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

Except they’re destroying those places too, and the places producing those skilled people, and breaking the pipelines that created innovation.

This past year top US talent entering college left the US at 5x the rate they did before. Europe, pacific rim, china, all have massive recruiting programs to suck talent out, and it’s working.

Trumps Gift will surpass Hitlers Gift.


All other first world countries tax their low and middle classes at much higher effective rates than the US to pay for those nets. Google stuff like effective tax rate by decile or quintile country name historical, and dig till you find solid sources with proper methodology.

There’s a reason OECD ranked the US tax system as most progressive some years back.


The US, with around 4% of world population, has around 25% of the worlds prisoners, vastly higher in total and percentage wise than China.

It would not be higher in total if you included the estimated number of Uyghurs detained in internment camps. Even considering that, there are a couple other factors that don't make the numbers you presented mean much.

One factor is that the U.S. is the 3rd largest by population and will always skew higher in total prisoners than many other countries.

The other factor which explains the relatively high incarceration rate within the country's population is the investment into policing and reporting. We can take a city like Shanghai for example. They had a population size of around ~24m+ in ~2018-2019 [1] but only had 50k cops [2] (I couldn't find citable numbers for today but the data isn't too outdated). New York City, in comparison, has a current current population size of around ~8m [3] with 33k cops [4].

The 2 countries bigger than the U.S., India and China, also historically have had less investment in law enforcement, especially in rural areas [5][6].

[1] https://tjj.sh.gov.cn/tjnj/nj19.htm?d1=2019tjnje/E0201.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Municipal_Public_Secu...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City

[4] https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/about-nypd/about-nypd-la...

[5] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3215865/chi...

[6] https://villagesquare.in/rural-crime-and-policing-in-indias-...


Trump got 77,302,580 votes. US population is slightly over 340,000,000. That's at best 22.7% of the US population voted for Trump.

Who cares what the non voters say. They didnt vote! They voted for “whatever happens is fine by me”. Trump received over 50% of the vote.

Person A: A president can be elected with roughly 22% of the population voting for him or her.

Person B: That's unlikely.

A: It just happened in the most recent election.

B: Who cares!

Classic. Just absolutely classic.


If 3 people vote and 1 million are eligible but dont vote. Then 2 people vote for A and 1 person votes for B. A wins with 66% of the vote not .000000001% of the vote. Effectively those million people surender their votes to the other 3, or even just to the winners. They dont count anymore, they chose to not be counted when they chose not to participate. Whether those votes effectively disapear, or go to the winner or are divided based on the results, it doesn matter. If youre counting non voters you mignt as well get really pedantic and say that only the president, house and senate really get votes on a law so its .000000001% that vote on anything, but we dont because we known those votes represent the will of the people.

The person to whom you were responding very explicitly said "roughly 22% of the overall US population" [emphasis added].

But double down, dog. That's absolutely classic, too.


Then they are misusing the 22% argument. The 22% to win argument, is a specific arrangement of votes that is an argument against the electoral college. In that if someone were to merely win a the electoral college with 51% of the votes in each states but receive 0% of the votes in all other states, they could still win the presidency. So it is an extreme case of a president winning the electoral college despite a landslide crushing defeat in the popular vote. It is not about counting all non-voters as having been votes for the opponent.

They’re not misusing it. You are arguing things in your head instead of reading what is written. That you double down on it, when wrong, shows why you make up arguments with yourself.

Simply read what is written before making false claims against what you misread. Stubborn ignorance is still ignorance.


Because we have science. Laser frequency, power, and pulse length, among other things, are chosen to be eye safe. You’ll get far more energy dumped into your eye from a blue sky.


Do you have the science?


That’s not an argument against * any * current evidence, only sloppy thinking trying ignore evidence.

What replaces evidence is better evidence, not fairy tales that ignores reality.

And statistically, if you take all knowledge, and look at all the claims that have failed to displace it, you’ll find the vast majority of alternative claims are simply wrong.


I'm saying treat current evidence with care, not as a never changing Truth.


Someone at work recently copied the ellipse SDF from that page into production code without checking it, and shipped a crash to a ton of people. If you simply glance at it, you’ll see it divides by zero on circles. Then, if you try to check for that, you’ll immediately hit overflow cases for common values in shaders.

I replaced it with correctly designed, numerically robust code.

Don’t use these routines; they’re all similarly land mines of bad numerics. They’re pretty but not robust.


Not when accounting for inflation. Then that high was years back.


Corp income tax (paid by shareholders from the rich to teacher pensions to anyone with a retirement account...), estate tax,...

When all is accounted for ... The rich still pay a far larger share than the income they earn. It's why OECD rates the US as the most progressive tax system among member nations.


True or not that the wealthy pay a greater share of their money in taxes, it doesn't matter. The money has to come from somewhere and the middle and lower classes can't afford it. Also the middle class can't pay more and continue buying the super wealthy's goods. We need to spend less and tax more. 1 trillion in interest per year is insane.


... which implies these taxes get actually payed. At least in the same proportions as lower income taxes get payed.

There is no effective taxation when avoidance is easy and risk-free.


They are talking about the final numbers at the end of the day. Effective tax rates.

It’s the same no matter if you want to use effective vs nominal. The numbers change, but relatively speaking they are roughly the same.


The bill of rights are about personal freedoms, as is made clear during the discussion leading up to them. All states copied these in some form into their own constitutions, and if you go look at those, most are quite explicit this is a personal right. The claim otherwise is a very recent claim.

Congress around 1982 had the Library of Congress issue a study about this in great depth, with millions of citations to historical documents, which give ample evidence and quotes. You may have to dig to find it, but it's a good read to gain more understanding.

Also the second militia act of 1792 actually required all able bodied men to own guns, and this was the law for well over the following century.

The founders had no qualms about everyone having arms.


> The founders had no qualms about everyone having arms.

Thankfully, whatever they meant then, we live today and can change the constitution and the laws to suit present circumstances. Nothing is sacred.


>> Nothing is sacred.

This is the thought process of the morally depraved, upon which every tyrannical government establishes its power.


Please help me understand what must be kept sacred.


I can't but you can read the bible.

It's basically everything, except that which is evil.


I've read the Bible at least four times. I'd rather not stone people for being born different. Nor inspire PTSD in children or adults with silly stories about punishment in eternal flames.

Good and evil are even more subjective than how people perceive colors. I hope we can at least agree that murder is wrong, and the tools which facilitate the most murder should be the most heavily regulated.


Might have read it but clearly didn't understand the point of the sacrifice and the new covenant. You shouldn't be telling young children they're going to burn in hell for eternity any more than you should talk to them about sex.

Murder is wrong.

Every citizen worth a damn should own guns and the idea that they should not be regulated by the government is enshrined in the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. Every gun law created since is an abberation that should be abolished.


The first three words of 2A is "A well regulated...". IDK where this idea comes from that guns cannot be regulated.

Shall we say prisoners have the right to bear arms? Felons with a violent past? People with mental illness? Surely there must be limits. Few rights are absolute in every circumstance.


Well regulated meant well trained, not regulated as in restricted or controlled by the govt.

Regulated has more than one meaning. Read which is which.


Brits gave up their firearms in 1997. Less than 30 years later, they're being arrested for Facebook posts.


You don't know what you're talking about when you decide that 'well regulated' means what you think it means. It is because you have done no research on the topic. Here: https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-...

If a person shouldn't have firearms, then they shouldn't be on the street. They should be in jail/prison. Period. I don't know that anyone that has argued that prisoners should have guns. You would have to be a fool. If a person shouldn't have access to guns, then they shouldn't have access to any other freedom. The ultimate purpose of owning firearms is to fight a tyrannical government. For that purpose, less limits is better for the people. This right is absolute, and anyone espousing otherwise is a tyrant or a fool.


I'm not personally against individuals owning guns, but the part that is somehow vehemently opposed is the "well-regulated" part. There's effectively no regulation, and somehow the 2nd amendment has been warped to leave out the part of regulation, to make folks believe they're entitled to guns without limit.


"well regulated" applies not to guns but to militias, and has nothing to do with legal restrictions. It means well functioning, well trained, efficient. It has nothing to do with legal regulations.

The word has many meanings. Learn which one the phrase in the Constitution is using.


So you're saying that we should be able to add training requirements to use a firearm, if well-regulated means "well functioning, well trained, efficient". Similar to how we require folks to show they know how to properly drive a car before we allow them on the road?


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

Search: