> With similar statistics, US numbers are several times higher. And as Europe has an older population, rates are likely higher, but the real difference is much smaller.
Cool, so if you have the numbers or graphs, paste a link
I of course believe you're lying. Probably out of the standard xenophobia.
It wouldn't make sense considering average US household infrastructure vs average EU household infrastructure so I sincerely doubt you're able to prove it, or whoever you're going to cite as proof.
Gp said that the way heat deaths were reported in Europe (statistical analysis: additional mortality during heatwaves) and in the US (individual analysis: autopsy) makes the two incomparable.
I'm just making a note about life expectancy in the US and in Europe (which are both calculated the same way). I admit I was in teaching mode, and should have been explicit instead. If heat deaths had an oversized effect on Europeans, you should be able to see it in the graphs in summer 2023 and 2025, and not in the US (to a certain degree: US have to catch up like 5 years, so it's not an apple to apple comparison, but close enough)
How do they fit the definition? What specific fascist goals?
I don't have a strong bill into who you are or your expertise on the matter, so I have to question it, especially no credentials on the matter extending a "definitive answer" to the people involved.
I read what they write. I see what they pust for. The millionaires were very open about their political goals, their distate for democracy. Republicans are very open about their wish to create white nationalist ethnotstate and their treatment of power is on full display.
Do you also question those who pretend libertarian millionaires are all about freeedom? Or just take that as granted? Do you also question those who paint republicans in positive light where it is clear lie?
It's right in the point it brings up that modern LLMs are serious engineering and quite a bit capable at many tasks. It's not correct on the rest where Ptacek appears dismissive because 'he doesn't wanna hear' about copyright and other things, maybe we chalk it up to an upset guy at people he believes and maybe knows are wrong and ignore the rest of the spiel, but I won't.
If only their definition matters then their only purpose in this thread is to derail the conversation, or in other words railroad everyone else out because only they can be right.
People responding reject that, because if you're not being specific, you're not making an argument, you're just here to be an asshole.
Since you've made this point, I've gone ahead and reported that comment.
Suppose their definition for abject poverty is: having an income equal to or below the median income. Yes, they would be right. Is it a problem that they are right?
However, you would also be right in agreeing that having an income equal to or below the median income equates to half the population, so you are wrong to think that only they can be right. Of course, that assumes you have used my definitions for these terms and not your own. It is likely that, once we are updated with your definitions, that you were right all along. What are your definitions for the terms you have used?
That's the beauty of discussion. You don't need to guess. You can ask!
> If every potential mate and employer was able to review everything you've ever posted online, we'd all be much more careful with what we say, much better able to screen out bad actors, and the wold would be a better place for it.
This is stalking and is illegal. Are there any other crimes you want to claim as righteous?
Presuming you want stalking to be repealed and permissible, you have quite a few bars to pass through.
And in that society, are you willing to have me as your enemy who is very willing to push society to its utter limits? I know I'd be good at it, and I know thousands if not millions of people who share this interest. Because, as you say, its any potential mate/employer.
You can ask dang specifically or another moderator to prove if you are being trafficked down to irrelevancy by bots. I'm very certain you're wrong either way.
Amazon, NSA, apparently a few other 3 letter agencies around the world, but the lattermost probably did not expect access to their agencies would be limited but appreciate that they aren't going to be exposed as security frauds by just anyone
Can attest to this. The door going into the secure area is the most secure part of a SCIF and always has been. Some companies do the LAN inside the SCIF a bit better than others, but generally its not significantly any different from what is otherwise corpnet on the outside, and tends to be weaker because there (not so rare to find) isn't a corpnet on the inside.
As the article mentions, no new attack vectors were found, but just the scale of it is the concerning part.
> As you helpfully noted in your second half of your comment, high wealth, deliberately low income[0] means they are not in the top tax bracket[1] on the basis of their carefully calculated, tax-optimized income.
There is no optimization for anything actually, its just income. There's lots of different forms of taxes that the US government takes part in as you know. Quitting your day job removes the income part until distribution/settlement for any owned assets.
You can argue for a wealth tax, but conflating two separate concepts is not how you do it.
My footnotes are the entirety of my argument, and it's not even as radical as a wealth tax. My argument has 2 easy steps:
1. Remove the arbitrage between actual liquidity events and the limited set of what the IRS currently considers taxable events. Borrowing against securities not being taxable is an example of what's broken. Arbitrage using trusts or LLCs needs to be deleted, based on controlling interests and/or ultimate beneficiary.
Yes, all those things would be broken if I don't need any leverage, and my loans were backed by liquid assets I already possess that I'm avoiding selling in an effort to avoid taxable events even though I really want to purchase a fancy Palo Alto compound that occupies an entire block.
For the vast majority of folk who take out the loans you listed, the loans are leveraged and are either unsecured, or secured by the car or property the loan was made out for, and therefore no underlying value to tax prior to the loan being issued. You knew this already, and I have doubts you're making this false equivalency argument in good faith.
Cool, so if you have the numbers or graphs, paste a link
I of course believe you're lying. Probably out of the standard xenophobia.
It wouldn't make sense considering average US household infrastructure vs average EU household infrastructure so I sincerely doubt you're able to prove it, or whoever you're going to cite as proof.