alistairSH
alistairSH on Hacker News
Because football is the most studied and has one of the highest (if not the actual highest) rates of head trauma per time played.
Rugby and ice hockey are certainly bad, but at least the impacts are generally limited to play near the ball/puck, whereas with American football, essentially every player has an impact on every play (WR blocking on rush plays, etc).
Yes, and?
It's well established that the effects of repeated head trauma are cumulative, with progressively longer healing periods, worse symptoms, etc. And that sub-concussive impacts also accumulate along with the concussive impacts.
Dunno, but Iceland also enforces it's son-of/daughter-of naming convention to the point some names are explicitly prohibited (or is it explicitly allowed, I forget if it's a black-list or white-list).
Not actively used, but still see the occasional ...son on a surname.
The article...
The company’s financial results for 2026 have not been subjected to formal auditing, which makes them less-than-reliable...:shrug:
The article...
The company’s financial results for 2026 have not been subjected to formal auditing, which makes them less-than-reliable...:shrug:
Seems like requiring an audit might be the solution to this issue? Why they (or anybody) can go public, with financials that are little more than a pinky-swear, is beyond me.
Yeah, it's a bit weird...
On some forms in the US, it's listed as a suffix. Some agencies enforce it, others do not (SSA does not, for example). And colloquially, when"Senior" dies, the son often stops using "Junior" (though that's not a legal change).
UK, Can, and AUS are similar, but not exactly the same as the US. And NSW in AUS complicates matters by outright prohibiting roman numberals are Jnr/Snr suffixes. Mexico has more restrictions due to the mothers-last-name, fathers-last-name naming convention.
Personally, I dig the Nordic and Arabic "x, son of y, son of z, son of..." patterns.
I’d apply this to all extractive industry. Not just oil.
A corporation has a primary fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.Only because Friedman told us so and we believed him. It's not some immutable natural law.
Sure, let's blame the economically displaced, not the billionaires who displaced them. Giving some serious "she wore a short skirt and had it coming" vibes.
Long term, sure, but those newly-feasible jobs don't pop into existence in a day, or even a year. Short term, they flood the labor market and suppress wages.
They aren't, but if you look at retraining programs in coal country, you don't see a whole lot of success. So, while I'm sure mass retraining is theoretically possible, do we examples of where it's actually worked?
Related point - if the truck drivers aren't where the new jobs are located, that doesn't work. We should subsidize their move (via increased taxes on AI or corporations or whatever) but like WV, we probably won't. Assuming they even want to move.
100%.
How much better would the US or UK or wherever else be if our wealth of natural resources was shared instead of hoarded by private land-owners and SuperMegaCorp?
Norway drills about 1/4 of the barrels we do here in the US, but reaps more than double the revenue into public coffers. ~78% tax rate in Norway vs a published rate of 21% in the US (and a real rate of <10%).
Yeah, that's the other problem... Kei cars/trucks, despite being 25 years old, have been banned in a few states because "safety" (even though you can buy a new motorcycle, or a US-spec 1950 whatever, etc).
You're probably, maybe ok for something like a 25 year old full-size car that doesn't look too wild (ie, could pass a a US-spec). Like a Japanese-market Lancer Evo, or Mitsubishi Pajero.
Fender benders? Suspension wear? Brakes (yes, EVs still have them)? Rust/corrosion? Dead pixels? Torn/worn/faded interiors?
Heck, I just dumped an 8 year old BMW because the interior stitching was coming apart. Nothing mechanically wrong, just yellow fluff poking out of the seams. Easier to sell it than try to get it fixed.
No, between safety and emissions, a normal person effectively have to wait out the 25 year as spelled out in the
Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988. Once you hit that, it's relatively straightforward to import the car (straightforward if you know how to do it, there are importers who specialize in this market).
There are some small exceptions for show cars (as is, never used on public roads) and similar things, but they all limit/prohibit use on public roads.
"We want Google Earth to merit users' trust as an authoritative reference..."
I guess they've changed their minds since 2008... Their display of "Gulf of America" without "Gulf of Mexico" and "Lake America" without "Lake Ontario" is at odds with their declared policy.
Only theoretically. Normal people don't have the assets to pull it off.
Sure, and there's plenty of opportunity to build regular yachts (which are still massively expensive). When I say super-yacht, I mean the 100 meter monstrosities preferred by the likes of Bezos and Zuckerberg. I take no issue with the type of yacht owned by "mere millionaires".
That, and something to "force" payment in cold-hard cash instead of stock.
Yes, but it isn't taxed federally as income tax, which is the problem we're probably trying to solve.
IE, every dollar I earn gets taxed twice - as income, then as sales tax.
Rich guy only pays the sales tax.
And there's a fundamental difference between "borrow to keep the business running smoothly" and "borrow to buy a mega-yacht". Legally, not so much, as you say, but hell's bells, the super yacht market really shouldn't exist.
Fair, and I don't believe we'd be better off if they fled. We
would be better off if they weren't astronomically wealthy. I don't have a specific number in mind, but "a billion-ish" feels like a reasonable upper bound on wealth.
I'd also note that I would prefer to adjust tax/accounting laws to prevent the accumulation in the first place, not just roll out a blanket "take everything over a billion-ish law" as that feels more like a band-aid than a fix.
They won't flee. The tax would have to astronomical to offset the advantages of doing business in the US. If that wasn't true, they would have all disclaimed their US citizenship and moved to Monaco already.
Is it though? Those same unrealized gains are used by those same alleged paper-billionaires to borrow money and live lavish lifestyles ("Buy, Borrow, Die").
They literally get to eat their cake and have it too.
Taxing the rich tends to do that. Or, at least when we did tax the rich, wealth distribution was better (though still far from ideal, IMO).
a country can't exactly tax the poor.Tell me you've never met a modern Republican without telling me you've met a Republican.
Um, tough, if you want to be a billionaire, you get to sell a tiny fraction of your assets to pay taxes. If they don't want to sell assets, they can pay themselves a larger salary or something. Or, like you said, take loans which is literally what they do to afford their lifestyles, just use that for taxes. I don't really care which.
"Taxing the rich" is literally solving the thing that is a problem today.
Distinction without a difference. They pirated books for the purpose of using them to train their models.
The noteworthy thing here, IMO, is the judge seems to have explicitly stated that using legally-acquired works to train AI models falls under fair use.
Not really - studies have linked these jobs to severe phycological distress. They aren't "good jobs" in the sense that "software developer" is a good job. They're actively harmful to the person's mental well-being.