tesmar2

23 ms·

31.
by tesmar2 6y ago
And if you make more than a million dollars a year? With a potential wealth tax added? Certainly the highest tax state. It gets stupid. At least in Idaho everyone is treated equally.
32.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Edited with examples.
33.
by tesmar2 6y ago
> they need to pay for them by funding schools I want a populace educated in those fields, and there are much betters way to do it than robbing the citizenry. One way might be to agree to work for a company afterwards who might pay for i
34.
by tesmar2 6y ago
> low cost Not low cost. They tax the hell out of their citizens.
35.
by tesmar2 6y ago
> On the other hand, I don't think it's a healthy situation if companies need to own the entire hardware platform to be safe from another company's whims. That's the risk you take working on someone else's platfo
36.
by tesmar2 6y ago
No, lol. I don't think I'd want it either. But it's a moot point, currently.
37.
by tesmar2 6y ago
I never said it was the only barrier, but it is far and away the primary barrier. Google was laying fiber in many cities but the regulatory burden was quite stifling. As far as justification, it goes the other way around. If you want to int
38.
by tesmar2 6y ago
> the presumption should be regulation. No. The presumption should be making it easy to enable competition, which the current rules don't do. Make it easy for Google to come in and lay fiber on their own dime.
39.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Instead of such an overreach, we should go the other direction towards a freer market. We should get rid of the red tape that lets these cable companies hold a monopoly so that companies like Google can come in and lay fiber at their own ex
40.
by tesmar2 6y ago
So for search they are not a monopoly, not even close. For iOS/Android, I'm not seeing a problem just because they are popular. Is there some specific legislation you would like passed which would interfere and most likely overrea
41.
by tesmar2 6y ago
No, you can't be Twitter, a platform under the law and enjoying all the associated perks, and then censor the New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop. You step into publisher territory at that point and open yourself up to
42.
by tesmar2 6y ago
The problem is that Twitter is acting illegally with its censorship, since it enjoys platform status and all the perks associated, but can ban conservative content. Everyone should be on Twitter, saying whatever non-illegal political conten
43.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Because of Youtube/Twitter/FB selective showing of content outside of the good faith clause, they should be liable, yes. Keep the law, just enforce it. If you're not going to enforce it, you might as well get rid of it. They
44.
by tesmar2 6y ago
No, we're saying that currently the platforms enjoy unlimited immunity. Courts have departed from the most natural reading of the text by giving internet companies immunity for their own content. Section 230(c)(1) protects a company on
45.
by tesmar2 6y ago
I'm not talking about why someone might move out of Silicon Valley, but as a response to the gp, explaining that the policies aren't being imported from CA. They're being home grown, in TX, in the government schools. If the p
46.
by tesmar2 6y ago
I'd imagine the owners will, but who knows about the employees. Liberalization in general is happening through the government schools. Pull the kids out, teach them at home or put them in a private school you trust.
47.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Then 230 protections should be removed.
48.
by tesmar2 6y ago
The article on HN about the ban got something like 3 /thousand/ comments, very high for HN. I don't think these people are out of the mainstream, I think a big nerve was hit.
49.
by tesmar2 6y ago
> Brave’s shortcomings What would those be?
50.
by tesmar2 6y ago
> The issue is that Google can unilaterally kill or make other businesses through their search. I don't see how this answers my statement. Of course they can, it's their platform. I'm sure MS pushes their new browser on bi
51.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Google would lose a lot of customers if they did that. If that's ok with them, it's their business to drive into the ground.
52.
by tesmar2 6y ago
I switched to Bing for search, it's great. > it could utterly devastate all sorts of players in the market That's the risk you take if you bank your entire business off of your search rank on Google. You should diversify accord
53.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Hopefully not. They are not a monopoly and doing so would be a severe overreach. Edit: Looks like many don't understand that you have alternatives to Google and you can use them.
54.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Ah thanks!
55.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Is there any note on if F# will gain concepts/type classes?
56.
by tesmar2 6y ago
I understand. What euphemism should I use in the future when discussing what goes on when making these vaccines?
57.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Once again, tell that to those poor souls. Even if I believed your numbers, this does not take away your right to self defense from a robber or tyrant.
58.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Right but this whole thing could have been avoided, impropriety and all, if the incentive were eliminated, which also has the tidy side effect of aligning with the spirit of the 2nd amendment. > There is no reason head of security at App
59.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Infringing on tyrants’ right to life is the point of the 2nd amendment.
60.
by tesmar2 6y ago
Yes but you shouldn’t need a permit to get one, in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Having permits just makes 2 classes of people, those with connections to the sheriff and regular Joes.

More ›