danfuzz

6 ms·

1.
by danfuzz 2y ago
I look forward to you reviewing your HN contributions in a decade or so.
2.
by danfuzz 2y ago
You're probably thinking of Prop 13, which, no argument. But I don't think the fix is as straightforward as you imply. (TLDR the biggest problems are due to corporate landowners, not families who own a single dwelling.) Also, what
3.
by danfuzz 2y ago
Near as I can tell, the domain isn't "highly-in-demand" in any meaningful way. I think the whiners who carp about its current use are just crypto-jealous.
4.
by danfuzz 2y ago
At least where I live (California US), that's not true. There are certain things which trigger a change in taxable value, but they're mostly only indirectly connected to appraised value. Un-accepted offers 100% definitely don&#x27
5.
by danfuzz 2y ago
Just to be clear, do you believe milk.com is being squatted on right now? Should its registrant morally pay more than the default annual registration cost? If so: How does consistently using a domain (any domain) for literally 30 years (as
6.
by danfuzz 2y ago
People pay registration fees every year for domains. How is what you propose different than registrars setting different fees for different domains? Or: What entity should be entitled to the tax, and why?
7.
by danfuzz 2y ago
Are you proposing every domain name registrant pay for an annual appraisal, whether or not they are planning on selling?
8.
by danfuzz 2y ago
I know of no truly serious offers for the domain, but why should that matter? I'm pretty sure residences aren't taxed based on un-accepted offers, for example.
9.
by danfuzz 2y ago
How would you calculate the FMV of milk.com?
10.
by danfuzz 2y ago
I don't think he wants offers?
11.
by danfuzz 2y ago
In what way is he actually speculating or rent seeking? He has a real website on it — not just a placeholder — and he's got DNS MX records, so it's presumably actively used for email.
12.
by danfuzz 2y ago
This is also my take.
13.
by danfuzz 6y ago
Pretty sure the main answer is that he's not actually engaging in rent-seeking in any pejorative sense.
14.
by danfuzz 6y ago
Apple doesn't in fact have a blanket trademark on the word "apple."
15.
by danfuzz 6y ago
FWIW I don't think he actually ever intends to or expects to sell.
16.
by danfuzz 6y ago
My read on his "value" page is that he doesn't actually want to sell. Assuming he just wants to keep using the domain for his personal site and have the same email address he's had since 1994, would that make it okay for
17.
by danfuzz 6y ago
I didn't ask for a definition. In what way does that apply to milk.com? Is the owner seeking to get wealthy from it? And if so, is he also somehow failing to create sufficient wealth in the process? What should he be doing differently
18.
by danfuzz 6y ago
What "rent" is he seeking?
19.
by danfuzz 6y ago
His brand is strong, perhaps.
20.
by danfuzz 6y ago
In what way is this site "squatting?" I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can't get a trademark on simple English words like "milk."
21.
by danfuzz 8y ago
I also wouldn't buy milk.com for $2000. Does that mean I should sell it for $2000? In any case, there is also a time / hassle reason to not sell: It would mean the loss of the only personal email domain I've used since 1994,
22.
by danfuzz 8y ago
️<3
23.
by danfuzz 8y ago
I mean, I really would sell for $10MM. But I think I'd be giving someone a real steal for (much) less. Like, sure, I could use $100,000, but does that mean I should sell a more-valuable asset that I happen to own for that little? If so
24.
by danfuzz 8y ago
For me too. Yes I am fortunate in multiple regards.
25.
by danfuzz 8y ago
I'm here for you.
26.
by danfuzz 8y ago
You think? It certainly keeps the low-ball speculators away, but if it were to sell do you really think it would get $10MM?
27.
by danfuzz 8y ago
Thanks! Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) the internet has grown up, and it's been a long time since someone has sent bona fide misdirected mail to the site.
28.
by danfuzz 8y ago
Thanks! It's arguably in need of update, but it still seems to get the job done.
29.
by danfuzz 11y ago
You can blame me for those wasted four bytes (or, perhaps, that wasted terabyte in the aggregate). The original idea was that on big-endian machines, the resulting .odex would be endian-swapped compared to the original .dex, and this field
30.
by danfuzz 12y ago
IIRC, when we were evaluating GPRS modules for potential use in the hiptop, we would consistently find ourselves testing modules that worked well for a minute or two at a time but would fall over flat if you tried to keep a connection going

More ›