FICA is not an income tax, nor is it a regular tax used to fund the government. It is instead a tax used for one specific purpose: to fund one's *own* retirement. The more you pay in FICA withholdings, the more you get back per month in your retirement. Once you reach $176,000 in income (not $100,000), your FICA withholding stops. Also, the amount of the amount of Social Security payments you will receive in retirement, stops increasing. So essentially the tax stops when you reach the maximum benefit the government allows.

Well, that was the philosophy anyway. As with all taxation, the original concept and premise has been distorted and changed over time, the tax takers will always find ways to get their snouts into whatever stream of money they can, kind of like how tolls don't stop once a toll road is paid for.

I replied to this:

That surely *seems* to be talking about toxicity. Otherwise, why bring ricin into the conversation?

Ricin is far more toxic at lower concentrations than CO2, so the 1:1 comparison isn't valid.

CO2 becomes toxic at levels about 40,000 ppm, or 4%. https://www.co2meter.com/blogs...:

This doesn't mean the level of CO2 in the air isn't problematic, it just isn't toxic.

Cyanide begins to be "potentially harmful" at a level of 500 ppm, or 0.05%. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...:
CO2 begins to have harmful health effects at 40,000 ppm, or 4%. https://www.co2meter.com/blogs...:

So first of all, CO2 is far less toxic than cyanide, while your comparison implies that the CO2 is just as toxic as cyanide. It's not, cyanide is at least 80 times more toxic than cyanide.
Second, the level of cyanide you propose, 0.04%, is actually not generally problematic.

Toxicity is all about concentration, every substance has a concentration level that is toxic, even water and oxygen.

I'm not suggesting that the CO2 in the atmosphere is not problematic, only that it's not toxic.

I believe that it's important to discuss issues with people who disagree with you, because I believe we can learn from people with other viewpoints. However, you have repeatedly made false statements, such as:

Income tax for this income bracket start at 24% and increase to 37% for any income over $609,000. https://www.irs.gov/filing/fed...

When you make statements that are *that* wrong, I no longer find it useful to continue the discussion.

You have also repeatedly misquoted me and twisted what I said. I've already pointed out these instances, and won't do so again.

Expert witnesses aren't qualified to authenticate a video. And yes, I have actually served as an expert witness in a court case, so I have some knowledge of how that works. The expert witness can discuss the processes and methods used by the system, but they can't confirm that the specific video in question, shows what it purports to show.

Amazon and Flock can testify regarding the equipment and the legal chain of custody, but they can't confirm what the video seems to show, rubber stamp or not.

What makes you say I'm pretending? If the video has nothing to do with evidence for a crime, then why is it being presented in court? Defense can simply object on grounds that the video is not relevant.

Just assume you always are being filmed. That will be the closest possible assumption to the truth.

Estimates of wrongful conviction range from 1% to 2.5%. The Innocence Project says that the overwhelming majority of wrongful convictions are caused by eyewitness misidentification. https://innocenceproject.org/e... Misapplied forensic analysis, which would include video evidence, isn't even on their list of problems they find. https://innocenceproject.org/m... If video evidence were a common source of problematic arrests and convictions, you can bet it would be on their list of top causes.

Many times, while looking for answers on Google, I've encountered sloppy or just plain wrong answers from Reddit. I haven't gone there for answers for years, because the quality of responses has always been so low. It seems natural that AI answers that summarize human responses, would be equally inaccurate.

Warrants can indeed be based on unauthenticated video evidence. The standard for arrest is lower, requiring probable cause, but must be approved by a judge.It's not like an officer can just randomly decide to arrest you because he saw a video. He has to convince at least one judge that you are likely to have committed a crime based on that evidence.

Though hard data is hard to come by, I would suggest that video doorbells are more likely to increase the accuracy of arrests, not decrease. In any kind of problem-solving, more data is usually better than less data.

Wait, you're messing it all up the saying for the people who want a gun in every pocket!

Fall Short On Inspiring Students, Promoting Critical Thinking.

This is not meant as a put-down of teachers. Our teachers are doing good work in an often difficult environment. Some teachers do genuinely inspire their students.

My point is, is the expectation that AI should inspire students and promote critical thinking, a valid expectation?

Sounds like you might be in the market for a Moto G. Not so big, plenty of power, battery lasts 3 days on a charge.

For a video to be used in court, it has to be authenticated under oath. For example:
- A person must swear in court that the person depicted in a video, is the defendant.
- Someone familiar with the recording equipment must swear that the video is authentic and was not doctored in any way.
- Corroborating evidence must agree with the conclusions drawn from the video recording.

It's not X we're talking about here, where somebody can post a random video, and it goes viral because everybody "knows" it's true. In court, the evidence has to hold up under scrutiny and be supported by sworn statements.

Thank you, now you're starting to explain your position clearly.

We also defined "the rich" as those who have a lot of assets, and we established that only the rich (by that definition) pay taxes on assets. So pick whatever definition of wealth you like: the most income, or the most assets--by either definition, the rich pay the vast majority of taxes.

No, I don't remember that, because I never said that.

That qualifies as an actual position. But what is national wealth? How does it apply to a rich person? How would one measure it?