For basically all future years, an even greater proportion (more than two thirds) of federal government spending will be for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (old and sick and poorer people).
You're confusing the budget (maintenance spending) with the value of the real estate assets. That is, all of the land, e.g. 95% of Nevada, about 70% of the entire western USA
If that land was generating income, we could pay off the entire $35+T debt in no time.
Oh I do know that Orwell was a lont time socialist (I cannot vouch for lifelong as I do not know how he felt coming out of the womb).
He also was very much opposed to authoritarian rule and one of the points of 1984 was to distrust how a government used words to mislead -like in what I quoted
Counterproductive, and makes Garry Tan look like a real asshole. Now people will have sympathy for the Supervisors whereas a thoughtful criticism could have put real problems with their leadership on display.
The act of providing "thoughtful criticism" doesn't make it OK to tell people you wish them dead.
>Ranting on Twitter should not be a crime IMO
I don't really see anyone saying that it should be. People are welcome to rant on Twitter, just as people are welcome to take issue with said rant, and then form an opinion of that person based on the words they chose to post.
Thoughtless perhaps, but I don't think this is enough to indicate arseholery. People often get very emotional about things and rant about people while still doing good things and behaving in an exemplary fashion most of the time.
I think it is indicative that not only is he an asshole, he's a asshole with violent tendencies.
I mean, I and everyone I know have become very emotional and ranted about things every so often, but never has expressing a desire to see people die a slow death entered into it. That he did says something important to know about him.
You’re paying them to rank and collect information from things on the web for you. People can’t subscribe to everything and it’s nice as a user of a search engine to know if it’s a requirement.
In addition to not getting paid, the employees are left with a tax burden for the RSUs they are now unable to sell since the cancellation happened abruptly in the window between vesting and the liquidity event.
No, to clarify the salary is being paid but the stock liquidity program ended. However, single trigger RSUs mean tax may still be owed on those RSUs at the market value when they were issued.
So some people owe tax on eg $100k in extra “income” for shares they can’t sell anymore.
Yes, but the IP itself is not personal without the connection to other information. I do think considering IP address personal is a bit of a reach, especially given the common case of ephemeral addresses.
All the residential IPv4 addresses have been the same for years, until I switched ISP or moved. Ever since I've lived alone that IP address 100% maps back to me as a person, and I'm not the only person in Europe living on my own. Pretending this situation doesn't exist and forms a privacy risk would be madness.
There's nothing wrong with receiving IP addresses on your website, though. You can log IP addresses and use them for detecting fraud and other kinds of abuse without requiring consent. Third parties can do the same, as long as they follow the law and as long as you clearly document what information you're sharing/making users share in your privacy policy.
You can't use personal information for tracking and ad purposes without consent, though, and you can't partner up with other companies that do it for you. It doesn't matter if you're tracking IP addresses, cookies, passive fingerprints, or some kind of supercookie; you need a legitimate reason or explicit consent to process that kind of information.
> Yes, but the IP itself is not personal without the connection to other information.
By this argument, isn't the same true of a physical home address?
> I do think considering IP address personal is a bit of a reach, especially given the common case of ephemeral addresses.
Except that isn't strictly "the common case". DHCP leases are often for long-ish periods of time on fixed line broadband services. The IP for my home router, for example, has been the same for weeks or months at a time.
Thanks for sharing this story. I love when I can learn a little more about the experience of something fascinating like Caving but that I don’t have any personal experience with through someone’s comments on HN.
How does one get into Caving or become a “vetted cave explorer”?
Join a local caving group\club (grotto in the US I believe). Pretty much the only way, unless you happen to know an experienced caver that you can tag along with.
This is about your view of morals as they relate to religion though, right? Legally speaking priests are employees and the church is the employer. I think our government system should treat them as such.
Whether it’s right or wrong from the perspective of the church or followers of the religion should be separate from our rules about privacy.
> Legally speaking priests are employees and the church is the employer. I think our government system should treat them as such.
Priests within a religion are something like government officials and something like members in a fraternal or sororal organization (such as the Masons or Elks). In another sense they're like "independent sales representatives" in a multi-level marketing scheme. In another sense they'd be like enlisted or officers in a military. In another sense they'd be like executives in a corporation (who have contractual fiduciary, and yes, moral obligations that regular employees don't have).
The duties and expectations are different from those of regular employees. In fact, I'm sure most religious institutions have many regular employees (such as janitors, some teachers for religious schools, etcetera), who are probably held to lesser standards.
> Whether it’s right or wrong from the perspective of the church or followers of the religion should be separate from our rules about privacy.
Yes. Unfortunately we don't have many such rules when it comes to data we've shared with third parties.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, here are a couple of items for your consideration.
> This is about your view of morals as they relate to religion though, right? Legally speaking priests are employees and the church is the employer.
Everyone involved in this discussion is positing moral views that are independent from the current law. It's apparently legal for companies to sell their users personal data, just as a priest may be legally considered an "employee" even though I don't think that is what a priest is.
> I think our government system should treat them as such.
> Whether it’s right or wrong from the perspective of the church or followers of the religion should be separate from our rules about privacy.
I would disagree that the government should treat priests as employees, but regrettably I think this won't be a fruitful venue for discussing this since it's likely that we have too many different priors in this area that would take too long to hash out.
In terms of how privacy rules should work, I am generally inclined to support generalized prohibitions on selling/distributing user data without an explicit voluntary opt-in. Where I likely differ is in that I don't believe that in principle it's wrong to use available data in ways that I see as being moral. If a company has data that would prove one of their users is a serial killer I'd say they'd have the obligation to use that to help the killer get caught, but I also think generally in order to prevent greater societal evils that user data should be protected.
I'll try an example, hopefully it's not too strained. I think spying on people in their homes would be bad, it would be detrimental to familial privacy and unity among other things. But if someone happens to see into someone's house and witness a crime I wouldn't have any issue with that crime being reported. So I can say we should have laws preventing peeping toms/protecting privacy in homes while also not seeing every instantiation of acquiring information as being immoral in and of itself. Hope that makes sense, I'm a bit scrambled right now regrettably.
Who is “they” in this situation? The issue in this article is developers wanting to build housing being blocked by misuse of an environmental quality law.
If you live in a city with a large and growing population it’s natural to build more housing to accommodate the growth. If you don’t like it you’re also free to “Go live somewhere else!” Right?
The newcomer has the superior moral right to the land?
Although the entire US is the result of newcomers bulldozing the natives, I thought we at least on paper recognize that was not a good thing.
I wasn't sure about expressing an argument that even hints conservative sympathy, but this completely amazing thing you just said removes all doubt. I don't live there and probably never will, but now I say good for them. I hope they tell anyone coming along with the attitude you just expressed to gfys.
Rezoning empowers the existing landowner to do what they want with the land, within reason. Newcomers don't have any "moral right" over the land but neither do existing residents have an absolute right to dictate what happens on land that isn't theirs. Nobody's forcing people to bulldoze existing housing to increase density, but lifting arbitrary density restrictions give the current set of owners more power over their own property.
If nobody wants to force anyone then what's the complaint? If the municipalities are maintaining their desired zoning, it's for a reason and they perfectly well have that right.
Clearly the communities as a whole are trying to maintain an environment they like, and which they already have, not trying to create in anyone else's place to suit themselves, and the zoning is doing exactly the job it exists to do.
I see no reason that more people have to cram in to a place that is already full to capacity according to it's desired density level, until such time as the country runs out of space anywhere else.
Should a community be able to vote to exclude people who don't make a certain amount of money? How about people of a certain race or sexual orientation? These are freedoms that supersede the desires of the community, and since the single-family zoning laws are roughly paramount to gatekeeping by income, it makes sense to eliminate them.
I will note again that eliminating the restrictive zoning also doesn't equal a mandate over what landowners must to do with their land. You're welcome to keep your plot as-is. You just can't tell your neighbor what to do with their land.
No one is excluding based on class. They're simply full. You have no right to be somewhere where someone else already is. Prices are only high because a bezillion people want to try to get in the same place. Just go live somewhere else and there's no more problem. This argument that since there's not enough housing for all the outsiders that want to move in, they must build housing for you (or change their desired zoning) is completely entitled.
The municipality IS keeping it's plot the way they want it.
0.25 acre plot is not a country, it's a part of something else, and at that something else level, it is valid to make the same sorts of decisions for themselves as the homeowner does for their lot.
I would hate life in an HOA. What I do about that is I don't move into an HOA, not to move into one and demand that they let me raise chickens on "my own property".
I think I was 15 years old or less the last time I thought zones were some sort of travesty of injustice. Same a taxes.
I don't see why municipalities have any right to enact zoning, or really anything at all. Municipalities are just conveniences for the state, and municipalities should only have the power that the state gives them.
