Yesterday's affected me, I couldn't pull or push and when I tried to look at the repo to do PRs I got 500 errors. That only lasted maybe 30 minutes though.
Those cutscenes weren't rendered in real-time, instead taking longer than one second to render one second of video. This one is rendered in real-time. It's impressive for sure to render lifelike humans, but to do so in real-time is even more impressive.
Don't most games use realtime cutscenes these days? Nothing shown here is a gigantic leap to what you see in Death Stranding for example. I'm not looking at her and seeing an actress it still just looks like a very good 3D model.
Yes, but that's the point. The should have released it as an App that we can interact with, pan around, move the chess pieces. It might as well just be a video.
Actually they should have plugged in stockfish and let us play against their character.
You do realize that the top 1% is more than just the wealthiest 100 Americans, right? And you do realize that nobody's saying "reduce everybody else's taxes to zero", right?
Senator Warren's plan would affect about 83,620 people[1].
I'm not saying you're point isn't valid, but your reference to the wealthiest 100 Americans is relatively meaningless to any discussion being had here.
Also, the federal budget is composed of so many things[2], saying that taxing high wealth individuals couldn't affect it is a bit disingenuous. The bottom line is that if you have more money in the pool (either by raising revenue or cutting expenses), you can pay for more new projects. Taxing these people could add millions of dollars to that pool. I'm not trying to say that's good or bad. It's a zero sum game here, either the individuals spend it on the projects of their choice, or the government gets it and spends it the way they want.
Just because it's not literally applicable doesn't mean it's meaningless, it emphasizes an important point that people overlook. The amount of wealth held by the top 80K is a drop in the bucket when compared to the total revenue of the federal government.
The greatest effect of this policy is that it will harm individual liberty. It will have nearly no effect on improving poverty or increasing social programs.
But it's not. 45% of the federal government's income comes from individual taxes.
In 2016, the US took in about 1,442,385,000,000 total of which 839,898,000,000 was from the top 5% of individual earners. That's OVER HALF of the total amount[1].
You're wrong. You're point is not valid or based in the actual data. To say that hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in extra revenue couldn't help fund social programs or improve the conditions of the impoverished is factually inaccurate.
The IRS only enforces tax collection on the wealthiest individuals because it isn't efficient to do otherwise, that's why you see most of the tax revenue coming from the wealthy. They only go after the big fish.
You're wrong if you think that taxing individuals is going to decrease poverty or wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is not due to wealth individuals holding assets, but due to pay inequality. Corporations hold their profits instead of paying their workers fairly. It would be much more effective to impose a wealth tax on corporations to incentivize them to pay their workers.
Large multi-national monopolies are the problem, not rich people. If you can't see that, the corporations have effectively used your own morals against you. The uber rich won't be affected, only the new rich, people rising from the middle class.
Because one is just cynical pandering to non-rich people and an increase in government power at the expense of liberty while the other is actually effective at reducing poverty, reducing wealth inequality, and reducing dependence on the government. Throwing money at the problem doesn't work, especially a 5% increase. The problem is how corporations are structured.
I think we're both just going to have to walk away from this one ol chap. You're never going to be able to convince me that rich people should exist, and I'm never going to be able to convince you that liberty is an illusion. Well played though.
> I never claimed the top 1% is just the top 100 wealthiest Americans.
But in a response to an article about the top 1%, you used the top 100 wealthiest Americans as a counterpoint. If you're not trying to make a connection, why bother with the analogy?
I never brought up the top 1% and the top 1% has nothing to do with the wealth tax. The wealth tax will apply to all Americans with assets over $50 million, which is roughly ~80K people, or 0.02% of the population.
Yep, I have read it and I have lived that life. A fairly accurate portrayal. I have many, many stories from those years that will be fun to entertain the grandkids with.
This is a bit false. It assumes that the cost of living is driven solely by housing. There have been numerous studies done that show that the total cost of living doesn't change much between city and suburbs. Housing costs are higher in the city, but they're largely balanced out by lower transportation costs and house upkeep costs (apartments are cheaper to heat/cool than houses, for example).
My transportation costs (including the purchase price of the car, all gas and maintenance) are an order of magnitude less than the home price delta between where I currently live and where I'd have to live in order to give up my car.
This cannot be stressed enough. Too many people on HN seem baffled by car culture, or think it's some kind of conspiracy, but the answer is right here. Savings on land prices for getting far from the center are massive, the costs of manufactured goods like cars are tiny, and the solution that urbanism offers is is only to raise the price on the latter.
> the solution that urbanism offers is is only to raise the price on the latter
The solution that urbanism offers is to stop massively subsidizing the latter. Let car culture live or die on its own merits, not because of government subsidies.
Without a corresponding subsidy to lower the cost of urban living, most people will be worse off (maybe the rich in urban centers will save more in taxes than they lose in mobility, doubtful anyone else will).
Subsidizing infrastructure that increases quality of life and lowers cost of living is kind of the point of government.
The intrinsic cost of urban living is much less than the intrinsic cost living in car focused suburbs. It is only more expensive now because of an under supply of urban areas caused by decades of subsidization of car focused suburbs. The ROI of spending on urban infrastructure is much higher than spending on car focused suburban development.
What? The rent in cities is vastly depressed by all the demand that the suburbs soak up. Limit the effective radius of the city to walking distance and it will skyrocket as the same number of people clamor to fit into less space.
Who is talking about getting rid of suburbs or limiting things to walking distance? That would be crazy.
There were suburbs before cars existed and there can be suburbs that don't require cars for every single trip. Before the widespread adoption of cars, suburbs were often served by streetcars that let people travel into the city. They also were walkable for trips within the suburb. Unlike modern suburbs, they also allowed low nuisance commercial properties to be interspersed with residential properties so that many of people's basic errands could be accomplished without traveling large distances.
Cars are part and parcel of modern life and they won't be going away any time soon, and I don't think more than a few extremists really want that anyway.
What a lot of people do is to rebalance things so we have more of a 'right tool for the job' culture in the US. Cars for some things, bikes or walking for closer trips (enabled by legalizing things like corner stores or neighborhood barbers again), public transportation for other things.
No. O(1) just means the algorithm always takes no more than some arbitrary, but fixed amount of time to complete, regardless of the size of the input. That fixed amount of time could be a billion years (or more).
You mean O(1) (alternatively, O(k)) -- from the definition of Big O notation, O(0) is nonsensical. But even then; O(1) just means "constant time", it does not mean "soon."
> from the definition of Big O notation, O(0) is nonsensical
Nitpick: not sure it's nonsensical. Plug g(x) = 0 into the usual definition, and you get |f(x)| ≤ k⋅0 for some k in R, which reduces to f(x) = 0. Which is not satisfiable by any nontrivial algorithm, so not very useful, but not nonsensical.
