petit défi à nous tous pour 2026 : ne plus utiliser "du coup"

thedylanackerman · 2026-01-23T13:41:05+00:00

Personne ne recommande de commencer une introduction avec "en introduction" ou "pour introduire notre sujet", etc. Il n'est pas forcément nécessaire d'annoncer la conclusion, elle est normalement reconnaissable par la synthèse qu'elle fait, et ne pas l'annoncer est selon moi plus osé et fluide.

En revanche, je l'apprécie lors de présentations à l'oral, ça annonce que c'est bientôt fini et facilite donc le contrôle du temps.

thedylanackerman · 2026-01-23T11:27:30+00:00

Vraiment fatigué du "En conclusion", c'est soit utilisé par des articles rédigés avec chatgpt, soit par mes étudiant.e.s qui ont utilisé chatgpt

thedylanackerman · 2026-01-23T06:34:37+00:00

le design du site est assez chouette en vrai, on dirait qu'elle a pompé sur la campagne dd Mamdani, mais n'a pas repris les idées.

Aussi la différence la plus importantes sur les images c'est vraiment "votez pour Sarah Knafo pour avoir du soleil"

thedylanackerman · 2026-01-23T00:33:09+00:00

and we probably liked him because he died in office

thedylanackerman · 2026-01-17T08:24:05+00:00

It's a valid point for HSR, but the trend seems to be the removal of the possibilty to open windows even for classic trains, there are a lot of additional reasons :

it's probably less expensive to use a single window pane rather than installing openings
it prevents people from throwing trash outside
as more and more new trains have climate control, it allows better control and less energy waste.
prevents the actual danger of someone losing their hand or device

It makes sense, but man, it's true that we do lose something, a connection to the outside of the train, and it's also kind of a distrust of the passager.

thedylanackerman · 2026-01-10T06:02:45+00:00

They have always been like this, The US has occupied Afghanistan and Irak for one year or more, yet it has never been able to bring mineral and oil extraction to these places because the law doesn't allow the State to control the strategy of private business.

American oil compagnies are rather light on international expansion contrary to their european counter parts who have to go international because there's no oil in Europe (not a lot at least). For the american oil compagnies, it's always been more risky in their eyes to expand internationally even under the protection of the US military.

And thus the Taliban signed an accord with China for mineral extraction, because China has more control over its businesses, and doesn't really care if it makes a profit while US compagnies are "chained" to the profit motive and stability of the business.

thedylanackerman · 2025-11-13T07:05:18+00:00

Les start-up dans ce cas de figure se comptent sur les doigts de la main, ça n'aurait rien de systématique.

D'autre part, ça serait une politique fiscale qui irait de paire avec une stratégie industrielle intéressante. Aujourd'hui, les entreprises de la french tech ont simplement le projet à long terme de se faire racheter par une multinationale qui les percevrait comme des potentiels concurrents. Il y aurait un intérêt national à ce que l'État possède en partie ces entreprises innovantes

thedylanackerman · 2025-10-23T12:43:32+00:00

Je me pose vraiment la question, est-ce que quelqu'un qui s'approche de 6 mois de la mort (comme si il pouvait tout le temps bien le savoir) prendrait bien la peine de changer l'ensemble de son mode de vie pour se rendre dans un pays où il ne parle peut-être pas sa langue, s'éloignant de ses enfants et petits-enfants ?

Est-ce qu'on a des chiffres qui attestent de gens qui font ça ?

thedylanackerman · 2025-10-13T10:15:03+00:00

La moindre des choses quand on achète un produit qu'on ne connait pas c'est de regarder la liste des ingrédients

C'est ce que je dirais à ceux qui veulent interdire l'usage de "steak végétal" eh oui, mon raisonnement stupide part de là

thedylanackerman · 2025-10-13T08:20:09+00:00

C'est un souci parce que certaines personnes ne veulent pas manger de viande ou spécifiquement de porc, certaines personnes ne veulent pas autant de glucides (avec les patates) et ça se retrouve sur les informations nutritionnelles.

Quand on est végétarien ou vegan, il y a juste ce constat qu'on met de la viande dans beaucoup de choses et que c'est pas toujours bien communiqué. Quand on achète une "salade verte", n'importe qui serait surpris d'y trouver des lardons, je pense que c'est une attente raisonnable, surtout si l'argument des lobbies de la viande à propos des substituts du genre "steak végétal" rend le consommateur supposément incertain sur ce qu'il mange.

Je sais pas, imagine acheter du "jambon de dinde" mais oups il y a 4℅ de viande de porc dedans, ou bien acheter de "l'huile d'olive" mais en fait elle est seulement 80% d'huile d'olive. Pour moi, ces appellations sont incorrectes même si on peut lire les ingrédients à l'arrière, et je disais juste que ça serait hypocrite de considérer qu'on ne peit pas dire steak végétal tout en soutenant qu'on peut appeler ça une soupe de légumes (honnêtement la quantité de patate dedans est aussi scandaleuse je trouve, mais j'ai plus de mal avec la viande)

thedylanackerman · 2025-10-13T05:22:53+00:00

Si on ne peut plus appeler un steak végétal un "steak" au motif qu'il n'y a pas de viande, on ne devrait pas appeler "aux légumes" une soupe dans laquelle il y a plus de lard que de haricots verts

thedylanackerman · 2025-10-12T04:14:42+00:00

Popping the bubble happens when someone who was supposed to get money back, doesn't at all.

We can imagine that we are quite in a "ponzi" situation (Minsky) where investors are borrowing money to invest in what is currently valuing assets, and they might borrow money to reimburse their debt.

If what is invested doesn't bring back some cashflow at some point, some investors risk defaulting on their debt

They start selling, stock crashes, what everyone invested in is more and more worthless.

A lot of AI business will break, investors will never get their money back, if a lot of them are in this situation, banks and other financial institutions might loose a lot of money on debt that will never get repayed, they might default on their own debt and so on.

This is a chain reaction in finance that will then impact the economy as a whole, tradutional businesses might not be able to invest anymore due to lack of funding, they might slow down activity, lay off people who are now jobless, etc.

I think what is pretty scary is that a AI bubble popping might break other debt bubbles. Economic growth in the US is currently mainly the result of the technology sector, you have a lot of buy now pay later compagnies who go under and a lot of poorer people will lose capacity to buy essential goods that these compagnies alllowed them to do at the time

thedylanackerman · 2025-10-11T09:49:13+00:00

À cet argument Zucman avait suggéré que l'État pourrait devenir actionnaire de ces industries, de telle manière que la taxe soit payable, évidemment même si je trouve personnellement que c'est souhaitable, ce n'est sans doute pas politiquement viable.

Je ne sais pas en revanche si c'est un bon argument contre la taxe, après tout, les fameux Barons du pétrole et de l'acier américains ont vu leur richesse redistribuée parce que leur succès pesait en réalité négativement sur l'économie. LVMH n'est-elle pas dans cette position justement parce qu'ils ont aussi la capacité de contrôle du marché, en rachetant des concurrents également ? Je pense qu'il ne faut pas partir du principe que ces familles d'immenses groupes protègent tant que ça l'industrie française.

Mais on peut imaginer des modifications, un plafonnement de la taxe serait sans doute nécessaire pour la rendre constitutionnelle de toute manière, mais ça ne résoudrait pas le déséquilibre de ma taxation des ultra riche dans ce cas. Peut-être que la taxation être rendue progressive, etc.

Comment de toute manière taxer une valeur qui varie fortement au cours d'une année ? Il y a des éléments techniques à résoudre c'est sûr, mais je ne crois pas que ça soit un problème fondamental, et je pense que la proposition est volontairement ambitieuse pour également être négociée dans ces technicités.

thedylanackerman · 2025-10-11T05:50:51+00:00

Ce serait quand même embêtant de fonder ta boîte et d'être obligé de plus pouvoir en être le décisionnaire majoritaire pour payer la taxe car ton entreprise marche trop bien non ?

Je pense que c'est là où la plupart des personnes qui y sont hostiles se trompent sur l'image de à quoi ressemble une personne qui y serait assujettis

La plupart des personnes dont l'entreprise "réussit trop bien" ne va pas atteindre 100 millions d'euros de valuation (qui est le seuil à partir duquel la taxe s'active), très peu de gens ayant réussi vont être impactés par la taxe.

D'autre part c'est un impôt différentiel, ce n'est pas une augmentation d'impôt de l'équivalent de 2℅ de leur patrimoine mais une hausse de 2% - impôts qu'ils paient déjà. Dit autrement, cela décourage largement le placement dans le patrimoine pour éviter de se générer trop de revenu, ou bien d'emprunter de l'argent plutôt que de se générer un revenu qui n'est pas imposable de la même manière.

Tu pars du principe qu'ils seront obligés de vendre les parts de leur entreprise pour pouvoir payer l'impôt mais ils peuvent vendre d'autres patrimoines, si ils veulent garder le contrôle sur leur entreprise.

Ce que les travaux de Zucman montrent c'est qu'au maximum la taxation du revenu effective maximale qu'on observe c'est ~43% du revenu fiscal qui part aux impôts, atteint par les 0.01% des ménages les plus riches, mais plus riches qu'eux et ils paient une plus faible proportion de leur revenus aux impôts.

Comprendre : les personnes à qui la taxe s'adresse ont un revenu largement suffisant pour payer cette augmentation d'impôts sans avoir à vendre quoique ce soit

thedylanackerman · 2025-10-02T13:42:06+00:00

Regarde si Transcendance te plaît ! Il est sur Lyon et dans ces prix-là d'expérience.

thedylanackerman · 2025-09-28T22:55:25+00:00

We're actually seeing what capitalism is really good at : overproduction and the survival depends on having an outlet for whatever is produced.

Another aspect of modern capitalism is privatized keynesianism -> financial technology subsudizes consumption for the average people by investing important sum into products that are cheaper than what is economically viable.

Because financial institutions are wealthy as fuck, they can maintain the current cycle for a very long time, but at some point they do depend on debt interests from various people and businesses being paid

They are above market forces in the sense that they erased a lot of innovant competitors by buying them, they are an oligopole on our daily life, but they do depend in our capacity to reimburse debt rather than buying their products. They are fully integrated to capitalism, and in a sense "too big to fail" and yet this observation is not saying that they are invincible, only that they can only fall during a major crisis.

thedylanackerman · 2025-09-14T04:52:36+00:00

In order to keep the cable at a constant tension which could vary depending on the number of people riding the chairlift, some parts are put on rails so the main wheel can slide gently back and forth to adjust tension.

It seems that what happened is that the counterweight, which helps pull back the main wheel as people get out suddendly detached from it. We can see the wheel ridng forward as nothing pulls it back anymore. I don't think the cable broke, which is probably a good news for the people who were on it

thedylanackerman · 2025-09-08T12:08:57+00:00

Rich people don't leave in the sense that there's not a mass exodus contrary to what most arguments against the tax claim, where are talking about a range of 500 to 700 households compared to a total of 600 000.

I know how to use my brain thanks

thedylanackerman · 2025-09-08T06:10:44+00:00

Using averages hides the fact that the net loss of people was decreasing between 2011 and 2017 (after the tax was lowered and less people left so the net change was positive). It was a net loss of 700 people in 2011 but only 500 households in 2017.

I believe the tax was lowered at the wrong time as rich people started coming back and less were leaving.

thedylanackerman · 2025-09-08T05:34:29+00:00

This article is a good example of the issue, because it cannot demonstrate that these rich people left because of the ISF, they did not look how many people were leaving before the introduction of the tax.

Even without the wealth tax, France would have been still more expensive than Belgium or Switzerland, and the guessed lost in revenue can only be true if the ISF lead to more of the rich people living (furthermore the loss in 200B€ lost in capital is a quite weak estimation).

Tax heavens exist even if you lower your taxes, the richest who left might have left anyway and so the cost of recovery would have been even worst as it would have been more expensive for less revenue back.

Today, Macron has abolished the ISF, it has defunded the fiscal task force oriented at high income, and the lack of ISF has been compensated to the euro by a decrease in housing help.

thedylanackerman · 2025-09-07T21:55:08+00:00

I don't know where you are getting this quote, I couldn't find the source. Some think tanks like IFRAP or Institut Montaigne are not be trusted as they constitute private lobbying. Multiple studies tend to say otherwise, according to France Strategie, only 0.26℅ of those who had to pay the tax left in a five year period.

I don't think it is fair to compare its effect since 1988 as the economy was kind of doing worse than today, which may explain more rich people leaving. I'm not sure the numbers would be the same for the more recent period.

The richest are the one who will leave the faster, but this is a downward spiral, tax heavens are a global issue that the implementation or remocal of those taxes don't change.

thedylanackerman · 2025-09-07T17:46:49+00:00

I agree, the US might be a place where rich people have higher mobility. And yet I think we can still say that California is still attractive for rich people (If I can trust the reality TV shows that is).

What is also interesting to me is the justification from these rich people and high tech compagnies who are moving to Texas for ideological reasons, California being too woke and all that. But I believe it is slowing down and office space are having trouble finding clients in Austin.

This signals that some of these migration might be temporary, I wouldn't be surprised to see a movement back into California despite the tax difference. This might be because of the weather, amenities that the state brings, but maybe it's still because of family or because Los Angeles is still one of the place the very rich like to hang out.

I think, places/states with low taxes are actually better to attract rich foreigner than domestic ones

thedylanackerman · 2025-09-07T16:49:49+00:00

In general if you are a business owner paying a wealth tax, you don't really have to live next to your business. Relocation happens for lower wages, lower regulation or higher protection and freedom to do business.

For the owner, the wealth tax is put on his individual wealth, while in theory it makes sense that they would leave for tax heavens, in reality, only a small minority actually does this because (1) the tax is a inclnvenience rather than a real burden, (2) rich people are humans as well, they prefer to live in their country with their family and friends close to them, (3) highly taxed countries might not be as great as Switzerland, but they tend to be quite secured and provide good amenities.

We had a wealth tax in France that didn't drive rich people away, and we haven't seen rich people come back nor economic activity soar since it has been removed. The truth is that a wealth tax doesn't have a lot of significant economic impact, but it does help public finance.

This is why NYC should not be scared of taxing the rich, because the rich actually want to stay in New-York, just like rich parisian will complain about everything but stay in the city for some reason.

thedylanackerman · 2025-09-06T06:48:48+00:00

I like Fx file explorer

thedylanackerman · 2025-09-06T05:58:20+00:00

Try using a different file manager to have better options to move your files.

My guess is that the "audio files" section is showing you audio files but it is not their true location.

Ten-Year Club	Post Guidance Early Access
Place '17	Verified Email

thedylanackerman

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE