> Here's a thought experiment: Would you feel good if someone read your blog and learned something from it? Probably yes. Would you feel good if they passed along something they learned to others, likely in their own words? Probably yes. What if they couldn't recall, or didn't choose to reference where they saw it? Probably still yes, although (speaking personally) my ego would probably prefer they did credit. What if the reader who passed the learning along was the ai?
This is definitely an interesting way of looking at it. If your blog ends up in pre-training data, it will become part of the AI. Or if not, an AI might still fetch it when a user asks something specific. It reminds me of voting in a democracy, which many people consider a right and a duty - but in reality a single vote is hardly going to swing any election.
> But then I stopped because I had no return from it.
> The main reason was to get back into the habit of writing, and by extension thinking. ChatGPT has weakened my thinking capacity.
I can definitely relate, and find this true as well. While a (monetary) return has never a big focus for me. It's still hard to keep going over time with motivations around self improvement, accountability, etc.
To summarize the current Dutch personal income system: besides income from salary and income from own business (these are taxed quite high), income from investments (stocks, passive investments, real estate excluding your first home) is taxed quite low. The amount is simply a percentage based on the value (as per the start of the year) of your investments.
So in the Dutch tax system there is no difference between realized and unrealized gain. As such it doesn't matter when you buy/sell your investments. It doesn't impact your tax burden. The effect you get is that everyone's wealth just slowly erodes away, just like with inflation (unless your yield outpaces that).
It is essentially a wealth tax system. But I wouldn't call it low: currently, 6.17% fictional yield x 32% tax rate = 2% wealth tax rate - it is at the high end among countries with a wealth tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax)
One important thing the article omits is that there is threshold under which you don't pay anything in box 3. If you own less than 57.000 eur (or 114k for a family) you don't pay this tax.
That seems like a reasonable approach. That's much preferable to a tax on realized gains and a tax on unrealized gains. In the US when you buy a mutual fund you're already paying a "tax", for example, Fidelity eats 0.83% if you invest in their FSLVX mutual fund [1].
That's not a tax, that's the expense ratio, which is basically describing fees captured by the fund manager. Funds accessible to Dutch investors involve similar ERs. It's not an alternative.
It can be thought of the same way, but not from the perspective that's under discussion. As such it doesn't really add anything except a new perspective. Why are you introducing it, what does it add?
Calling the expense ratio a tax is like calling the labor cost of your car repair a tax. The expense ratio is what the fund manager is charging to cover their labor and expenses. It's not a tax on the transaction going to the government.
These laws may very well be terrible, but no need to mention on an internet forum you want to help (hire?) someone to mass murder people involved in making them. Jokes and sarcasm don't always land as intended.
As to a more constructive path: bureaucracy all over EU is definitely considered a big problem (for startups, and for many others) and there are a bunch of movements aimed at addressing them at all kinds of levels. For example look at the eu acc movement.
Reminds me of MSN back in the day. When I was a kid, there was a big trend of rushing home after school to log into this chat messenger on the computer, everyone would be online for a couple of hours at least.
I've always had issues with newer versions of node not running projects written with older node without upgrading the project and hoping all dependencies can be updated.
Fortunately, a lot of the earlier struggles came down to binary libraries. At this point, a lot of externalized libraries are now using webassembly targets or built-ins. SQLite being one of the more popular exceptions.
For the most part, I haven't had too much trouble the past couple years taking an existing project and running on a newer runtime. I have seen a lot of incompatible library breaks trying to update dependencies though.
Many node packages will have incompatible api breaks across years of development. More so if your TS types have changed in incompatible ways and you're stuck re-jiggering your code. Can usually resolve in a few days. My advice is to, in general plan on one day a month to upgrade all dependencies to their latest version, which reduces the exposure a lot and makes it easier to deal with than years later. It's worse on front end projects that use node for build tooling.
Ironically, I think the worst libraries for breaking changes are actually the testing libraries themselves. Having to jump 2-3 major versions to update to latest is an exercise in extreme frustration.
I appreciate a lot of what Deno is doing in their direction, though I've felt a few breaking changes along the way there too.
Note that it i18n isn't implemented correctly by any of the browser date pickers. Date controls aren't context sensitive like humans would write dates, they're client-culture-settings sensitive. So for anybody wanting to interact with both US sites and local sites (presumably quite a few people on the planet), they'll never be able to have appropriate browser date controls - either they get to have US controls on local sites, or local controls on US sites - and both are quite confusing, especially before you open the date control. Unopened date controls just show the client-culture-localized date, so if that doesn't match the site culture... it's going to be a mess.
Definitely not, from experience. Browser widgets need to be context sensitive, not client sensitive. There are (at least!) two simple reasons to see that: firstly, non-browser site provided controls are more common, and those are context sensitive, so it's quite unusual and surprising when a date-widget suddenly is not context sensitive merely because it's using the browser default. Secondly, date controls display dates even when unopened, and in that mode - the default, initial mode upon page load - they look like plain text with some mild styling to indicate interactivity. Dates in plain text should behave like other dates in plain text - i.e. context-sensitively.
To reiterate, there is an obvious, correct implementation here: let the site specify the content culture much like it does the language, and fall back to the user's choice when unspecified. The spec is asking for user confusion and data corruption as-is, which contributes to why usage of date controls remains fairly low.
This is missing the point to a degree that makes me think you're being intentionally obtuse, but maybe you're just ignorant so I'll bite. Banking computer errors can easily be rectified by humans, banks are regulated, your funds are at least partially guaranteed by the government (depending on where you live). The degree to which you're trusting computer programs with your finances is orders of magnitude less than with cryptocurrency where it's possible to lose any amount $ of asset value in an instant with absolutely no means of recourse.
Your bank analogy is silly and nowhere near analogous.
>CitiBank can't get the money back they accidentally transferred to another company.
Given it was an accidental early repayment of a loan, this isn't quite the slam dunk you think it is. If they had paid a company they didn't owe money to, they could get the money back through the courts.
The reason was not because of a repayment but because you wouldn't expect a respectable bank like CitiBank to do such a mistake.
> “To believe that Citibank, one of the most sophisticated financial institutions in the world, had made a mistake that had never happened before, to the tune of nearly $1 billion, would have been borderline irrational,” he wrote.
> I and OP are saying, the future will look more like crypto looks today. Not a bright future.
I don’t agree. I trust that loopholes like that will be slowly rectified with legislation if not present today.
In fact, it’s likely that crypto will (problematically?) be heading the same way. There was a recent case of a crypto buff who found a bug in some project and made off with a few $Million and I think the courts said he could be arrested and expected to return it, just as if he made off with cash. Importantly, they basically said “blockchain isn’t the source of truth to the courts” which was the guys defense. IMO a bright future for people, but not for a crypto venture.
> he could be arrested and expected to return it, just as if he made off with cash.
You have cash in your house and someone breaks in to steal everything. The insurance will _maybe_ cover your loss given that you secured it with basic security. _Maybe_ the police will investigate and arrest the burglar.
But even in this situation, you were better off putting your savings in any bank account where any fraudulent transaction can be reverted with a button.
Now, you have your crypto wallet. It gets emptied by some random bot. Well, you are as fucked than with your cash, except that nobody will cover your loss and nobody will investigate your case since the burglar is probably from another country.
By cash I meant fiat. But yea crypto adds a lot of risk to storing your monies.
You can insure the crypto you have. It’s probs expensive to the point of being not worth it.
People investigate crypto hacks though. And if the perpetrators are in a jurisdiction that you have some legal availability to you can totally use legal means. Basically any western nation will allow such a suit.
Coinbase shady stuff around listings has been an open secret in crypto, everyone knows about it. Dates all the way back to LTC listing and probably earlier.
https://askmike.org tech blog (slightly outdated, but working on it)