adfgadfgaery

I don't have a source of him saying that's why he opposed return-free taxes. This article has links to the statements of his organization:

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax...

His stated reasons are so fantastically stupid that I can't imagine them being legitimate. Return-free filing is the best tool we have to achieve his claimed goals of reducing the complexity and confusion of tax season. Can you think of an innocent explanation for his opposition?

There are so many investors who want to build apartments that most cities have laws to keep them out.

I don't see how what you are saying makes any sense at all.

>1. Bad tenants will have no incentive not to harm the property and the neighborhood.

Of course they will: they may lose the security deposit, may be evicted, may be sued, and may even be arrested.

>2. Landlords will be forced to pay for insurance to cover all the bad things that tenants are now free to do.

They already pay for insurance.

>3. Rents will rise to cover the costs of the insurance. Conscientious tenants will be penalized.

Building more housing will make housing more expensive?

>4. Even otherwise conscientious tenants will start to cut corners since they are having to pay for the insurance anyway and it’s clearly unfair.

No, for the same reasons I gave before they still have an incentive to behave well.

Obviously they've made some progress. It would be hard for them to have accomplished nothing at all after all they've invested. It's still nowhere near safe for public roads and there's no reason to think it ever will be.

Even their driver assistance features work worse than the competition.

Grover Norquist wants to cut government spending. It's difficult to do that directly because people often like government services. Instead he suggests cutting taxes. This is easier to sell to the public because no one likes paying taxes. This will drive the government into debt, forcing spending cuts due to the risk of default. This plan is called "starving the beast".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

For this plan to work, people have to really hate paying taxes. So, despite the fact that Norquist and his allies often talk about things like "reducing the burden on the taypayer", they have in fact acted to make paying taxes as unpleasant an experience as possible. This means deliberately underfunding the IRS and ensuring filing taxes is slow, complicated, and expensive.

He is also the architect of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which is endorsed by the vast majority of Republican politicians currently in office. The pledge prohibits them from supporting any legislation that would increase taxes on people or corporations. The idea of "starving the beast" has been endorsed in as many words by a number of politicians, including George W. Bush.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform#Taxpa...

Any time a Republican politician starts talking about reducing the deficit, know that they are lying. Over 95% of them have publicly signed a pledge meant to deliberately increase the deficit. This isn't a conspiracy theory. The plans are public.

>it follows that social mobility is pretty much dead. It is a bleak vision.

I have always found the idea of social mobility depressing. It assumes that we will always have a hierarchy, with some people who are powerful and prestigious and others who are poor and always feel inadequate. It assumes that we will always have an underclass but at least people can leave it.

The SAT has been demonstrated to be effective at predicting success in university. We have almost no evidence about the computer industry's hiring practices. It is completely unscientific. Interviews operate on folklore, not statistics.

The debate is about the quality and predictive value of the tests. Opponents claimed that the tests had a cultural bias so students from some backgrounds would do better than others, that students who had a good education before university would be better prepared, and that studying for tests or taking tests repeatedly has been shown to improve scores but is only accessible to people who can afford it. These are all claims that the tests are not good at predicting aptitude.

The arguments against these tests are, of course, awful. Objective tests are the best way we know of to remove human bias. Aptitude tests (basically IQ tests) are the best way we know of to measure someone's natural ability (determined in early childhood) with little influence from their experience. Since their arguments make so little sense, it is reasonable to wonder about the psychology of opponents of standardized testing. But their arguments are, at least on the surface, about predictive value.

>What's surprising though, is that APs and similar exams are not enough.

That isn't what they said. They said that access to those tests is not universal. Students from high schools that don't offer AP classes would have a hard time taking AP exams. This would exclude people from rural or impoverished areas.

This is why the SAT and ACT are useful: they are meant to be aptitude tests. They are IQ tests in disguise. If properly designed, they will measure intelligence with minimal influence from education or cultural background. Theoretically something like these tests could be administered to elementary school students and still be useful for predicting success in college a decade later.

They continue to work on this project despite knowing it is fraudulent, which makes them complicit.

Besides, I don't see that they're doing solid work. It would be solid work if they ditched pure vision and moved to a system that works. Instead they are putting in heroic efforts on a dead-end technology. That is impressive in the same way that getting Doom running on a TI-84 would be impressive.

First off, because everything they said about the law is bullshit. The vice president has no authority to throw out votes. This is a complete fabrication. Either the writer legitimately believe this is legal, in which case they are clueless, or they know it is illegal, in which case they are lying. Either is bad.

Second, because of this:

>If they are (as more than 70% of Republicans believe) certificates from non-electors appointed via voter fraud, why should he open & count them?"

"Many people are saying": the classic weasel words. They can endorse this with an appeal to the authority of common knowledge and discuss it as if it's a reasonable hypothetical, all the while maintaining plausible deniability that they're just repeating what "everyone knows". Well, I don't find it plausible.

Read the replies to the tweets. The fascist types definitely interpreted it as Rasmussen agreeing with their position,. The non-fascist types interpreted it the same way. People do not communicate with formal logic. The meaning of speech is the meaning people take from it, not the meaning you would get from dissecting it on a whiteboard.

Take anything Rasmussen says with a grain of salt. They are not out-and-out fraudulent, but they are generally the least accurate of all major pollsters.

Also, there's this:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen...

They weren't great in years past, but endorsing a coup d'état is pretty bad in my eyes. I didn't know this previously; I'll have to adjust my opinion of them.

Is this your first day on this website?

There are occasionally interesting discussions, but the hero worship has got to go. Especially since people 'round here have awful taste in heroes.

>Have you reported this to the SEC yet?

No, nor have I reported Deepak Chopra or Amway or Gwyneth Paltrow. There are blatant scams all around us. A lack of interest from the feds doesn't mean much.

Besides, the SEC has enough on their plate when it comes to Tesla.

>So it does say what he thinks it says.

Doctor Oz is, by all accounts, a brilliant surgeon. Would you follow the medical advice on his show?

Tesla released a doctored video in 2016 claiming to have a fully-functional system that needed humans only for legal reasons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/technology/tesla-autopilo...

Over the years, they repeatedly pushed this narrative to sell cars. Tesla promised on several occasions to have millions of fully autonomous "robotaxis" on the road in 2020, making their owners in excess of $30,000 a year. Currently there are, of course, zero.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-promised-1-mil...

Take a look at this video for what Tesla describes as a beta for their "Full Self Driving" system. A beta is, of course, meant to be feature complete software in final testing. Does this look like it's nearly ready to be pushed out to every car on the road?

https://twitter.com/BS__Exposed/status/1449158254081290242

AI at Tesla is a scam, so it probably doesn't say what you think it says.

It's a shame that Karpathy actually seems to know what he's talking about. Maybe he originally bought in to the Tesla vision and doesn't have the integrity to admit it's failed. Maybe he's like von Braun, doing great evil because he wants funding. Either way we lost a seemingly talented researcher.

I think you misunderstand OP. The purpose of citations is to prove facts. The argument made based on those facts does not need a citation.

Much of the time it isn't fair to ask for citations even for specific facts, but that's a separate problem.

>Being a UK resident I often have to remind myself that the UK and continental Europe's level of cellular coverage is something of an outlier.

You have it backwards. The U.S. is the outlier. All similarly wealthy countries have better coverage.

>Satellite Internet is already a multi-billion dollar industry before you have inexpensive and low latency service provided by launch vehicles (and satellites) a tenth to a hundredth the cost.

It is currently a money pit. It is a simple fact that right now it requires huge expenses in launches, R&D, and subsidized terminals and makes practically no revenue. SpaceX has itself stated in internal communications that their current satellites and current launch systems are not viable.

I don't believe it ever will make any money—cellular networks do the same job better—but it definitely won't make any money in the next few years.

>But sure, buy into Musk pretending it’s desperate to try to motivate his workforce.

So it is your opinion that he was lying to his employees to coerce them into working overtime over the holidays out of fear of losing their jobs? I fail to see how that's an improvement. Either the situation is legitimately desperate or the work environment is abusive.

The human capacity for self-deception amazes me. The people in the market claim to believe juju works. This is not a lie; they put up their own money to buy charms. But at some level they know it doesn't work, since they know the prize will go unclaimed. They can switch between these two beliefs to keep from confronting the inconsistency of their worldview.

I think you misspelled "money pit". It is currently burning money and will continue doing so for the foreseeable future. According to SpaceX's internal communications, the current approach is unsustainable. It requires future launch vehicles to make sense financially.

https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-responds-leaked-email-war...

I don't think satellite internet is promising even once the constellation is up there, but that's another matter.

P.S. The expression is "cash cow".

I am well aware of that, but it's so ludicrous that it reflects badly on the publication. The presence of that picture shows that no one knowledgeable looked over the article before it was published. What else could have slipped by the editors?

I have always been confused by these issues of corporate governance. All these things seem like they should be owned by real human beings, but it is impossible for me to understand who actually owns and controls these companies. They are simultaneously treated as their own entities that make their own decisions while also being completely controlled by a few big shareholders. And often these shareholders are themselves companies, perhaps owned by other companies. And then you get weird stuff like Porsche's attempt to purchase VW, which wound up with VW purchasing its own largest shareholder. It's all incomprehensibly far removed from what the goods and services that are the real purpose of our economy.

Also, the CPU in the picture is upside down. Maybe this is a shallow criticism (especially since the picture was probably chosen by an editor), but I am reluctant to listen to people who would make such a basic mistake.

To my knowledge, the American torture program has produced literally no novel information. Every piece of intelligence the CIA claimed was discovered with torture was, in fact, already known from other sources. We have done the experiment and found a success rate of 0%. Whatever you think you understand is wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-torture-report-20141210...

The company is public. It has no single owner.

Musk is supposed to answer to the shareholders, but he's defrauded them on many occasions and the SEC doesn't seem to care.

Let's not try to paint him as a hero. He continued working at Tesla despite knowing the fraud they were perpetrating. He endangered everyone around him by operating the "Full Self Driving" "Beta" on public roads despite knowing it didn't work.

He's a conspirator, not a whistleblower.

No, the negative consequences would be prison time. It is one thing for him to say stupid things on Twitter, but the 'Full Self Driving' scheme is perhaps the biggest fraud the world has ever seen. Tesla claimed to have a system back in 2016 which needed no human input whatsoever. At the current state of development Teslas will crash into concrete pillars without human intervention. Musk's lies are illegal and he has not paid for them.

I know that OP was talking about the fact that Musk is a manchild, but I'm more concerned about the fact that he's leading a criminal conspiracy.

An ordinary earpiece is better for all legitimate purposes.

>Reusable rockets were literally considered impossible a decade ago

And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

The Shuttle program was started in the 1970s. Reusable launch vehicles have never been considered impossible, merely inefficient.

>Technically they are all UMA, not NUMA - the L3 cache is distributed, but they are all behind a single memory controller with consistent latencies to all cores.

This stuff rapidly starts to make my head spin. I have not studied interconnects and have never written any NUMA-aware software. I will just post this link (read the "Memory Latency" section):

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16529/amd-epyc-milan-review/4

As I understand it, the I/O die is partitioned into four quadrants. Each quadrant has two memory controllers and is attached to two compute dies. CPUs can access memory attached to the same quadrant with lower latency than going to another quadrant. This is a NUMA system that can be configured to appear as one logical NUMA node.

I believe their smaller parts with two or fewer compute dies will be UMA, but with the same non-uniform latency to L3.

>So is that 56 core Xeon that Intel was bragging about for a while there until the 64 core Epycs & Threadrippers embarrassed the hell out of it.

I believe the 64-core Epycs and Threadrippers came first. The 56-core Xeon was a purpose-built part for HPC, so it wasn't quite a marketing gimmick.