I frequently create a new account so that I can post freely. I always try to post substantively, though of course a reader may disagree with this self-assessment. Were new accounts required to wait if either:
1. Create a new account every so often, so that in the event that I see a topic I’d like to comment on, I’m not precluded.
2. Just not post.
Were 2 to apply to a great many people I fear HN would be worse off. And anyway committed assholes would just take door number 1.
Not really. If you imagine a supply chain with raw materials at one end and finished products at the other, if every step along the chain is taxed even a small amount on their total revenue, the cumulative effect would completely dwarf the value of the final product.
To solve this, in most countries, companies are taxed VAT instead, so intead of taxing the total value of product at every step, you are only taxing the value the company adds in the process.
Effectively the government is taxing the total value of the product at a fixed rate once but that tax is being split among the companies which helped supply that product proportionally to the value added by each company.
direct taxes are paid by recipient themselves. (income tax is an example. a person/corp pays a tax on "net income after deductions" at whatever percentage)
indirect taxes are "collected" by the taxpayer but the person who ultimately buys a product pays it as the cost of product is inclusive of this indirect tax.
VAT or GST or whatever. a business who is registered for indirect tax collects it from the customer and pays it to government. this indirect tax is not shown in their profit and loss account because for a business, they are just an intermediary.
direct tax OTOH, is shown in p&l because it there is PBT>tax>PAT.
> Not really. If you imagine a supply chain with raw materials at one end and finished products at the other, if every step along the chain is taxed even a small amount on their total revenue, the cumulative effect would completely dwarf the value of the final product.
Yes, and that’s why it’s weird that the most important resource for most big corporations is taxed like that. All the human labor gets taxed based on revenue and not profit, unlike all the other raw materials.
Individuals (in the US) have standard deduction, which approximates the minimum value to sustain one's person. It's a bad approximation, but it is what it is.
It's assumed that corporations spend as little as possible on operations. Individuals obviously don't. Whereas a corporation wouldn't rent employees 500 sqft / person, individuals regularly rent/purchase that density for themselves. Similarly, while a corporation might buy a Camry and run in into the ground, some individuals will buy a new BMW every 3 years.
Corporations also don't have a motive to exist beyond profits. If you tax revenue and make profits untenable, then corporations simply will not exist. Individuals on the other hand try not to die.
With progressive taxation of corporations, we could disincentivize the existence of trillion dollar corporations, opening up the market for thousands more million to billion dollar businesses to exist. Regulatory capture would be much harder to coordinate which would lead to much less corruption. Greater marketplace competition would lead to better quality services and products for consumers.
The curve used to shape the tax rate as company size grows could be tuned to mitigate many of the potential negative side effects of this.
> With progressive taxation of corporations, we could disincentivize the existence of trillion dollar corporations
In my misspent youth, I worked on a 10% project that helped consolidate and free-up racks of servers so that they could be physically forklifted between space leased/owned by different subsidiaries of one of the world's 5 largest corporations (by market cap). I heard through the grapevine that the main reason for this arrangement was so that these subsidiaries qualified for small business discounts on electricity, and they wanted to keep physical separation in different parts of the datacenters to bolster the case that the various subsidiaries were in fact separate entities.
When you adjust taxes and rates based on company size (or things correlated with company size), you need to be careful about subsidiary loopholes.
It costs multiple billions to make a fabrication plant. Considerable amounts of research and GPUs to train a machine learning model. That electric vehicle? Good luck developing it without a big bankroll, subsised by investors because they think it could 1000x.
An easier way to do this is just to break up these companies directly. Monopolies or duoplies or x-opolies should be broken up, just like AT&T and Standard Oil.
Having these monopolies (defining loosely - whether one company or a 2 or 3 or 4) is the main deficiency of capitalism.
Unfortunately, breaking up monopolies or increases taxes is exceedingly difficult to do as large companies and their lobbying congress prevents it in most cases.
I can’t conceive of working in an environment where coworkers are enraged by minor communication differences. Like wow you just work with a bunch of assholes.
Probably that’s the thing to solve for, not “hello”, “query” vs “hello, query”.
...there must be some psychology student out there to whom this thread is an absolute gold mine for their Ph.D. thesis. ...or maybe a standup comedian.
> You cannot control how a recipient receives your message.
My point exactly. Only problem: If A hurts B's feelings, that doesn't automatically mean B has the moral high ground and A is therefore in the wrong.
If B plays the "hurt feelings" card after A has done nothing to give offense other than start a conversation with "hello" in a text chat where they had no way of discerning B's emotional state, then that's the best example I've encountered yet, of a situation where A's hurt feelings clearly seem like A's problem.
I already established that (a) I'm one of those hello people. (b) I'm allowing this conversation to change my behaviour, based on the fact that I simply never had any idea that people could take offence from a "hello". If your definition of "learn" is "coming around to your point of view", that would seem to make me a counterexample to your psychological typology.
But it still rubs me the wrong way to think that this society is leaving the business of "creation of cultural norms" to crybabies. Show me a group that's complaining about being said "hello" to, and I'll show you a group that needs to check their privilege.
No, I got all that from my multiple years of repeated interactions with "hello" people and noticing a consistent pattern.
Maybe you don't fit that mold and just like to say hello and you are a good coworker without all the bad traits I mentioned. Didn't mean to make this personal... just sharing my observations of the past.
If it costs 1 extra human 1 full year to build then you (roughly) broke even on that year and are up every subsequent year. And it doesn't cost nearly that much.
If someone has revenue $10M per year, I guess it would be more than 1. Also probably they would get discount in stripe if some trusted business has revenue in that range.
Yes, I understand... But the result, practically speaking, is objects are passed by reference, just like I said. Methods/functions can modify their parameters.
It's been a while, but my understanding was that actual C++ references were immutable, and what you are describing can only happen as a result of passing a pointer by value.
Yeah, you cannot 'reassign' a reference. The compiler will yell at you if you try. You can definitely modify values of your referenced object though, that's fair game. When it comes to pointers you can do whatever the hell you want but be careful.
This conversation is good evidence that ChatGPT does have a more or less average ability to reason. We’ve got humans making similar mistakes with 1 digit numbers.
Sometimes you can indeed trick some people with an obfuscated reasoning that has a cleverly hidden division by zero, but when they arrive at the conclusion that x < x, or x != x, they stop and accept that they got it wrong somewhere somehow. They don't insist that they're right and that the statement is perfectly reasonable and logical.
While there’s perhaps a “clear and present danger” distinction, I think this analogy is a good one because we are talking about similar interventions: nonviolent, easily overcome. No one’s gonna die from taking a cab home or missing out on the latest conspiracy theory.
No one is going to die if I take their phone away from them once a day and monitor everybody who calls and texts them. I don’t think that’s really a good bar.
1. Create a new account every so often, so that in the event that I see a topic I’d like to comment on, I’m not precluded.
2. Just not post.
Were 2 to apply to a great many people I fear HN would be worse off. And anyway committed assholes would just take door number 1.