> As alleged, Brody left a few "taunts" in the code that he unleashed on FRB. In particular, he is alleged to have used the word "grok," which the government explains is a misspelling of "grock," which, in turn, means to understand.
Of 288,072 people aged 16-39, only 6 people who had only 2 doses were hospitalized, compared to 1 person who had 3 doses [1]. This study was published before Omicron in October, for which the vaccine is even less effective and the disease is less severe.
I'm not yet aware of any other study that indicates the booster is useful for people in this age group.
I thought that a spike in antibodies might be useful in the short term, but a recent CDC presentation [2] said of an Omicron case study:
> 79% fully vaccinated; 32% with booster dose; Five of the 14 persons received additional dose <14 days before symptom onset
which doesn't give me any confidence.
> security theatre
Since mandates don't exclude people that were previously infected, to me, they seem punitive.
"Vaccine effectiveness evaluated at least 7 days after receipt of the third dose, compared with receiving only two doses at least 5 months ago".
Literally no control for recency. Newer research (admittedly, not yet peer-reviewed) seems to show that efficacy of the vaccines dwindles over time. As little as 90 days. [1]
The results from the booster may have more to do with having received a vaccine more recently than they do with the overall efficacy of any of the vaccines.
It doesn't just say that "efficacy of the vaccines dwindles over time," but that the 2-dose vaccine effectiveness against omicron is significantly negative in the 91-150 day bucket.
Ian Freemen is a controversial political activist whose pro-liberty, pro-bitcoin radio station was raided by the FBI in 2016 and had their equipment confiscated. It was widely covered in the news, he was kicked out of at least one community organization, and last I heard, they still didn't have all their equipment back.
No charges were ever filed, and the media outlets didn't bother to update their articles.
I think false accusations happen, especially to controversial figures, and assume most victims just don't want to call much attention to it.
Isn't this a separate issue to the one the grandparent was complaining about? I can't see anything about child porn related to this person, just a lot of talk about money laundering.
Also, are you sure there were no charges filed? Some cursory googling turns up articles including a PDF of the indictment [1] and more-recent articles seem to refer to an ongoing process [2].
Increasing land use rights on a property can only increase the value of that property.
However, increasing land use rights on a neighboring property can decrease the value of the original property. For example, a neighbor might want to use their property to establish a brothel.
Nimbys want to control property that they don’t own. Seems like theft to me!
HN readers are wrong to think this will be fixed when the government creates a CBDC or regulates payment providers like a utility.
In addition to the government currently blocking transactions from semi-legal industries that should be legal (cannabis), the government has a history of censoring mail mentioning contraceptives (Comstock Laws) and pressuring banks to cut businesses with legal, undesirable industries (Operation Chokepoint). A few weeks ago, an IRS agent at a service center refused to help me because they didn’t like my clothes. (I was wearing a tank top.) This is inevitable when you create government-backed monopolies.
How strange, because your examples don't make sense.
Sure, some things should be legal but aren't. It hardly seems surprising that while they are illegal the federal government tries to prevent them.
The Comstock Laws applied to all carriers (private or public) and therefore would apply to FedEx or UPS as well. They also were ruled unconstitutional over a hundred years ago.
Meanwhile, Operation Chokepoint was something that lasted less than a year before the same administration said it was an overreach and reversed it. It was an error, and between that and congressional oversight got fixed. It sucks, but it should be pointed out that, again, it was government pressure on private entities. Nothing that wouldn't be at least as good under government control.
Meanwhile, if an IRS agent refuses to help you because you're wearing a tank top, that seems like something you should escalate. But I will point out many private enterprises (airlines, etc.) have refused to serve people wearing tank tops. To the point of refusing to honor their ticket and screwing up their whole vacation with no recourse. But the only official IRS dress code deals with profane/offensive writings. Tank tops are allowed, even for IRS agents.
I think that a cursory search for banking and cannabis will reveal the pressure the US government puts on this industry. Banking for cannabis is much easier in canada. You can purchase weed with a Visa no problem.
IIRC from the last time I read it, the article only provides evidence for Intuit not wanting taxpayers (including themselves) to fund a competitor to their product, which is very reasonable.
I also don't want the government to get in the business of writing tax software.
> I also don't want the government to get in the business of writing tax software.
Filing taxes in the rest of the developed world is essentially a one-click process, because every tax authority in the rest of the developed world already have all the information necessary to create such software (and so does the IRS).
This is a problem entirely caused by lobbying efforts. It literally does not exist for the rest of the developed world. Why insist on having it worse than everyone else, for the sole gain of the likes of Intuit? It's baffling to say the least.
>Filing taxes in the rest of the developed world is essentially a one-click process
I'm a little fed up of this canard. No. This is not the case. I've lived in the UK and had to do self assessment filing. It was not "essentially a one-click process". I have lived in Japan and filed taxes there. It was also not "essentially a one-click process".
>have all the information necessary to create such software (and so does the IRS)
No, it does not. A significant chunk of social programs are run in the US via the tax system (primarily through the forms of various credits) and are dependent on facts that the IRS does not know.
The proposals aren't that you have to use a 1 click process, just that it's the default starting point. People will of course need the ability to add deductions and other information if they so choose. But for someone who just needs to fill out a normal return with information that the IRS already has, and is already using to verify that return, why on earth shouldn't we just make that automatic?
It's a massive waste of time to require millions of people needlessly fill out forms that the IRS already fills out on their end! It's a manufactured problem to benefit a scummy company.
>I'm a little fed up of this canard. No. This is not the case. I've lived in the UK and had to do self assessment filing. It was not "essentially a one-click process". I have lived in Japan and filed taxes there. It was also not "essentially a one-click process".
On the other hand, where I live in Sweden the process is essentially one-click, and there are several other countries in Europe where the same is true. No idea why U.K would still be bad, but I can see Japan being bad given their stamps on paper-culture. Pity.
>No, it does not. A significant chunk of social programs are run in the US via the tax system (primarily through the forms of various credits) and are dependent on facts that the IRS does not know.
Is information from these social programs a necessity for filing taxes? If so, the fix is simple: have them report these numbers into the IRS. Otherwise, have a base case of 0 and allow this information to be added as needed.
>Is information from these social programs a necessity for filing taxes? If so, the fix is simple: have them report these numbers into the IRS.
You misunderstand. The IRS implements the social program via the tax system.
For example, most European countries operate some kind of universal child benefit for parents. So maybe parents can receive a weekly payment of some kind.
In the U.S. this program does not exist. Instead, there is a refundable tax credit (the Child Tax Credit). When you file your taxes, you tell the IRS how many children you have, how old they are and so on and if your taxes are low enough that the credit offsets your taxes, the IRS sends you a check for the difference.
Similarly, many European countries have some form of government income support for low earners; again typically paid by some social security agency.
Although there is a program called TANF that does this for the most needy, the majority of benefits are delivered through another refundable tax credit (the Earned Income Tax Credit). Again you end up sending the IRS all the data necessary about why you qualify for this social program and maybe you get a check back at the end.
Basically, a significant amount of the transfer payments for social programs in the U.S. are implemented directly in the tax code, so the "tax filings" that people have to make combine both income information as well as qualifications for social benefits.
Except that in American political culture it’s extremely common to argue that such and such thing is either impossible or will introduce a parade or horrible consequences. Those that make this argument depend on voters being ignorant of the existence of other countries that have successfully done that thing or not experienced those consequences or, when those examples are cited, rush to American exceptionalism or other baseless appeals to distinguish them.
Or we recognize the fact that the United States has a system of government that is Unique in the world, we also have a culture and demographic that is Unique, as such many of the policies that would apply to say a EU nation can not work the same in the US for a wide range of issues from constitutional limitations, to cultural ones...
The rush to make the United States in to a EU nation should be opposed IMO, if I wanted the laws and regulations of the EU I would move.. I have no desire to be subject to the rules of the EU nor do I look to the EU for guidance of how things "should be done"...
While appeal to consensus is a common logical fallacy, we can make stronger arguments to support government tax software. Tax preparation is 100% deadweight in an economic sense. Nothing useful is created in that time, and yet billions of hours are spent on it each year in the United States. Streamlining the collection of tax revenue seems to be in the best interest of the state and the people, even if a very small minority will be harmed in the process. The additional product of those billions of hours of work time per year would pay enough dividend to cover the development cost virtually overnight.
I am not saying I disagree, personally I think they tax code should be extremely simplified so the need for software is not needed. One should not need an accounting degree or depend on the IRS to figure out what you owe in the first place
The tax code should be simplified to where a person with a High School education can understand it, and process what they should owe the IRS.
however that is not the argument. the argument was "Well the EU does it so American should too" I find that argument to be very lacking
The answer to if your friends all jumped off the bridge would you? is obviously yes, my friends aren't idiots and they haven't all lost their mind at the same exact time.
If the government is in the business of collecting tax from 300+ million people and has power to punish these people if they don't, government already is in the business of writing tax software.
I find it very unlikely the IRS is not already writing tax software. They would need fairly sophisticated in-house software to evaluate returns, so it would just be the creation a new UI to be tax-payer facing. I would imagine all the required logic is already coded.
You ask for examples a few times. Here’s one. Computers confiscated from a liberty activist and his radio station. No CP-related charges pressed in the 5 years since they confiscated his computers.
I’m guessing most times this happens, the accused try to keep it on the DL.
Is it? I would be surprised if attacking 1Password wasn’t a priority for governments and hackers. If the encryption used on vaults is ever broken, compromised, or buggy, users are screwed.
They don't have to break the vault encryption. They just have to gain access to 1pwd's git and push out a compromised update. And then watch the passwords roll in automatically.
Yes exactly that's what I'm worried about, I'd say if that happened it would be targeted and the chance of me being targeted is small but I also don't want to ever leave myself open to such a thing (also because I've lived in autocratic countries, I don't automatically think all governments are trustworthy).
> As alleged, Brody left a few "taunts" in the code that he unleashed on FRB. In particular, he is alleged to have used the word "grok," which the government explains is a misspelling of "grock," which, in turn, means to understand.