I don't know if I would even call this clickbait but this is not an argument against transparency. It's an argument against poor regulations. I would argue Prop 65 is the opposite of transparency because just about everything causes cancer so people have learned to ignore the warning. It was a law that was passed in a time when we didn't have as much information as we do now and it should be updated and made more specific.
> You know what would be better than a privacy policy? A privacy law.
I agree but I wouldn't call privacy policies transparent. They are made of vague legal speak like "we may or may not share your information with advertisers and partners." There are good arguments in here but they are framed against the wrong target.
The framing being used is that what we currently do is "pro-transparency." We make laws to "inform" consumers and then trust that the market will sort the rest out. Cory rejects this as a workable tactic, because transparency, even real, full transparency, just becomes noise that people filter out when making decisions. He argues that if you want good outcomes you need legislation other than forcing transparency.
The flip way to argue that is that one way to get good legislation is that some level of transparency is in place so that people can make informed opinions on what is good.
I don't think I disagree with the conclusion but my point is that we don't have real transparency and a lot of these transparency laws actually obscure information to confuse the consumer. So I guess the issue I'm taking here is that these laws he is attacking aren't real transparency.
No it's just nonsense you invented because you were unwilling to do any research.
The actual situation was that the board refused classification where an adult was intentionally pretending to be an underage child not that they looked like one.
I added an edit to correct myself however this was not something I invented. This story goes back to 09 - 2010. I will confess I didn't do any research to confirm though and that was my bad.
FWIW, I can confirm that user 9283409232 didn't make that up. I heard that multiple reputable places, years ago.
And it was believable, given a history of genuine but inept attempts by some to address real societal problems. (As well as given the history of fake attempts to solve problems for political points for "doing something". And also given the history of "won't someone think of the children" disingenuous pretexts often used by others to advance unrelated goals.) Basically, no one is surprised when many governments do something that seems nonsensical.
So, accusing someone of making up a story of a government doing something odd in this space might be hasty.
I suspect better would be to give a quick check and then "I couldn't find a reference to that; do you have a link?"
Interestingly I actually heard this in Australia many years ago. I assumed it was real (as an Australian) but the answer is more complicated (with the actual answer being no)
This is your opinion and it is not a hypothetical scenario. Many people including myself received grant aid to attend classes both in person and virtual. If it wasn't for that flexibility I likely wouldn't have be able to go.
I’m glad it worked for you, however this is not an opinion, it’s a worldview, and it is unethical and unscrupulous to use government funding to pay people to remotely attend a community college course. This is several steps beyond the intent of a community college, which is simply to provide free education for working people in the community.
Yes if my taxes can be used to "unethically" and "unscrupulously" build roads I didn't ask for then I'm fine with taxes being used to pay for education.
> Taking just one or two classes per term is an old tradition at community colleges.
Not for people fresh out of high school. You are usually trying to graduate with a Bachelor's in 4 years so you do full-time at community college for 2 years to get your AA-T and then transfer to a university for your last 2 years. California in particular has a program that lets you transfer get a guaranteed transfer to any state university or participating private university once you get your AA-T.
The fact you think the "libs" are the only ones who can virtue signal says a lot about you. The far-right have an entire playbook of dog whistles just for virtue signaling.
Reminds me of Trump's first term where he said if we stopped testing for Covid, we'd stop catching new cases and case numbers would go down. If you stop testing for vulnerabilities then vulnerabilities go down. Easy stuff.
As your article states, even in 2022 this was done as well. Restricting China from getting top of the line GPUs is nothing new or unique to the current administration.
The difference is that Nvidia actually worked with the previous administration, had enough time to design chips that met the requirements and wasn’t stuck holding inventory.
Not holding my breath, Weimar industrialists were backing the conservative-Nazi alliance until conservatives were all gone. Modern American barons are of the same foreseeing capabilities (unless they’re Thiel who wants monarchy or whatever).
The problem with US debt comes from their unwillingness to tax billionaires. We just passed even more tax cuts for rich people and are scheduled to add more to the debt. Just tax rich people, it's not complicated.
From their unwillingness to tax people. American tax revenue as a fraction of GDP is 6-7 percentage points lower than in the average OECD country. That gap is over $1.5 trillion/year.
The economic projections I’ve seen have shown taxing the rich will increase tax revenue by around 1.5% of GDP. We’re slated to borrow 7.3%. That math doesn’t work. To be fair, the republican math with cuts (assuming no tax cuts) also doesn’t work. Neither side is serious about this issue.
How can there possibly be an answer to "how much will tax revenue increase if we tax the rich" without specifying how much we tax the rich, and how we define the rich?
Taxing billionaires is just one of many necessary steps but it is the most important and vital step in my opinion. There are fundamental problems with how the US is run down to the local level but it starts with taxing billionaires and getting money out of politics.
What does the ideal solution look like to you? Are you happy with what DOGE is doing and if not what would you change? I'm asking genuinely because I don't think enough people put forth ideas in their own right.
Billionaires are the ones actively fucking the world and seeking tax cuts but you're right, there are plenty of multimillionaires that need to be paying their share.
I fully expect uncomfortable spending cuts with raising taxes while trying to balance economic growth in order to correct this problem. Im dissatisfied with what both sides of the isle are actually doing.
If you use a reasonable definition of rich like 150k for individuals then yes it could work. But that's not what people actually mean when they say it.
The rich half of the US populus own about $156 trillion. Thus therefore as a conclusion therefrom you only have to take 23% from half the population. Lets make it progressive from 0% at average wealth to 52% at the top.
Much less than Roosevelt's 94%
But I'm neither democrat nor republican, it might not make sense to anyone :)
Silly you indeed. I have no idea how you read that and interpret it as "taxing billionaires will pay the entire debt." As I mentioned in another comment, taxing billionaires is crucial step but one of many needed.
> I have no idea how you read that and interpret it as "taxing billionaires will pay the entire debt."
It’s the direct, logical implication of the statement and you are obviously moving the goalposts after the fact. The truth is, any tax increases will have to affect just about everyone who pays taxes in order to make any real difference. There is no possible way that taxing billionaires more is even a significant chunk of the solution.
I'm not moving goalpost, you just read my statement wrong. There are many steps to take but taxing billionaires is a crucial step to getting the funding to fix many of the other problems that cities don't have the money to tackle.
reply