It would be a civil case. If they has some plausible scenario, then theoretically a jury can accept it as fact for the case.

Same but elixir was a huge step up. Not really sure if either is the right answer for implementing a Claude CLI

The loophole is they write up listing for positions that require skills that the citizens they are letting go don't have. It's obvious companies abuse the visa system, but guess who really pulls the strings in government.

generates piles of sex & porn jokes

Nobody wants Oracle products & pesky lawyers any more. AI ain't gonna save you. Sayonara

Literally all of what I described are exactly the sorts of tricks corporations pay to work around taxes. And in general, they're better at finding loopholes than governments are at closing loopholes. I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it's likely to be way, way, WAY harder to pull off than you think, at least when it comes to subscription-based streaming services.

Plus there's not a sale when you're doing subscription-based streaming. It is no different than going to another country and watching it and coming back with the memory of having watched it in a theater, minus the actual travel, plus the pixels having briefly appeared on a screen somewhere else. Most people will balk at paying tariffs without actually having something in the end for their troubles.

Well, that's great then. I pay for a subscription. I pay nothing extra for the imported content. So no tariff.

But wait, the subscription is from a foreign company. Why isn't anyone paying taxes on this? We should tax it all because the company is foreign.

Ah, now the company has an in-country subsidiary, and you're paying that company. And suddenly the fees are no longer taxed. Instead, the content that comes from overseas is taxed. But the in-country company pays a licensing fee that is an infinitesimal fraction of the subscription fee that you pay. Then, they pay a huge "trademark licensing fee" for the use of the Netflix/Hulu/Paramount Plus/* name, so that nearly all of the money you pay for your subscription goes to the parent company untaxed.

Good luck sorting it all out and proving that they're violating the law.

So no, for entirely virtual goods and intellectual property, it's almost never that simple. In fact, it is ridiculously hard, and enforcement is downright nightmarish. The term "Hollywood accounting" didn't become a household term for no reason.

Mod parent and all ancestors Funny. Crying doesn't help, so let's try Funny.

And I already checked the entire discussion for Funny and the rich target was again missed. At least that's what the moderators say, even though I think this FP branch went there...

"You want to get to Solution City? Sorry, you can't get there from here. All the roads have been torn up and replaced with fences with minefields underneath and drone patrols flying over."

Always feel a bit disappointed when a long discussion falls into oblivion without a Funny.

Thanks for the citation. My records do indicate I read it in 2011, but no details come to mind. The date indicates I probably got it from the Chiba library...

Headline to read "United States Massively Raises Tariffs, Shocked When World Refuses To Not Tax U.S. Digital Exports".

Some things are entirely predictable.

Mostly infeasibility. Taxing streaming means assigning a value to the content and sending someone a bill for the taxes, or else finding a way to absorb the taxes, and in any case, are you importing when they watch it, or when Netflix (or whoever) imports it onto their servers?

Once VPNs exist, it becomes impossible for a law like this to be enforced without enforcing strict age verification around the world, which is impossible given the technological state of many countries in the world (including the United States). It isn't even possible for companies to reliably comply with a law like this by blocking all access from Australia (because VPNs exist).

Once again, dumb legislators who don't understand technology have passed laws demanding something that is technologically infeasible (bans) instead of something that is technologically feasible (providing special accounts for underage people that give parental supervision, blaming the user if the user deliberately goes around that, and encouraging parents to report when their kids make friends with other kids who use fake ages to go around that).

The result, predictably, is that it doesn't work. And everyone who has ever worked in the tech industry is shocked in much the same way that we are shocked when the sun comes up in the morning, despite us demanding that it not come up until noon.

Erlang is... weird. 15 years ago I wanted to learn a new and different language and I tried it but i could not wrap my brain around some of its constructs. Then I read a paper by a guy claiming that some things were impossible to do with Erlang (with examples in other languages) and since I didn't have any projects to do with it, i basically forgot all about it.

That's because I know better. You'll figure it out someday as well. It's a little surprising you haven't figured it out already.

I suspect you might know already, even if you don't want to admit it. That's why you're attacking me instead of addressing my claim.

There are other dangers to using AI far worse than just some shoddy code and sketchy documentation, such as cognitive atrophy and loss of brain plasticity, that should concern you as well.

There is also a growing body of evidence that calls the productivity gains into question. Is AI really worth the cost?