Erlich_Bachman

Yeah because it worked so well for piracy. /s

All phones in most countries, amazon, steam, microsoft acount, spotify etc etc.

Look up Lightning Network.

To realize that gain you actually need to sell the Apple stock. It would be perfectly possible (as I am proposing) and viable to make that transaction be forced to go through US. You could still sell the "Shell" to someone without US knowing about it, but once you actually would want to do something with that gained money - you would need to sell the underlying stock and deal with IRS.

The government takes tax from the same amount of money twice. How is that not well described by the term "double taxation"?

Why not just tax any sale of a stock or a divident payout in the country of the company, - not the country of owner of said stock? These operations have to go through country of company anyway...

That is just a very terrible idea.

Well it is tax money that is sent to the government and that is taken from the total amount of money that the company receives for the products it provides. If we are talking about some moral side of the issue (as the articles tries to, if I'm not mistaken), then why wouldn't we count it?

I'm not saying that the company shouldn't pay a direct tax on their profit, but that I want to know the real number counting everything. Focusing on some fraction of that number can be misleading, especially when the editors try to distill it into a short title, with possible agendas no less.

> long time

4 decades is not a long time. It is a minuscule amount of time in the grand scheme of things.

Is that calculation really correct? Does it count tax for all the employees? Does it count all specialized tax for things like gas or VAT, for all the things Netflix buys in their operation? What about all the media that Netflix buys and produces? What about all the taxes levied there on salaries and other activities? The article also talks about "income" and not "revenue"...

> plenty of great niche hardware keyboard phones

Plenty? In what way? There seems to be one company that makes a keyboard phone with outdated CPUs and other hardware, to make ends meet and be able to produce such a phone economically.

Does it look like they have some good avenues of fixing that?

Well look at something that might change your mind: there is this device called Muse headband that actually uses your brain signals to help you meditate. Meditation is a tool of mindfulness, and with some progress it helps exactly that: control and know your own thoughts.

So already at this (primitive) iteration of tech there is a device that connects to your brain and helps you do something, something that you would find very useful no less, if your goal is to learn to operate your brain in the best way possible. Now this is even possible with this (primitive) iteration of this tech. The effectiveness is reported by a lot of people, and it is also calibrated on tibetan monks who meditate for a living. There is also a similar institutional device with more thorough processes called "40 years of zen" (but you have to go to a laboratory).

Now imagine what the next iteration would make possible, and for example how good would a device like this be if it could actually read direct signals from the brain instead of having to read them through the skin?

Being careful is always good, but the dangers are overestimated and the benefits underestimated, by most people.

In terms of security, you could solve 80% of problems you mention by a hardware onoff switch, which would cost next to nothing. A large part of rest of the problems could be solved by limiting the information flow into a certain format/context: imagine just a 4K screen inside your mind that you can look at if you wish, but you always know that information comes from that screen and not from somewhere else. Even just such a dumb usage would be tremendous upgrade to humans everywhere. How do we know it won't give you any "thoughts"? Just limit the information flow to pixels. The interface won't even know what information you look at your internal screen, the most mischievous thing it will be able to do is to maybe make things black-and-white, or make something flicker in an annoying manner.

"50 years where instead of computers and computing being a tool to be mastered and controlled by humans, we've seen computers switch the power dynamic and render us humans the tools."?

What?? Where exactly in the current world do you see this? It doesn't reflect reality at all...