Yes, but for a wealthy person, this is a much tinier fraction of their wealth.

The fact remains for someone under the threshold of the standard deduction, the property tax is something they have to pay that they cannot deduct, but a landlord could.

As I said, it's deductable without regard to the standard deduction. You can take the standard deduction *and* the property tax deduction but only if you are a landlord. I don't know how you decided to say "No you can't deduct that, it gets deducted"

A common person is somewhat potentially in posession of hundreds of thousands in house value. They are relatively less likely to have that much in stock except maybe their 401k, which is totally different.

Yes, there's sales tax. Ordinary income gets taxed that way on top of income tax. The leveraging unrealized gains as a loan is the most famous loophole, re-upping through re-borrowing at payoff and juggling that until death where there's a much more favorable estate tax.

They're going to make 30% of the population immortal and you think the number is made up?

The counterpoint is that the valuation seems to be a fiction when it could represent a liability, and a real thing when they want to, say, take out a loan against it.

It's awfully convenient that it is selectively fictional.

Note that for more humble "wealth", folks are taxed. If you own the house you live in, even if you are not using it as a financial instrument but just a place to live, you get taxed on the unrealized "value" of the house. I don't get to say the market value of my house is a fiction since I'm not selling it.

So we have a double standard, rich people wealth is selectively fictional with respect to tax burden, common person wealth is very much considered real for taxation purposes.

Even wilder, if you live in your house, your property tax is subject to the standard deduction, which means folks generally don't get a deduction for it. If you own a house that you rent out to someone else, the property tax you pay is not subject to the deductible, and you can deduct it. The tax system rewards landlords more than homeowners.

It seems that either you assess a property tax on net worth analogous to what is imposed on common folk or at *least* tax loans against such assets that have nothing to do with paying for that asset.

I'd like to see corporations able to be tried as people. 5 year jail sentence = 5 year government ownership.

Tie it to GDP and use it to make sure no companies get too big to fail so we don't need to socialize the risk. It'll also assure that there's competition.

I think we're both somewhat sarcastic, but there is a certain beauty to using it as a way to foster competition and reduce the need for bail outs.

I'm not into socialism, but I'm not convinced it's worse than 1 company having control of what's today's entire GDP in the relatively short term. And that's what SpaceX is claiming they'll have in the case for their valuation.

It's cheaper in the short term to get going. Methods without the lock in tend to be a bit more expensive up front. Most businesses are looking only at the current quarter without regard for the longer term. Buying is cheaper than renting only after some period of time, and that period of time is nearly always longer than a quarter.

Also, they have established their way as 'the' way for any *serious* business to do things. So management doesn't want to be seen as failing to do 'the' thing.

While true, you trade the VMware problem for a vendor that actively wants you to stop using your preferred product and start renting from azure instead.

Unless you are all in on azure, Microsoft is a dubious choice as a virtualization solution.

That device is $200. A random household that grabs a roku stick from walmart for $20 is not the same target demographic.

Ignoring the fact that a large share of smart TVs use Roku as their OS as well. So those random TVs are either Google, Roku, or some vendor specific thing.

Management has been pretty adamant that we are at the point where a developer should *never* look at source code, and work purely on prose. So some dutiful people have taken it to that extreme.

So they tell me they spend hours in planning, reviewing the resultant generated plan to give themselves confidence that the resultant code should make sense, then let it chew on making test cases, making code, running the tests, deciding whether the test cases were bad or the code was bad when failures happen, repeating until it has satisfied itself and then it lands in the builds that the still-human QA get a pass at. Then the human QA person often basically says "WTF, this is broken as hell" and the developer starts over incorporating the feedback from the tester into the flow.

Now the folks that discard that mandate and use CodeGen for code completion, more curated prompting, they get respectable speedups, but no hope for management to just toss those long term if they still need to curate the CodeGen. So management *really* wants the narative to work for the case above. They have raised the question if the real problem is the human QA, it passes all the CodeGen test cases and it's own code review, so maybe the human QA is just raising a stink to look relevant... Doesn't help that management understands neither the customer, software, or how to develop code, so they base things largely on wishful thinking on what the cheapest and most convenient answer would be that supports them getting big bonuses.

While AI might not be to blame yet for those figures, it is well within the era of TikTok where material that doesn't hit within 30 seconds, the audience is out.

Note that Gemini is responding to a user and not actually running the command.

He didn't say Gemini tried to use that to adjust brightness nor did be say he asked to code a brightness change/ automate it. So I assumed he gave the answer that Gemini would have given a random person asking how to do it.

Problem is that doesn't work either, since the asset 'value' is unknown until transacted, and also ignores the stock value entirely, which is generally not nothing.

For my net worth, you would absolutely count my stock holdings, because at that relatively mundane level, I can probably sell it at the extrapolated price. If you have even a couple million dollars of stock in a big company, you will barely move the volume of trades for the day, so the extrapolation works in isolation.

But when the amount becomes a significant portion of typical volumes, then the transaction will not pan out at 'market rates'.

So we have this awkwardness of something that is definitely worth some cash, but the extrapolated value can't predict the real value, and the other measures would fall short.

I love how it's so blatantly obvious that they are leaning into software development and the models are assuming you are going to write some C# to adjust brightness.

No idea if that's even close to right and I'm not inclined to check, but the fact the first answer is not "Well, find the brightness buttons and press them" is telling.

In a sane world, you might expect the Windows 'integrated' AI to be wired up to just... adjust the brightness..

But *fine*, you don't wire it up, you might then at least hope the AI to say "That capability is not enabled, but here is some help text telling you to do it".

But nope, "That sounds like something an ioctl would do, and I don't know the ioctl per se, but let's just submit random bullshit ioctls and *maybe* it will happen to do as user requested?"