Fine. Target the spending like this bill does.

In theory, yes. In practice, that is true only if the government is not having to spend more and more money to counterbalance wealth disparity, e.g with social programs to feed the poor, house the homeless, etc. And as long as it is much harder to solve that problem than to raise revenue, you can safely assume that governments will choose to raise revenue. :-)

IMO, the right thing to do here is to have an annual 0.5% property tax that covers non-cash financial implements, with an exception for the first ten million dollars or so, with the threshold automatically adjusted annually for inflation, tied to the CPI or some other standard inflationary metric. Require companies doing business with Californians to automatically report this to the FTB. Do not require individuals to do anything unless the value of their securities exceed that threshold. Send an assessment to anyone whose securities exceed that threshold.

There are five things about my proposal that make it superior:

• It applies more equally to a larger number of people who have far greater than average wealth, as well as corporations headquartered within the state.
• It is not a sudden huge tax burden that would be adequate to cause people to suddenly move out.
• It is an ongoing revenue stream, which means the impact on state revenue is more predictable.
• It won't cause people to wonder whether the government is going to decide to do it again at some arbitrary date in the future (less uncertainty).
• It will result in a small, but meaningful long-term reduction in the wealth gap between the wealthiest and poorest Californians on an ongoing basis.

Just saying. I'm not going to be upset if the bill passes, but I think there are much better ways to achieve the same goal in a fashion that will have a more meaningful, more long-term impact, rather than being a quick money grab that causes a short-term boost at the expense of potentially long-term losses.

Not remotely. US hospitals are required by federal law to provide emergency care, regardless of ability to pay.

It's absolutely not even the thousandth time a researcher has submitted an invalid report, then whined about not getting paid for it.

This is correct. Mod parent up.

But it's not a vuln. So it would be worth nothing.

For a report that isn't a vulnerability? Well, it would have cost them $50k, and they'd have gotten nothing for that money -- other than to encourage researchers to submit invalid reports.

From section B, existing companies appear to be required to immediately issue new stock such that the government owns half. Basically, at some magic threshold, you have to give half the company away. Seems like a good way to make the stock market crater. Also seems like a good way for AI companies to end up with hundreds of subsidiary companies with their own stock issues to keep the revenue of each individual company under that threshold.

In short, this is nuts.

Yeah, this can't work for all the reasons listed.

It's also not clear how you would even do something like that for a company like Google, where more than half the voting rights are controlled by the founders. Even if the company acquired every share that anyone puts on the market and gave them to the government, they can't compel individuals to sell their shares, so the government would never achieve a controlling interest.

And trying to do so such a mass acquisition would cause total chaos in the stock market, because it would take 17 years of investing the company's entire net profit for share buybacks, and the end result would effectively turn Google into a private company again.

This just doesn't seem well-thought-out to me. Start by passing laws requiring public companies to have at least two-thirds of their shares held by people who are not and have never been employees. Require companies to create new shares as needed until they are in compliance, spread over a maximum of... say ten years. Then tax net AI revenue at a higher rate, and use the additional funds to buy stock in those companies, if that's actually something the government wants to do. That approach actually makes sense, unlike what's proposed above (if I understand the proposal correctly).

Imagine if Toyota required all gas pumps to have a connector specific to Toyota with an authentication chip. :-D

I'm not sure how it's even possible for an iOS device to connect to an unpaired Bluetooth device unless the device is designed wrong (not asking for authentication). So for that one, I'd put at least half of the blame on the device manufacturer. On the flip side, it is mainly designed for elderly folks who usually aren't tech savvy, so I can at least understand why they might do that, so there's plenty of blame on Apple for auto-connecting without asking as well.

I would even argue that this is a potential security bug at that point. Connecting to an unknown device now gives that device the ability to send data to the iOS device in ways that would otherwise be unavailable to it. If any of those code paths contains a security vulnerability, combining that vulnerability with this auto-connect behavior creates the opportunity for literal drive-by attacks on iOS devices.

If you're a developer, please file a bug against Apple and mark it as an urgent security bug. Maybe that will get the real root cause (Apple's lack of any sort of option for asking the user before connecting to Bluetooth devices) fixed.

No, but you see, I don't want any commission on apps that aren't sold by Apple, for which Apple has no role in the creation or distribution of the app. They're not doing anything to earn that money.

The cost of developing the OS is paid for by the people buying hardware. After all, you can't sell hardware without the OS.

And while you could argue that the cost of developing the developer tools should be borne by developers (including Apple, who use those tools to building the OS, of course), Apple's rules mandating the use of their tools makes doing so problematic from an antitrust perspective. And either way, a software license that effectively takes a cut of sales on anything developed with that software is problematic at multiple levels. Nobody in their right minds would choose a product under those terms, absent some sort of monopolistic restrictions that compel such a choice.

The correct percentage is zero, with, at absolute most, some small fixed annual fee for program participation to compensate Apple for the limited overhead incurred in signing developers' keys. Any higher cost is effectively holding users' devices hostage, and is fundamentally unjust from a consumer protection perspective.

The only question is how long it takes for various countries' governments to come to the same conclusion and demand that mobile devices be liberated from compulsory profit-sharing done under the guise of "security".

iOS does the same thing. Constantly. A Bluetooth device goes out of range and the back in, and the iPhone is like "Squirrel!" and switches. But on iOS, it is even more obnoxious. I have a home phone system that can take calls from your cell phone, but only if you pick up the handset and answer the call. Otherwise, when it tries to send the call over to that Bluetooth "speaker", the handset rejects the connection request and the audio switches back to the device. But worse, it switches OFF the speakerphone mode and switches back to phone-to-the-ear mode. So not only do you completely lose five seconds of audio during the failed handshake, but you also end up not being able to hear afterwards until you manually turn the speakerphone mode back on.

I filed a bug about this at least five years ago and Apple still hasn't fixed it. And it pisses me off so much that if I had more free time, I'd develop my own whole f**king mobile OS just so that I could have full manual control over when the device switches sound outputs. The number of times I have wanted my device to switch automatically to Bluetooth is EXACTLY zero, because the device has no idea if earbuds are actually in my ears or headphones are on my head. It has no idea whether I'm actually in the same room as the speaker or ten feet away. It has no idea if I want to use the earbuds with my Mac or my iPhone. It has no idea if I want my device to connect to the sound system in our rehearsal room, or if one of my colleagues is about to use it with her phone. The phone should not be in control. The user should.

How hard is it to just have a f**king headphones icon at the top of the screen that the user can tap to switch to a different audio input/output, and make that button show a list of sources, including silently discovered (but not connected) Bluetooth sources, and automatically connect to the Bluetooth device in the background when you select it, and wait to change audio over to that Bluetooth device until after it has successfully connected and verified that it can actually pass audio to the device?

Hell, at this point, I'd settle for a setting that disables automatic connection to a specific Bluetooth device. We can turn off automatic association for WiFi. Why the h*** don't we have that for Bluetooth? What a**hole thought to himself, "This Bluetooth device is suddenly just barely within range; let's switch to it and see if we can make the user so angry that he throws his phone across the room so we can sell him a new phone?"

Seriously, this is something that should have been 100% solved twenty-five years ago, and sure as h*** should have been solved before companies started ripping the headphone jacks off of devices, and instead, the entire f**king industry has a user experience that can only be described as absolute garbage because nobody at any of these companies who is making bug prioritization decisions apparently has any Bluetooth gear that is paired with more than one f**king device. How is this simple and obvious design pattern still so badly broken across every major mobile platform? Why do users tolerate such actively user-hostile behavior from their devices? And why isn't fixing this s**tshow a P1/P0 bug?

I just don't get it.

Were you expecting bubbles to sink?