KevonLooney

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

I mean, I would assume that someone who doesn't get a new enough car doesn't have enough money to pay for commercial insurance. Also offering people rides on the street is a bad idea (because you can get robbed) and possibly illegal. This is just running an unlicensed taxi service. Gypsy cabs have been around for hundreds of years. It's not a good idea.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago (5 children)

That's a terrible idea. His insurance won't cover him in an accident. If a passenger is injured he may be on the hook for the medical care.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Plus, as soon as the cars can drive themselves people will stop needing Uber in many cases.

No parking? Just tell your car to go park on a street 10 blocks away.

Drunk? Car drives itself while you sleep.

Going to the airport? Car drops you off and returns home. Car also picks you up when you are back.

This is combined with the fact that people will do more disgusting things in an Uber without the driver there. If you have ever driven for Uber, you know that 10% of people are trying to eat or drink in the car. They are going to spill and it's going to end up like the back of a bus.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not just that. People fought duels over their honor in the past. We don't have duels anymore, so we shouldn't rely on a judge to recuse themselves.

It is a founding concept of European law that no one should be a judge in their own case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Uh, that guy actually did steal literal IP. Uber was founded by an asshole who didn't care about breaking the law.

six weeks before his resignation, Levandowski downloaded all these highly confidential files and proprietary design files

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It happens all the time. Almost everyone who starts a new tech company has worked in a different one.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

In California it's totally fine. That's why there's so many tech startups there. It's not taxes.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (6 children)

That's not really how IP works. Just because you think of something while eating a sandwich that Google paid for, that doesn't mean they own it. Your brain is not "company resources". The sandwich was not necessary for the brainstorm.

It's smarter to think up good ideas away from the office, but it's completely legal to take knowledge and experience with you when you leave the company.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Because different layers protect you against different things. It's like how you have anti-lock brakes, a seatbelt, an airbag, and crumple zones on your car. You don't just have one thing to protect you.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It saved him like several hundred per month.

If you live within biking distance of Google, you are spending a ton of money on rent. Work from home is way cheaper, especially since you can just live somewhere with sub-million houses.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwism

At the head of this pantheon was Yahweh, held in an especially high regard as the two Israelite kingdoms' national god.[3] Some scholars hold that the goddess Asherah was worshipped as Yahweh's consort,[3] though other scholars disagree.[4] Following this duo were second-tier gods and goddesses, such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's not. Investors literally only care about money.

Rich people don't have "class consciousness" because they all want to be better and richer than other rich people. That's what "keeping up with the Joneses" (or Kardashians) is. You don't want the Joneses to improve, because that hurts you.

It's a zero-sum game at the top. If your neighbor buys a Mercedes, you need to buy a Maserati. Like I said, neo-marxism fundamentally misunderstands rich people.

 

I had an idea that would allow people to buy their own homes that they are currently renting:

  1. Every home gets appraised to determine what it would sell for. This is done by the county and is used for property taxes too.
  2. Every renter is allowed to buy a percentage of their primary residence from the owner. The owner has no choice in this. It's a requirement for being able to rent a property. Edit: Since people are confused about this, the renter is not required to buy anything. They have an option to buy.
  3. Renters can pay as little as $100 extra per month and the county puts their percentage ownership on the deed. If the home is sold, the renter can't be kicked out involuntarily. If they do leave, they get the percentage of home value they own.

Pros:

  • This would avoid the issue of high interest rates hurting primary homeownership.
  • This would blunt the impact of corporate landlords having a monopoly where they refuse to sell. They are forced to sell at a fair price.
  • This would create a simple decision between owning their home and spending money on luxuries or eating out.

Cons:

  • This would hurt small landlords who would have their property bought out from under them. This is actually a good thing because the benefits of rising property values are now shared.
  • The implementation is hard. This is actually a good thing because bad landlords would sell property they didn't want to manage, lowering prices for renters who want to buy.
  • It would cost the county money to hire appraisers. But this could be paid for by increased property taxes due to better appraisals.
  • Property taxes would go up for landlords. But this would be good, as it encourages them to sell the property. This appraisal process and increased property taxes wouldn't affect people who just lived in their home without charging rent.
 

You can't cut any taxes or programs to fund your idea. Nothing else in your government is going to change. It can't be a tax that you avoid somehow. The money comes from you and similar people in your situation. Don't try to get around it in some way.

What would you pay more taxes to support?

view more: next ›