smsm42

25 ms·

451.
by smsm42 2y ago
Somehow no mention of Operation Fast and Furious, where the US government forced US gun sellers to sell guns to straw purchasers with the explicit purpose to deliver those guns to Mexican cartels? US government then lied to the Congress abo
452.
by smsm42 2y ago
The idea that "capitalism" somehow magically makes everybody do exactly what any particular person or set of persons want to happen is fascinating. How could one arrive to such a conclusion? No, that's not how "capitalis
453.
by smsm42 2y ago
If you only count one specific tax among dozens, maybe. But again, that's just a pointless soundbite, which completely dissolves under a proper inquiry.
454.
by smsm42 2y ago
The government is already bankrupt and has been for years, you haven't been paying attention as it seems. It's called "deficit budget", and not only they do it every single year, they regularly raise the ceiling they set
455.
by smsm42 2y ago
It's actually good that they stopped because there was a period when they found out it's no longer profitable to recycle it, but it's still pays well to get it shipped so they re-shipped it to somewhere like Vietnam where it
456.
by smsm42 2y ago
Why does it have to be next to anyone's home? US still has vast amounts of pretty much empty space. You could drive for hours and see mostly empty space.
457.
by smsm42 2y ago
I don't think plastic alone would heat up (unless you have some very weird plastics). Organics probably would. But for common household garbage, there's not much harm in just burying it somewhere, provided it's not leaking or
458.
by smsm42 2y ago
> surprised to pay less than ones secretary. I don't think this is actually true. It's a nice rhetorical soundbite, but if you count properly (e.g. all taxes all assets owned by Buffett actually pay) there's no way he pays
459.
by smsm42 2y ago
Yet. They might still pass it on to some company in East Asia which would just dump it into the river there. It used to be the model for a lot of "recycling" in the West...
460.
by smsm42 2y ago
I was surprised by this line which came out of nowhere until I went back and re-read which site it was on.
461.
by smsm42 2y ago
If you have precheck, TSA is pretty much not an issue now (unless you fly out of one of badly run airports where they are massively under-provisioned) - just ID check and quick metal detector pass usually does it.
462.
by smsm42 2y ago
It's an investment for a bank which is middle way between regular loan/bond (where you get fixed interest and 100% of the loan at the end, but no appreciation) and stock share (where you get no fixed interest and all the appreciat
463.
by smsm42 2y ago
Nope it is not. Property tax does not take any gains into account - it's tax on full value (with possible exemptions) not gains, you pay the same regardless whether you bought it for $1 or $1M. Except of course in California where they
464.
by smsm42 2y ago
No, you have to be very wealthy to afford one.
465.
by smsm42 2y ago
For an average person, there's not. Like, if I pay twice as much taxes as I do now, literally nothing would change in anything paid by taxes, and I have no ways to effect that change. Same if by some miracle I stopped paying all federa
466.
by smsm42 2y ago
Mostly because there's really no way for them to. When I was young and poor, I didn't have much way to pay less taxes (not that I paid that much - but if I wanted to pay less, I couldn't) - I just had my salary, and whatever
467.
by smsm42 2y ago
How the proposed schema distorts the society? Sure, the federal government will have a little less money, but they still have trillions and are not exactly frugal with it. Between two worlds, one having that tax loophole and one not having
468.
by smsm42 2y ago
When I just came to the US, I had a very romantic about the notion of traveling America by train. I mean, planes are fine, they are fast, they are convenient, but there's some sterile efficiency to them that makes the notion of going b
469.
by smsm42 2y ago
In Soviet times, if you didn't include a quote from Lenin or Marx or at least the latest Party Conference in your article, you could be seen as dangerous dissident, pretty much regardless of the topic. The quote could be completely unr
470.
by smsm42 2y ago
Mail clients kinda do that (or at least they can, if asked to). Also, why would academic papers need JS anyway? CSS and images, I can get, but beyond that there's no need for anything fancier.
471.
by smsm42 2y ago
I obviously can't verify it without taking undue risks, but I remember they used to ask to see the boarding pass, now they don't. Then again, if they have this system where they can match me to a flight by ID, why they need any bo
472.
by smsm42 2y ago
> We're talking about limited liability companies, not people. They're separate entities. I know, but this still doesn't validate the logic "I am curious about it therefore I must be given rights to access any informa
473.
by smsm42 2y ago
I don't remember any case over the last 5 years or so TSA even asked me for a boarding pass. I think they gave up on that entirely. They do ask for an ID (and take a picture now - looks like bots are better at matching faces than TSA a
474.
by smsm42 2y ago
Controlling and investing are completely different things. Control is exercised by the board and the management, and these are pretty much universally public for a large company. However, investment does not have to come with a seat on the
475.
by smsm42 2y ago
It may be "useful" for me to inspect your private bank accounts (maybe you are a good investor and I can learn something!) but it's no justification for me to violate your privacy. It may be very "useful" for me to
476.
by smsm42 2y ago
Asset seizure is not because the government needs the money. It's because you need the money to pay for lawyers, legal experts, etc., and if your assets are seized, you can't - so you are much easier to pressure into making a quic
477.
by smsm42 2y ago
I personally don't comprehend how these people are taking such a huge risks. Once bureaucrat wakes one morning in the wrong mood and your life is ruined at least for the next decade, maybe forever. Why would anyone do it - just for the
478.
by smsm42 2y ago
That's what jury instructions are for. The judge can instruct the jury to ignore pretty much any facts and consider any subset of what really happened that they want. So they'd just instruct "did they access the system? Were
479.
by smsm42 2y ago
Why bother if they could just put everyone involved on the "dangerous terrorist" list which has zero controls and zero accountability because "national security"? That's what happened to Tulsi Gabbard: https:/
480.
by smsm42 2y ago
> If there are not, then they are assumed to have not done so, and are not rioters, as I said above. That's bullshit. You are trying to purposely confuse the rules of criminal court (which are necessarily very strict about standar

More ›