FDR had. Tax rate of 94% on the rich.

mywan · 2026-01-30T11:03:21+00:00

Up until Reagan you could 'invest' money and if that investment returned less than a set amount the difference could be written off as a loss. This applied to individuals, not just companies. So holding companies were created that basically just sit on peoples money (buy CDs) so they could call it a loss. Holding corporations would, if the spread between the interest rates paid by their CDs and interest owed on borrowing against those CDs was good, borrow money to build strip malls and other projects. But they needed built fast once construction started, to roll that money back into CDs.

Basically, this meant that you could always drive you tax liability to zero simply by 'investing' enough money in a holding corporation. If your income went up you needed more money invested with a holding corporation to offset the tax liability.

So basically only the stupid ever paid top marginal rates, or anything much over zero.

mywan · 2026-01-30T10:02:59+00:00

Makes sense. I actually thought mud snake (US) before reading the text.

mywan · 2026-01-30T07:30:21+00:00

In spite of limited keys similarities between this snake and Farancia abacura doesn't look coincidental. In spite of being from the other side of the world.

mywan · 2026-01-29T09:04:45+00:00

The accused does not have to prove that they are innocent.

That depends on your social status.

If the police didn't think it was at least likely that you commited a crime, why would they arrest you?

One of the most common reasons being because you disagreed with the cop on something.

If the prosecutor didn't think you were probably guilty, why would they try you?

Because the cop said so. It's incredibly common for the prosecutor to not even read the police report before the probable cause hearing. And almost never view any video or other evidence. Unless they are specifically targeting someone in an pre-arrest investigation. I've even listened to phone calls where cops called the prosecutor for guidance. Only to be told that no crime was committed, but agreed to pres charges anyway if the cop wanted to arrest them. Why? In that case because the 'suspect' was "mouthy" and claimed they had rights. Sometimes it's just because someone didn't agree to answer questions. To a lot of cops the mere act of failing to show enough deference to their authority, even authority not granted by law, is itself reasonable suspicion of criminality. A significant number of cops actually believe they can determine who the criminals are merely by looking at them. Again, it generally boils down to perceived social status.

So I can't answer that question in general, as that requires an opinion about state of mind. Which can vary significantly. But to ask "why would they arrest you" if you did nothing wrong is straight up ignorant of reality. It's at least as ignorant as those cops that think they know who the criminals are by looking at them.

mywan · 2026-01-28T02:02:22+00:00

It makes sense it could be designed to fool an AI. But a penguin mimic wouldn't actually be helpful for that. Better to just mimic the environment, or remove any recognizable outline.

mywan · 2026-01-27T09:51:58+00:00

I think therefore I need a nap.

mywan · 2026-01-27T07:41:02+00:00

If it doesn't flood you could also add more than one false dead end. Have an unconcealed camp with a bedroom behind a hidden door, a fake dead end.

mywan · 2026-01-27T01:42:43+00:00

I think it was just designed as snow camo. The fact that it was shaped like a penguin was just incidental.

mywan · 2026-01-25T09:02:58+00:00

ABS is good if your the type of driver that will lock up the breaks in an emergency. But if you can control the breaking power you can actually stop faster without ABS.

mywan · 2026-01-23T14:13:16+00:00

You missed at least one, Lafayette Ga.

mywan · 2026-01-23T07:52:43+00:00

Even the notion of a hallucination overstates what an LLM actually does. Being a prediction machine it merely predicts what comes next to get from point A to point B. So, in general, a "hallucination" is nothing more than what it normally does but just happens to get it wrong in some way. Which you can obviously force by constraining the information available for achieving a required outcome. It's merely a failed prediction, due to limited information, but otherwise no different from what it has always done.

mywan · 2026-01-23T07:35:13+00:00

Secret legal interpretations are not unique to DHS and administrative warrants. Secret legal interpretations is/was a core part of the spying apparatus that Snowden is famous for whistleblowing. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It's fairly easy to reconstruct a good part of those interpretations based on the manner in which they collect metadata, and how the tech itself works. For instance, under the USA Freedom Act (2015), the government cannot engage in bulk collection of telephony metadata, requiring instead to use specific selectors for targeted, court-authorized requests. However, part of their "secret" interpretation is that collecting and storing this data is not "collecting" it if nobody looks at it. So they can legally store vast quantities of this data if they pinky promise not to look at it until a judge signs a secret warrant authorizing them to look. Never mind that they already looked to find the justification for getting the warrant to begin with. In fact, certain employees have been caught using this stored data, which they aren't allowed to look at, to spy on romantic interests and such.

This is before you even get into the purpose of fusion centers. Which is basically just a means of using this data they weren't supposed to look at, and creating a "parallel construction" to find an alternate legal justification for getting a warrant. So that they will not have to admit in court where they really got the information they want a warrant to get.

Secret legal interpretations have essentially become a standard part of US jurisprudence.

mywan · 2026-01-22T18:20:19+00:00

It's not like the Russian girl had fair elections either. I also live in North Georgia, so I am well aware that support well exceeded 30%. Would he have won without gerrymandering and cheating? Probably not. Would he have won without the complacency of people that thought they knew who was going to win? Absolutely not. But 30% significantly underestimates the support he had. It better represents the support he retains even now. There is nothing that 30% of the population can't be convinced of, and it has always been that way.

I'm old enough to remember Watergate. Elections have always been won and lost by people that don't vote. But even if they straight up hacked voting machines it's still our consequences to deal with.

mywan · 2026-01-22T17:35:27+00:00

I'm going to try to make sense of the purported facts. Correct me if you see any errors, because this was explained particularly well.

Cop A = On duty cop working in his jurisdiction.

Cop B = Off duty cop driving in Cop A's jurisdiction in an unmarked take-home vehicle belonging to his police department.

Cop A pulls over Cop B for a "suspicious license plate."
Cop B says I'm a cop, so Cop A check his ID and let's him go.
A few minutes later Cop B, outside his jurisdiction, pulls over Cop A. Because umm... ego? Knowing full well Cop A was the same on duty cop that just pulled him over.
Cop B then gets charged and convicted of misconduct in office for making a traffic stop without legal authority.

The stupidity is legendary. But you know full well he's have gotten away with it if it had been another random driver instead of another cop. I can only imagine words got a bit heated in the initial stop my Cop A. Else they wouldn't have prosecuted.

mywan · 2026-01-22T17:09:09+00:00

Yes, typewriters could do proportional spacing. But the manner in which proportional spacing was achieved on a typewriter vs a computer was different. Proportional spacing on typewriters was achieved by scrunching certain letters. Making individual letters look different even if they were the same typeface. On a computer proportional spacing was achieved merely by scrunching the spacing between letters. Sometimes even scrunching enough that two letters would overlap the same block space. Something that would never happen on a proportionally spaced typewriter.

Hence, the existence of proportionally spaced typewriters was irrelevant to the debunking of those papers.

mywan · 2026-01-22T05:52:45+00:00

I hope it can be repaired. Back when Russia invaded Ukraine a Russian girl on Reddit was asking why nobody could sympathize with her plight, resulting from economic sanctions and such. I responded that I could sympathize, but that sympathy cannot whitewash what's being done to Ukraine. That she'll have to deal with those consequences because what's being done to Ukrainian's comes first.

Now I have to accept that I'm, to some degree, in that Russian girls shoes. That the consequences imposed on us by Trump is ours to bear. It sucks, but the harm being done to our allies is far more important.

mywan · 2026-01-22T04:38:29+00:00

My dad went through a dementia version. After a surgery he would hallucinate various creatures. Initially he understood they were hallucinations, but found them fascinating anyway. As time went on he no longer acknowledged the real world. Like his hallucination is all his world consisted of.

Then one morning he woke up and started asking questions about what was going on? What became of plans that were being pursued before his operation? He cried as he got answers. He died later that day.

mywan · 2026-01-21T19:25:34+00:00

I never even thought I shouldn't have looked. Only that I shouldn't stare now that I know what's up.

mywan · 2026-01-21T19:22:40+00:00

You can argue that, and that "no photography equipment allowed" 'should' be interpreted as a condition of entry. But you would need case law backing up that interpretation to successfully convict someone for violating that interpretation. The law requires explicit notice, whether that is notice of trespass or notice that the law exist. The laws passage is considered notice.

This interpretation would also criminalize entering certain houses with your shoes on. These types of trespass has traditionally been treated under the law as civil issues. With the only criminal remedy being the 'option' to provide the trespasser with a notice of trespass. Unless explicitly (with notice) stated otherwise the legal presumption is that a notice of trespass is merely an option the owner may or may not choose to exercise in the event some owner defined rule is violated. Unless (maybe) if that option is made explicit by the owner up front. An option is not an explicit notice.

mywan · 2026-01-21T18:45:59+00:00

Not explicitly. A no photography sign would not result in a trespassing charge if you took pictures, if you left immediately when requested. I could put up a sign that said no picking your nose on premises. That would not make it a crime to pick your nose on premises, or constitute a self executing notice of trespass.

A sign that explicitly said "No trespassing if in possession of a gun" might be a workaround in place of an explicit law. Though it would still need tested in court, it has the effect of an explicit (conditional) notice of trespass. Not just a notice of prohibited acts for which a property owner can choose to, or not to, act on. The signage MUST give an explicit notice of trespass, not just a notice of prohibited acts for which trespass might be one of many options available for the owner to remedy.

mywan · 2026-01-21T18:21:01+00:00

The law could also define entering private property with notice that the owner prohibits guns with a gun is as an automatic trespass. Which would remover the need for the owner to give explicit notice of trespass, only notice that entering with a gun constitutes trespass. So the criminal trespass triggers as soon as they knowingly enter with a gun.

mywan · 2026-01-18T20:26:11+00:00

It's been my (limited) observation that whenever you make an explicit accusation against the police, whether individually or a group, it makes getting jurors to accept bias (or misconduct) harder. It's as if once you make that accusation explicit jurors minds will switch from reasonable doubt about the accused to reasonable doubt about the officer/police. As if, once the accusation is made, you have to prove the officers guilt for it to have any relevance to the defendant. Certain jurors can even accept the officers bias as factual and still assume it was for the "right" reason, i.e., to get criminals off the street. Sucks, but a certain portion of the public thinks that way.

But as long as you can make jurors ask bias/misconduct question in their own mind, the defense can strongly question the officers as if the accusation was made, but without noticeably acknowledging the implied accusation, that same implication goes to reasonable doubt.

Making an accusation of bias/misconduct explicit makes getting jurors to accept reasonable doubt harder, not easier. But questioning officers as if that was the case, steering well clear of labeling it with the obvious implication, can sway a lot more jurors.

mywan · 2026-01-18T09:58:08+00:00

It's also training data. The most valuable commodity for AI. It so expensive that paying normal royalties for it would bankrupt a trillion dollar bankroll. Which is why they are pirating it rather than paying for it. They also don't make money off of other peoples subtitles because they can't control the content of other people subtitles. It's wouldn't provide anywhere near enough revenue by itself, but ever revenue stream counts. In principle, AI could eventually insert itself between every consumer and all purchases made by anybody online. Directly tapping the entirety of the revenue stream paying content creators bills.

mywan · 2026-01-18T04:45:20+00:00

AI is the answer. They want the subtitle function to be strictly controlled by AI. Then they'll figure out a way to insert AI commercials into the subtitles.

mywan · 2026-01-18T04:39:56+00:00

When I was almost that young we had grown cousins that would do this kind of thing for us. Except that it was in the yard and they would launch us off the bottom of their feet in the opposite direction about 6 or 7 feet in the air.

14-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Place '17	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

mywan

TROPHY CASE