PokedBear

The step up basis makes sense in a world where you still have to pay substantial inheritance taxes. But with minimal to no inheritance taxes, the step up is a giveaway.

The bigger difference between an income tax and a wealth tax isn't the numbers. A wealth tax, for better or worse requires some realization of paper gains that very wealthy folks normally go to great lengths to avoid because their wealth is largely based on a broadly shared polite fiction. So imposing some realization of that wealth requires accountability that doesn't always pan out.

Business PBX folks really like being able to forward calls off to a cell phone while preserving the original caller's caller ID. And making that work requires allowing arbitrary spoofing. There is some work being done to append the stir/shaken signature from the original caller in a different sip header so the call can still be traced, but ultimately caller id is just too limited of a data framework to relay all the info.

The problem with people invoking and using the castle doctrine is that while they might be right to engage in self-defense in that situation, they also would very likely be dead at the end of the encounter.

It will be interesting to see how they handle packages from the various f-droid repos. F-droid builds and signs all their apps themselves, so will all of f-droid be covered by a single signing key and developer account? Or will the fact that they take apps from lots of folks bar them from an account?

It doesn't need a lot of speculative value in order to be useful. It just needs enough value to make the transactions meaningful. And that means people are a lot less likely to drive up the price via speculation.

The '25 ioniq 5's bring a lot of the buttons back. The climate ones are capacative, but are dedicated buttons.

Reversibility is a trade-off. It's great if you are on the sending end of a transaction. It can be a nightmare on the receiving end. Irreversibility is the other way around. And both approaches have different costs and assumptions.

> As much as people bandy the term around, copyright has never applied to input, and the output of a tool is the responsibility of the end user.

Where this breaks down though is that contributory infringement is a still a thing if you offer a service aids in copyright infringement and you don't do "enough" to stop it.

Ie, it would all be on the end user for folks that self host or rent hardware and run an LLM or Gen Art AI model themselves. But folks that offer a consumer level end to end service like ChatGPT or MidJourney could be on the hook.

The solution here is for Spacex to tighten up their planned reentry corridors. At this point they should have more than enough experience in their ops to narrow down the likely debris field to a narrow strip that can be easily flown around instead of the huge swath of Indian Ocean they'd been allowing for.

The dilemma here is that the incentive to capture value for yourself comes from the legitimate fear that someone else will try to capture all that residual value you leave on the table instead of allowing that value to be socialized in a healthy way. Which means enshitification becomes the default for everyone.

There's a lot of good cryptography and game theory and economic incentive alignment that can be done to constrain and limit the trust assumptions people have to make. But ultimately, all this does is redistribute and dilute those trust assumptions. It doesn't eliminate them. There is no such thing as "trustlessness".

One of the people behind SSB was Paul Frazee. He's now the CTO of BlueSky.

Reversibility is great for consumers who are sending money in exchange for products and services. It can be a nightmare for people who receive the money and are providing the products and services.

And it isn't just businesses who carry this risk. If a business was depending on a large inflow to make payroll, and that inflow gets reversed, the people who are expecting payment for their labor also are subject to a payment reversal.

There's definitely a lot of benefits to reversibility, but it has very real costs and tradeoffs.