I have no issue with it taking a reasonable time. But this complaint is now decades old. They've had government handouts to provide better rural access based on fees for the entirety of the century so far IIRC or close enough.
And we've been paying the fees for that long. So if that money hasn't been used for what I paid for I want it back.

Central Park is "publicly available," but that doesn't mean you have the right to cut down the trees in it and sell them for lumber. The AI companies are selling lumber and when you ask them where they got it, they shrug and say "publicly available sources."

It's confusing because of non-unique names, but I haven't been able to find a CV, bio, or publication list... nothing to confirm that he is at NASA, was at NASA, or that he's the top electrostatics expert at NASA.

If the Future "Fund" didn't have a endowment--an endowment in the form of cash "fiat" money--or at least a portfolio of conservative assets denominated in "fiat" money--then it was always a shaky reed. If they were gambling on their research funding coming from promise of future cash flow, from investment activity based on FTT play money, then they need to be big boys and accept their gambling losses for what they are.

Gotta catch 'em all!

Well, maybe not all, every trainer knows you can't catch humans. Why bother trying?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assert that actual expats know more about the process than the average US-only citizen.

But if you'd prefer, here's WaPo saying the same damned thing. Happy?

Yep, we 100% agree that's how to report realized gains or losses. Now name another capital asset (HUD forms and excise tax notwithstanding, obviously) that you're taxed on receipt rather than just on disposition.

I have no idea how that's even supposed to work, and I'm seriously trying to stay legal (a few grand a year isn't worth prison time). Neither Schedule D nor 8949 make a lick of sense unless you have a value for the "Proceeds" column - Which you don't have unless you've sold something. And sure, go ahead and put a huge unsubstantiated number on your schedule 1 line 8 and see how well that goes for you.

Pretty much the only way I've figured out to comply with that ridiculous requirement is to make a semi-fake wash "sale" of each new year's new mining payouts every December 31st - Which itself is a grey area but since it would always be a gain, never a loss, it's technically kosher; so at least if I get a CP2501 or similar I'll have paid "enough" taxes already and any penalties would be $0.

The IRS is, bluntly, trying to play both sides of the fence on this one. They're treating crypto as money on receipt, and as property on disposition. And have given us no reasonable way to reconcile that discrepancy.

That's not possible to do at the moment.

And it was fairly difficult even before the pandemic. It's like getting divorced from the judge overseeing the divorce itself, and goes down pretty much exactly the way you'd expect.

Taxes on what, exactly?

As the haters are so quick to point out, crypto isn't money. Until an exchange occurs between crypto and fiat (or something meaningfully measurable in fiat), Uncle Sam has absolutely no say in the matter.

Or to put that another way, taxing bitcoin is the single most legitimizing action the government could take as regards crypto. And if crypto is legit, fiat... Isn't.

And yes, for the record I fully realize we technically owe taxes even on bartered goods and services. Unless you're eBay, though, the way the IRS measures that simply doesn't work. If I buy a car with bitcoin, sure, FMV is easy. If I exchange two thinly-traded altcoins... It's a complete farce to say that either side should pay taxes, and even the IRS can't tell you how to measure the FMV of that transaction (go ahead, call their help line - I did in 2019, and the response was crickets).

You're missing the point, but so is the SEC.

My company recently switched from using totally unlogged Skype to fully logged Teams. Take a wild guess what percent of casual conversations between coworkers now occur via secure 3rd party channels that HR (or PHBs) can't intimidate IT into turning over. I'll give you a hint - I don't even know if my Teams client is still working since we got 21H2.

The problem here isn't a technical or legal problem, it's a human one. Until someone can guarantee me that my chat transcripts can't be touched without my knowledge and a court order... Sorry, but the likelihood of getting caught using my own personal phone to chat with coworkers doing the same is simply much, much lower than the likelihood of having HR use those exact transcripts to go fishing during the next "right-sizing".

To change the direction of even a single industry would be a great achievement for any individual. But to change the direction of multiple industries? Thatâ(TM)s so rare as to defy belief. If this was written into a book you would think it was fiction. And of course he didnâ(TM)t personally invent the EV or space travel or internet commerce. That criticism is so misguided. The history of Tesla is well-known; Musk invested in an existing EV company and then ousted the founders. But what this criticism misses is that Musk saw the potential to change the world whereas the founders only saw an expensive toy for the rich. And not only did Musk have a vision to change the world he also managed to convince 1000s of engineers, designers, mechanics, to get behind his vision and implement it. Elon also sold the idea to the public and arguably thatâ(TM)s an even more impressive achievement. That is the rare quality that Elon Musk has which makes him so influential; the ability to lead. Itâ(TM)s so rare a quality that I can think of only a handful of people like him; Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Steve Jobs. These people also strode into existing industries, kicked over the tables, declared the status quo to be bunk and showed them the future. Watching the reaction of the car industry go from denial to acceptance has been so goddamn sweet. Especially on slashdot where most of the denizens are programmers or engineers, its easy to forget that your work means nothing if nobody uses it. The ability to see a vision for the future, bring several disciplines together to achieve that vision, give them direction and funding, and keep pushing until the vision is realised, too many people underestimate how difficult that is, how insanely rare that is, and how important it is to recognise and celebrate the few individuals who are capable of doing it.

At least as much if not more has been said about that by government officials

But I am not a government official and you accused me of holding that position, when in the very post you were replying to I had clearly stated the exact opposite position. As I said before, you are dishonest and you argue in bad faith.

I don't think there has been coercion of that sort.

Well thats because you are deaf dumb and blind. In this thread I have posted links to actual documented on record cases of government coercion. But you "dont think" and that is obvious in everything you have written

Not even a little bit.

Yes, very much so. Fascist governments start by taking over the newspapers and censoring any opinions that arent aligned with the government. I think the best example from recent history is from Serbia. If you dont know the details now is a good time to learn.

No one is talking about the government banning speech,

As I pointed out above, the government is coercing these tech-giants to de-platform and censor on the governments behalf. Recall that Zuckerberg was firmly on the side of zero censorship. Then the senate hauled his ass into congress, reminded him that section 230 could be revoked at a moments notice, and suddenly Zuckerberg is singing a different tune. And thats just one example. You would have to be deaf dumb and blind to not see the obvious coercion.

although your side of this stupid and dangerous dispute is certainly urging that the government compel speech,

I have already stated my opinion on Facebook censoring people. They can. They simply shouldnt. Nothing was said about the government compelling them to allow speech. The exact opposite in fact; the government is coercing them to censor. You are dishonest and arguing in bad faith.

Coward.

Idiot.

That guy who keeps trying to evade slashdots spam filters so he can spam every thread with ascii art swastikas is definitely having his opinion censored.

But if he posted his swastikas to a swastika appreciation thread on a swastika friendly forum, thats not spam so surely that would be ok under your rules. Apparently not because those sites keep getting censored too. Their web-hosting, their dns, their payment processors, all revoked, censored for having the wrong ideas. And although we can all agree that swastika posters are assholes, and their ideas are not just wrong but also repulsive, the problem is the censorship doesnt end there. People are being censored and deplatformed today for having the wrong opinions about far less extreme topics.

I assume I have a standing invitation to voice my opinion in your bedroom with a bullhorn at two in the morning then?

Somebody sharing the wrong opinion in a forum I dont read with people I dont know, is nothing at all like you in my bedroom with a bullhorn. The former is somebody being wrong - what they say. The latter is harassment - how they say it. The former is on-topic discussion in a public forum. The latter is unwanted intrusion into a private space. The former is legally protected speech that the government cant censor (so they get their tech-giants to de-platform it instead). The latter is illegal and the government can most definitely arrest you for harassment and breaking entering into my private bedroom.

In every meaningful sense - the method, the outcome, the legality, the consent - your analogy falls flat. They are nothing alike. They arent even on the same planet. That you even wrote your comment and thought it was a winning argument proves my earlier point.

If their speech is harmful, then any rational person would, at the absolute minimum seek to avoid enabling them in the slightest.

The same reasoning was used to ban religious speech in soviet Russia. And currently used by the Chinese to censor the Uyghur Muslims. In fact its the exact same reasoning used by every fascist in human history. "Those people have dangerous ideas so we are silencing them for the Public Good." And the citizens dutifully cheer and wave their little flags and agree that Bad people are Bad and their Bad ideas should be silenced, but quietly they pray they won't be next.