silverlight

I'm on the latest version (2.1.154 as of this comment). Based on the timestamps on those Issues being reported I think it's happening on the latest version.

I'm sure it will get fixed eventually/soon, just annoying to update and have your workflow break.

Unfortunately they seem to have straight up broken Claude Code either with this release in the backend or the new CC version. Errors about "can't modify thinking blocks" are bricking long-running sessions: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues?q=is%3Aissu...

Google really can’t help themselves but to have some internal re-org kill off a public thing people are actively using. It’s honestly impressive how consistent they are.

There was a moment about a week ago where Claude went down for about an hour. And right after it came back up it was clear a lot of people had given up and were not using it.

It was probably 3x faster than usual. I got more done in the next hour with it than I do in half a day usually. It was definitely a bit of a glimpse into a potential future of “what if these things weren’t resource constrained and could just fly”.

Seems like a big opportunity for Google to consider keeping Gemini ad-free as a differentiator. They can afford to burn cash on it for a long time to come if they choose to do so.

Glad to hear the impact was so muted. Thank you for the response!

Did the client side JS being infected produce any issues which would have affected end users? As in if a web owner were on an affected version and deployed during the window would the end user of their site have had any negative impact?

Recently used a lot of HaxeUI for a game and it felt similar to this. A lot of components included out of the box that “just work” with some basic styling. And you can use CSS styling on top to further customize as needed. Works across a lot of different platforms as well.

Is this available somewhere to use?

Anyone using one as your daily driver for coding? Or tried and it didn’t keep?

Happy to support this, desperately needs to be changed.

I made one of the original posts on HN about this years ago after hearing about it from my CPA. Both then and now these changes make zero sense to me as a matter of good policy. I am also still surprised at the number of people in tech who either haven’t heard about this or are willfully ignoring it and likely filing their taxes incorrectly.

Somewhat related topic: anyone used something like the Luxedo to do a projection mapping? It seems like it’s more complicated and expensive but I love the idea of doing something cool to the house for Halloween and Christmas without having to lug out a ton of lights and decorations.

I think that ideally, every project would be setup from scratch in the beginning to use t() tags or something similar to have translation keys so that setting up translations is as easy as swapping out what t() returns (from e.g. a config file or the like).

Of course, we all know that this is very rarely how projects end up getting setup especially in the early stages, and then it's just massive amounts of work to go back and set it up later.

The thing that's the most intriguing to me about what you're describing is automatically setting up translations in the build step where you auto-detect strings to translate. But looking at the site, most of it seems to be focused around the VSCode extension which will just sort of find and replace strings in the source code with t() tags.

Can you talk more about the translations in the build step? Is there a reason you're not talking more about that on the site? (Is it just newer, not very reliable/good, or...)?

The idea that I could just throw something like this into my project, not have t() tags in my source code but still get translations, sounds like magic and I think it would be really neat.

At Roll20 we just released a beta version of our new VTT engine which is powered by Babylon. The devs on the team have really enjoyed getting to use the modern workflow compared to the legacy decade-old stuff we were using before. Thanks Babylon devs!

In the U.S. you have to actually file for a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office if you actually want to bring a copyright suit against someone.

I don’t actually know how it works for paying yourself. But if you were paying someone else, in 2024 they would get 10k carried over from 2023 and $5k from 2024. You only get 10% the first year. I am not an accountant and this is not tax advice :-)

I did contact my Congressional Representative but I would love to know what interest groups are working on this actively that I can support further.

Thank you for sharing your own experience with your CPA as well.

Wow, thank you for that detailed explanation. Very interesting.

Research and Experimental. It’s what the tax code calls it.

https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/usc26/174

So you're saying that the advice you got was that if it's a launched product, you can treat software development as an operating expense and just ignore the fact that 174 says software development is an R&E expense?

I mean that sounds great to me...I just also feel like it's probably a very "liberal" interpretation indeed.

The part I'm getting hung up on is essentially, previously R&E expenses (as you note) were a lot more fungible, it depended on a number of factors including how risky the endeavor was. Things that you just do day-to-day in the service of keeping your company afloat (which for a launched SaaS for example would include fixing bugs or even developing basic features) were likely not R&E. Maybe if you embarked on a journey to develop a totally new product, it would have been.

It seems like the most basic reading of this is pretty straightforward: they've taken that decision making away and said "if it's software dev, it's R&E." Not "if it's software dev for a new feature, but hey existing bug fixes and maintenance don't count," just, "software is R&E now always."

Obviously everyone has their own risk tolerance for how they interpret things and what definition they use.

I think the main difference is:

1) You can't just go get a loan for "a software" like you can "a widget maker." Most businesses with these large capital assets get loans on them and then it works out nicely as you pay back the loan on the asset while you depreciate it.

2) This would be like the law saying "anything you do in the business of making widgets at all is now a capital outlay" which is obviously ridiculous. It's not that they said "if you buy expensive tools to make software now you have to capitalize them", it's written that any expense at all in service to software development is something now capitalized.

Not that you agree with what's been done and I appreciate your example, but I think it does give a good contrast to see the differences.

I have also been surprised since I found out at the lack of discussion. Based on this post, it seems like many people didn't know. I assume a lot more are going to find out as we get closer to actually filing taxes.

What I've heard is that there's already strong support for changing this but it's just a matter of Congress actually being functional, which political affiliation aside, it's not right now.

Yeah, the 162 treatment defense is the thing I've seen on here that seems like it may hold some water, and I'm planning to go back to my CPA and talk about it with them.

To be clear my companies are going to be fine either way, but I am not a fan of pulling up the ladder of success behind me and the me of 10 years ago trying to start his first thing shouldn't have to deal with this nonsense.

If anyone knows of a CPA who thinks this isn't how it works now, please let me know their contact info, as I would love to pay them to advise me on this and get a third opinion.

Did you talk to them about this specific change recently? Because how you're describing it is how it used to work, just not starting this year.

Also thanks for Reddit ;)

Assuming that your shop took in 1.5M in revenue, then yes it would be (500k + 0.9 * 1M) because for the first year you only get 1/10th of the deduction.

So it's like:

Year 1: 0.1 Year 2-5: 0.2 Year 6: 0.1