer protection issue or is it just the straight populist look-we-are-doing-something-to-people-you-currently-hate kind of politics that I am currently reading it as? What am I not seeing/understanding here?

New research paper attempts to quantify which professions have to most to lose from the introduction of GPTs into the larger world. From the abstract:

Our findings indicate that approximately 80% of the U.S. workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of GPTs while around 19% of workers may see at least 50% of their tasks impacted.

The results vary by models but mathematics and math-related industries like accounting have the highest risk. The researchers overall found that "information processing industries (4-digits NAICS) exhibit high exposure, while manufacturing, agriculture, and mining demonstrate low exposure" (pg 15) and "programming and writing skills...are more susceptible to being influenced by language models."

I find myself wondering if "learn to code" from however long back will shortly become "learn to farm" or some such.

Lab-grown meat one step closer to sale in the US

I'm neither a vegetarian nor an EA animal suffering activist, but I consider this largely a good thing. If we can produce lab-grown meat that costs the same or less than traditionally-raised or industrial-produced meat and is equally tasty and nutritious, I see very little reason not to do so. I've tried the various meat substitutes and, frankly, they just don't taste like meat or have the same texture. This isn't to say they aren't tasty in their own way, they just clearly aren't meat. The best ones I've had barely rise to the level of "gas station sausage patty" in terms of flavor and texture. Likewise cutting down on cattle ranching in the US would alleviate a lot of environmental pressure and gives us the opportunity to rebuild healthy habitat for native wildlife populations.

What does give me pause is the further connotative removal of people from food production. A farmer I know has an anecdote about a well-to-do customer who pulled up to his farm stand to buy some produce and was appalled to find potatoes sitting in a pile on a pallet. The farmer swears the customer, without any trace of irony, asked for "potatoes that hadn't been in the dirt". I'm hunt deer and small game and the bulk of my urbanite coworkers normally react to this somewhere on the spectrum between bafflement and outright disgust, all the while munching on ham-and-cheese sandwiches or a fish taco. (I work in a pretty blue area, so that's probably coloring things.) I can see scenarios in which PETA and other animal suffering activist organizations use lab grown meat as an attack surface to further restrict hunting and fishing activities.

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against at Texas bill aimed at curbing porn access by minors. According to the text TX House Bill 1181 requires porn websites employ "reasonable age verifications methods" and display a series of notices about the alleged side effects of porn consumption (page 4 of the pdf). (I say alleged because I haven't read enough of the research to have made up my mind on the subject.) I went into this thinking the judge was issuing the injunction based on compelled speech grounds, the health warnings. However, as I read along, there are some head scratching lines. For example from page 26-27, under the heading "The Statute is Not Narrowly Tailored:

Although the state defends H.B. 1181 as protecting minors, it is not tailored to this purpose. Rather, the law is severely underinclusive. When a statute is dramatically underinclusive, that is a red flag that it pursues forbidden viewpoint discrimination under false auspices, or at a minimum simply does not serve its purported purpose. See City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 52 (1994). H.B. 1181 will regulate adult video companies that post sexual material to their website. But it will do little else to prevent children from accessing pornography. Search engines, for example, do not need to implement age verification, even when they are aware that someone is using their services to view pornography. H.B. 1181 § 129B.005(b). Defendant argues that the Act still protects children because they will be directed to links that require age verification. (Def.’s Resp., Dkt. # 27, at 12). This argument ignores visual search, much of which is sexually explicit or pornographic, and can be extracted from Plaintiffs’ websites regardless of age verification...

...In addition, social media companies are de facto exempted, because they likely do not distribute at least one-third sexual material. This means that certain social media sites, such as Reddit, can maintain entire communities and forums (i.e., subreddits), dedicated to posting online pornography with no regulation under H.B. 1181. (Sonnier Decl., Dkt. # 31-1, at 5). The same is true for blogs posted to Tumblr, including subdomains that only display sexually explicit content. (Id.) Likewise, Instagram and Facebook pages can show material which is sexually explicit for minors without compelled age verification. (Cole Decl., Dkt. # 5-1, at 37–40). The problem, in short, is that the law targets websites as a whole, rather than at the level of the individual page or subdomain. The result is that the law will likely have a greatly diminished effect because it fails to reduce the online pornography that is most readily available to minors.

I can't put my finger on why, but this feels Kafkaesque in its logic here to me. "Your law isn't doing enough so it's an overreach." I'm almost certain if Texas had put in requirements about social media or search engines, the court would have struck that down as being overreaching. Lawyers, help me understand why I'm wrong here.

Outside the legal logic and jurisprudence at play here, I'm a little unsure of where I fall on the ethical issues at play here. I don't have anything against porn as long as everything going on is consensual, legal, and not, for lack of a better term, too weird. (I don't really know where that line is and I don't think it's terribly germane to the discussion.) I don't really think age restrictions are unethical. I certainly don't buy that they're too difficult to implement, since gambling sites require age verification and have been able to pull that off. (Web devs, help me understand why I'm wrong.) Nor am I really sure I buy the privacy arguments either here. I guess people just paid cash for their porn back in the day but there was still someone behind the counter who knew that you bought it and, in theory, could be compelled to testify that they saw you buying Naughty Nurses 7. (No idea what kind of court case would hinge on that information, but it's theoretically possible AFAIK.)

As far as the health warnings go, I'm not sure where I fall on that. On the one hand, I don't generally favored compelled speech, whether it's my coworkers asking for me to give my pronouns, trigger warnings, the government telling me I have to say the pledge of allegiance, people telling me I have to stand or kneel for the national anthem. On the other hand, I'm very much in favor of strict consumer labeling laws, since customers can best express their market preferences when they have the most information about their competing choices.

which is striking symbolism of how Americans are being liquidated to be replaced by foreigners

I'm trying to be charitable here, so can you explain what you mean by liquidated? The phrasing here seems to imply you think Americans are being deliberately killed/destroyed/geocide-ed in order to make room for foreigners or immigrants and I'm just not aware of any evidence of that. If you're referring to falling birth rates, well, it isn't the foreigners' fault that Americans aren't having enough unprotected sex.

EDIT: Typo

Being frank, a good chunk of the US wouldn't trust this not to be weaponized against them. Given the institutional capture of psychology by the left, I can't really say I blame them.

This entire post hinges on the idea that the Jews represented some insidious threat to Germany. The Nazi could have just, you know, not forced all the Jews into either ghettoes or camps.

I'm not quite certain what your definition of fundamentalist / deeply religious is here, but here are some positively portrayed Christians off the top of my head:

  • Harriet Hayes from Studio 60 (2006-2007). She's shown to have pre-marital sex and considers posing nude at one point so she is admittedly a bit of a stretch.

  • Detective Almond from Backstrom (2015) is a born-again Christian who works as a volunteer pastor in a local community church.

  • Matt Murdock in Daredevil(2015). A flawed but ultimately good man. He's Catholic and often seeks counsel from his parish priest.

  • Shepherd Book from Firefly (2002) is a pastor, though it's also implied he found religion after a life of dirty deeds, so your mileage may vary here.

  • Michael Carpenter from The Dresden Files book series.

  • Graham Hess in Signs (2002) though we meet him in the middle of a crisis of faith.

  • Desmond Doss in Hacksaw Ridge, but it's a biopic, so that may not count.

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot Shirley from Community (2009-2015). She's got her flaws (prone to gossip) but she's depicted as a genuinely good person who does her best to do the right thing.

Ted Kaczynski always struck me as the smart guy who was pissed off that the world wasn't being run in a way he approved of. He also struck me someone who suffered from profound social isolation, no matter where he was. I remember an interview with his brother David describing a failed hiking trip where they tried to live off the land. They couldn't forage enough food and David turned to some store-bought granola bars he'd brought. Ted had a massive temper tantrum about it which caused David to pack up and head back to the trail head. It's not like David was some citified yuppie either, he spent some time living off the grid in the Texas desert. He just wasn't the same as Ted and Ted was angry about it.

I also really don't think we can discount the effect his mental illness had on him. Without it he probably would have ended up just another North Pond Hermit.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised your comment completely ignores the history of attempted Tik-Tok bans in favor of once again blaming the Jews. There was a measure floated in March 2023 on a Tik-Tok ban. It was banned from all US government devices in 2022. Mike Gallagher was pushing for a complete ban in 2022. Trump tried to ban Tik-Tok in 2021. The Jews probably aren't the deciding factor here.

God, I am so fucking tired of this argument. This isn't a sports game, you don't get a free throw because the other guy fouled you. Yeah, Clinton should be behind bars but the fact that she's walking free doesn't make Trump immune to prosecution. The fact that otherwise intelligent people are acting like it should is baffling to me.

I must have missed the segment of the Pauline letters that commanded blowing up your enemies.

Whom do you think worthy of the vote and how do you propose we find these people?

My friends in the military will talk, disparagingly, of we-be's: we be here when you got here, we be here when you gone. They're the civil servants that just loiter in a position or a department for years and know how to slow-roll or be maliciously compliant with any policy change they don't like (or that threatens their own job security). Since firing a civil servant in the federal government requires the same amount of work as a full time job (at least the way the people I know describe it) a we-be is nearly immune to anything beyond a slap on the wrist. The we-be's then shape policy and culture to suit their own ends rather than the ends of the organization / society they're allegedly in service to.

Edit: typos

For those who care, about whether or not we're living in a simulation, why do you care? From your perspective, what does this change about your relationship to existence and creation?

I'm in need of a new laptop, any recommendations?

I use mine for officework, schoolwork, watching movies/TV, websurfing, and the occasional teleconference. I'll almost certainly wipe the OS and install Mint instead, and I don't really want to be a part of the Apple ecosystem.

It is that if you are going to criticize contemporary architecture, then it helps to come across as knowing what you are talking about.

This is exactly the attitude that fmaa was talking about. Sorry I didn't learn the specifics of what various kinds of concrete boxes are called but that doesn't mean I automatically have to defer to the aesthetic tastes of someone with a better grasp of the vocabulary and jargon. Whatever you want to call it, it's ugly and I hate it.

The really infuriating part of this situation is the standing issue. Biden is (probably) acting illegally but if no one has standing to challenge his actions, then there's fuck-all anyone can do about it. This may be the straw that breaks the camels back for me and causes me to just sit and wait for the end.

For video games, Civ5 or Slay the Spire. You can play a just a few turns or kill an hour until your head is back on straight.

Infotainment YouTube: Tasting History, Abroad in Japan, James Hoffman, The Modern Rogue, and How to Drink are my go-tos.

Those are also great times to do small mindless chores, like wipe down the kitchen sink/counters, sweep the floor. With the temperatures dropping, this week I put plastic film on the windows after work.

I'm not sure what your literary tastes run to but I usually keep a couple "popcorn" books on hand; books that'll occupy your brain just enough for a light mental meal. The Reacher series, memoirs of a d-list celebrity, or some pseudo-history (for sheer entertainment spectacle).

ETA: Videos of cows getting their hooves trimmed is oddly peaceful. Something about returning things to a clean pristine state, I guess.

There are constitutionally recognized rights to watch videos, read works, and otherwise consume media.

True, and I fully support this, but that right doesn't neccesarily extend to minors, does it? Kids under a certain age still aren't permitted to watch R-rated films in theatres without a gaurdian so far as I'm aware. (I guess the distinction here is that this is enforced by the MPAA and the theaters, not the government.)

For the sake of discussion, let's say the technical issues you talked about are solved and age verification can be done. I'm not certain how forbidding minors from viewing porn impinges on the free speech rights of adults. The entertainers are still allowed to make and distribute their entertainment. Timothy and Susan can still consume said entertainment, even if Little Timmy and Suzy Jr can't. Is the argument that requiring proof of age has a chilling effect on consumption?

He was a paranoid schitzophrenic who murdered innocent people. He's hardly worth lionizing.

Last week I applied for a position I'm underqualified for via LinkedIn. I applied on a whim for two reasons:

  1. EasyApply means it took all of 30 seconds to send in. Low barrier to entry + plus alcohol = wtf not?

  2. Ten seconds on Google told me the company's primary business was well-afield of what they'd be hiring me for. I'm in a niche field that a lot of HR types don't really understand and make up wild job requirements for, i.e. 5 years of experience using a toolkit that was only invented 6 months ago. Because you have to get through the HR gremlins to deal with the people who actually do the technical interviews, I generally don't feel bad checking "yes" for non-cert requirements I don't have. Everyone's trying to buy a Bentley at Kia prices and we'll all settle on an upmarket Honda in the end.

Fast forward to this morning and I get the initial screening interview email. Turns out the company I applied to is a start-up with an almost identical name to the one that popped up on Google. Aforesaid start-up is also being run by someone with some actual pull/clout/influence/whatever in my field. And that individual is the one conducting the initial screening call. (I did a little more digging and called around to confirm this isn't a scam and it isn't.) I'm not sure how to feel about this.

Point: I got the interview through misrepresentation. This isn't an interview with an HR gremlin who's ticking boxes, this is a screening with someone who knows their shit and very likely knew exactly what they were looking for. Is it ethical for me to burn 30 minutes of this person's time?

Counterpoint: On the other hand, if this person is doing the interview, it's fair to think they have read my resume, right? Some of the easiest flags to screen for, namely years of experience, is pretty easy to derive just glancing over my resume. So if this person read my resume and is still wants to do a quick phone call, that must mean they must see something worth at least exploring, right?

Counter-Counterpoint: This start-up probably doesn't have any organic HR gremlins but that doesn't mean the CEO isn't using some other HR gremlins to screen everything. There's a good chance the CEO just aid "Find me X" and the out-sourced HR gremlins said "Post the template for X on LinkedIn."

Counter-Counter-Counterpoint: This person probably going to interview dozens of candidates for this position. 30 minutes of his time really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.

There really isn't a point to any of this, I'm just posting this here to keep from spinning out too badly.

I'm not persuaded of the automatic moral duty of bystanders to intervene when one country consumes another any more than when one wild animal consumes another. In terms of international relations, the world is a jungle and jungle rules and ethics apply.

Here is where I have a little more sympathy for DeBoer's position. The US has been plenty glad to be a bystander in dozens of other bloody conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, so what makes Ukraine so special? Yarvin just seems agitated that his ideological opponents seem to be winning.