It's almost certainly all operational expense, same as the salary paid, which means it's "written off". But "write off" doesn't mean "it's like you didn't have to pay it", it just means that it's subtracted from revenues when calculating profits. Net is that writing something off saves about 21% (the corporate tax rate) of the amount written off.

It's the same as your personal taxes, more or less. When you donate to charity, you get to subtract the donation from your adjusted gross income. If you make $100k and donate $10k, then it's as if you made $90k. Supposing (for simplicity) you pay a flat 20% tax rate, and you didn't make the donation, you'd pay $100k * 0.2 = $20k in taxes. Having made the donation, though, you only pay $90k * 0.2 = $18k in taxes. You donated $10k and basically got $2k of it back from Uncle Sam so the donation only cost you $8k out of pocket. But you still ended up $8k poorer (but the charity is $10k richer!).

The principle is the same with corporate "write-offs", though the mechanics are different.

Silicon Valley companies will pay the $100k. The positions typically pay $500k+ (base + bonus + equity + benefits) and companies are accustomed to spending tens of thousands of dollars in addition to deal with the H1B filings, and for other immigration services, including fees for green card filings, etc. An additional $100k is painful, but since it's good for 6 years, they're already paying around $3M, so it's only a ~3.5% increase.

I used it quite a bit and found it pretty decent. I never used a modem, though, so you may be right about that.

Except time and willpower. However, the McDonald's analogy does hold up -- nobody is ever going to get rich flipping burgers at McDonald's, precisely because it requires so little skill to do that job, making McDonald's workers completely fungible. Since anyone can man a grill, no one is going to command a salary much more than what a high schooler will agree to do it for.

Many require you to use the phone app for MFA, even if you're using a web browser.

I guess there's the option of just doing all your banking in person, at a physical branch location... or at least an ATM.

He has. For a long time. The problem is, apparently he doesn't like to pay them, and they're not aware of that before the fact.

Assuming for the sake of argument that what Dre does is creative and that he is talented, very little of making great music is about the mechanical process of executing on the generation and recording of sound. That's important, but there are a lot more people who can do that than create something that is new, and good.

Creation (in any medium) is about the ideas, and about the ability to recognize what works well and what doesn't. Given that, I could completely see AI being a useful tool for a creative, talented artist. They have to supply the ideas, in the form of prompts, and they have to recognize whether the results are good. The AI is just a time-saving device for the middle step of generating representations of the ideas.

The economic problem with having an AI produce music for you is, you never get the opportunity to learn how to produce it for yourself. At the end of the day, you're paying them $200/month for the privilege of remaining unskilled, and you're competing against everyone else who knows how to enter "write a catchy song for me" into a prompt box. You can't make money that way, because the moment you do, the AI companies (who own all of the talent and all of the production machinery) can simply appropriate your income stream for themselves.

It's the difference playing Guitar Hero and taking guitar lessons -- both let you feel like you're a competent musician, but only the latter will ever get you a career as a musician.

We reached peak woke four years ago. DEI is dead. The corpse is still twitching in a few corners of academia, but that's about it.

I don't think the center left ever moved. The center left just didn't push back against the far left because why alienate them? I mean, the far left is perfectly capable of just deciding to sit out the elections. A non-trivial number did exactly that in 2024 because they were mad that Biden didn't take a hard line with Israel. And given that the GOP has turned insane...

IMO, the center left does need to push back against the far left. But I don't think the mainstream Democrats are going to get that message until they get smacked in the face with just how out of step a lot of those far left positions are. It's not going to be DEI/woke crap now, it's going to be the full on socialists.

But the only way for the voters to deliver that much-needed smack is by handing them a severe electoral loss. Which also isn't going to happen because the GOP has gone insane.

Likewise, the GOP needs to be smacked in the face with a solid loss to bring them back to reality. But that's not going to happen because DSA...

I think for the next cycle or three, we're going to be stuck with two increasingly-extremist, increasingly out-of-touch parties, and neither is going to get the kind of big loss needed to wake them up.

People don't do that. Even if they come to their senses the vast majority will just not want to talk about it... or else they're revise history and say they never actually supported what they support.

I meant restrict, of course.

They'll have the same problem with Rust, which also uses pointers all over the place (though it calls them references). The difference is that the no hopers will be unable to get the Rust code to compile, while with C they can get it to build... and then hope that valgrind can find the ways it's broken -- because it is broken. They might be able to get the Rust to compile by eschewing pointers and cloning every damned thing so the borrow checker will shut up, making their code so inefficient that they might as well just write Javascript, or else by using raw pointers in unsafe blocks -- but unsafe Rust is actually more unsafe than C, with a lot more rules you have to follow and things you have to be careful about, so their code will be far less likely to work than it would in C, even.

(For those who haven't looked into it, the rules the borrow checker enforces don't go away just because you're using raw pointers in an unsafe block. The borrow checker stops enforcing the rules but the compiler absolutely continues assuming they're properly followed. In other words, in unsafe blocks you have to be the borrow checker. C intentionally gives up some performance to be more forgiving. Rust. Does. Not.

For one example: The C compiler assumes that any pointer may be aliased and so generates extra instructions to read and write through pointers when if it could know that the pointer was the only thing in the system referencing that memory it could optimize those away. The Rust compiler assumes that if you have a non-const pointer to some memory, that pointer is the only way in the program to modify that memory, so the compiler is free to optimize away any unnecessary reads or writes, and to reorder things as convenient (you can get this behavior in C if you tag your pointers with strict). If you stay in the safe Rust pool, using references, the bounds checker ensures that the compiler's assumptions are always true. If you write unsafe, though... it's on you. Screw it up and your code will be broken in crazy-subtle ways.)

SCO, the Santa Cruz Operation, was a pretty cool company that had nothing to do with any of this crap. They sold a pretty decent x86 Unix throughout the 80s and early 90s, but ultimately were forced out of business because they found it hard to compete with the Microsoft marketing machine pushing Windows NT on one side, and free, open source Linux on the other side.

Unable to continue, they sold their Unix rights to Caldera Systems, renamed themselves Tarantella and were ultimately bought out by Sun Microsystems. It was Caldera that ultimately morphed into The SCO Group, then became a copyright troll hoping to score a settlement with deep-pockets IBM when it realized that it couldn't make UnixWare competitive either.

As we did 20 years ago, we should call the original company SCO and label the copyright troll TSG to keep them straight. They were not in any way the same company; there were no leaders or employees or buildings or anything in common.

I suppose. I find AI prose increasingly-grating. I have to read it all day while working and when I hit some web page that uses all the same obnoxious phrasing and structure I tend to just close the tab and look for a different source.

You missed a few. It's "worth being precise about" something that is "load-bearing". Don't forget to sharpen a distinction, too.

Action-at-a-distance! Get your action-at-a-distance here or there! Packaged in a wave! No field of enquiry, is too small.

You, sir, do you want to read the story? Only two cents!

Extra! Extra!