peterdn (u/peterdn) - Readit News

peterdn commented on Android developer verification: Early access starts android-developers.google... · Posted by u/erohead

atoav · 2 months ago

So your father: 1. Downloaded a weird file from a stranger

2. Went to the settings and about pyone sceeen

3. Tapped the thing 5 times to activate developer mode

4. Activated installing from third party sources despite the warning there

5. Installed the APK

May I suggest the problem is not that this is possible, but a lack of education? If your father is the type that would jump into the bathtub with a toaster because someone on whatsapp told them to do so, I am afraid it is not the existence of toasters that is the issue.

peterdn · 2 months ago

Yes, education around these scams and their methods could be better, but there is also a reason they target the elderly and vulnerable. Unless something else terrible happens, I assume I will count in one or both of those groups eventually. I feel like when I get there, I would appreciate empathy rather than disdain, if I were ever taken advantage of.

Regardless, you do not actually need to enable developer settings to install APKs from unknown sources (at least, not on my Samsung). When you open an APK from within another app (e.g. Google Drive or WhatsApp), Android "helpfully" forwards you straight to the relevant security settings page, allowing you to immediately toggle the "Install unknown apps" permission for that specific app. It's a streamlined flow, only a couple of taps, no scrolling/searching/reading, therefore likely easy to coach a victim into performing.

So, I expect what the Android team is alluding to in the original post is to enable additional friction like you describe.

peterdn commented on Android developer verification: Early access starts android-developers.google... · Posted by u/erohead

imp0cat · 2 months ago

There definitely is such setting, but I have no idea when it was introduced. S21 is an old phone (not to disparage it in any way).

    Your Galaxy phone or tablet is configured by default to prevent the installation of apps from sources other than the Play Store and Galaxy Store.

https://www.samsung.com/ae/support/mobile-devices/how-to-ena...

peterdn · 2 months ago

Hah, yes, this is also how S21 works. But to still refute the OP's point: (1) it is in stock settings, you do not need to enable the developer settings menu via any arcane method. (2) When you tap on an APK in e.g. Google Drive or WhatsApp, Android "helpfully" forwards you straight to this settings page, allowing you to immediately toggle the "Install unknown apps" and installation will begin (there may be another "do you want to install this app" confirmation).

The point being that there is not a whole lot of friction in this flow -- one or two taps -- likely making it easy for scammers to coach victims to perform.

I agree that activating the developer settings menu is substantially more friction, and may arouse more suspicion in a victim, but [on many/most devices] is not currently required. I guess the original article is alluding to putting this kind of friction in place.

peterdn commented on Android developer verification: Early access starts android-developers.google... · Posted by u/erohead

floppyd · 2 months ago

I believe this only works this way on some android forks, iirc you are talking about Samsung. Stock android would show a warning "do you want to install apk from this app?" and lead you to a settings page that enables apk installs from this particular app. No need to separately enable the ability to install apks in general.

I always thought this is a very weird flow, it adds hoops yet accomplishes nothing because the hoops are all trivial and the same for every app.

peterdn · 2 months ago

This is also how it works on my Samsung Galaxy S21. There's no need to enable developer settings.

peterdn commented on Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored] github.com/AUTOMATIC1111... · Posted by u/scarygliders

pwdisswordfish9 · 3 years ago

Not true. It is an option by virtue of the fact that is a public repository. (If you fail to specify a license on a public repository, the terms that apply are not the default "all rights reserved [by the owner/creator]" that prohibits anyone else from using/displaying/performing or making their own copies. Instead, the terms that apply are the default terms that are specified in the GitHub TOS that you agree to--terms that, in fact, do allow forking.)

peterdn · 3 years ago

I don't think it's that simple. GitHub themselves say [1]:

> You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.

Yes, it does note immediately below that "if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork your repository". But that doesn't mean it's open source. You probably can't/shouldn't create derivative works with your forks. And you definitely wouldn't be allowed to just use this code in a commercial product, for example.

[1]: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi...

peterdn commented on Do success stories cause false beliefs about success? asc.upenn.edu/news-events... · Posted by u/rustoo

WalterBright · 4 years ago

Why do you think America is fuller of successful people than other countries?

peterdn · 4 years ago

Is it though? By what metrics do you believe that's true?

peterdn commented on Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation tarahenley.substack.com/p... · Posted by u/steelstraw

john_moscow · 4 years ago

It's not. It costs attention - and that's the primary battleground of the information society. To divert the masses attention from the goals that could help them unite.

peterdn · 4 years ago

How is it any different than remembering and using people's preferred names?

peterdn commented on The ER charged him $6,589.77 for 6 stitches, cost that led his wife to avoid ER npr.org/sections/health-s... · Posted by u/pseudolus

_puk · 4 years ago

"The prescription was $12 (standard price in the UK for any prescription drug or drugs, no matter what it is)"

Just to note, in Wales all prescriptions are free. Can't speak for Scotland / NI.

peterdn · 4 years ago

Prescriptions are free in Scotland and NI too. Only England charges.

peterdn commented on 10 years of whatever this has been apenwarr.ca/log/20211117... · Posted by u/zdw

rsj_hn · 4 years ago

> In your opinion. However, some people clearly believe it _is_ a tax loophole

Only people who are not familiar with basic accounting or tax economics can believe this.

> One of the talking points against inheritance tax is that it taxes the same money twice. If I'm a middle earner I pay taxes on my income, and I pay CGT when I dispose of assets to pay for my car or retirement or whatever.

OK, you are mixing two different things here. One is the "double taxation"(1) on assets in the inheritance tax. First, don't worry, only a handful of families pay this tax. But ignoring that, the double taxation applies to income not spent. It is irrelevant to this discussion, in which Bezos borrows to spend. If he didn't borrow and sold assets to spend, then those sold assets still wouldn't be taxed as an inheritance tax. So that double taxation unfairness complaint is again just a confusion about what is happening and has nothing to do with whether borrowing to spend is somehow tax avoidance.

Now as to the second point: "If I'm a middle earner I pay taxes on my income, and I pay CGT when I dispose of assets to pay for my car or retirement or whatever."

No, you only pay taxes on the gains. Think back to what we were discussing before -- you get $100 of stock, then it goes up by $10 and you sell. So you have two taxable events in which income is recognized - the income of getting $100 and then the income of getting $10. When you sell for $110, your cost basis is $100, not 0, because you already paid taxes on the $100. Thus there is no double taxation for you or for Bezos(2).

No one is treated differently here. It is the exact same re-upping you were complaining Bezos being given -- that re-setting is available to everyone else for any other kind of asset they have for any reason.

So here, too, this is just complaining about things that aren't actually happening in order to get a justification for complaints about "injustice". It's a lot of very angry people applying who/whom logic rather than getting the details right about how much is paid.

Now, if you want to talk about real tax loopholes -- for example, carried interest, mortgage interest deduction, differences in tax rates on long term versus short term gains, charitable deductions - yes, by all means let's get rid of these loopholes. Bezos pays too little taxes, not because he borrows, but because the long term cap gains rate is so low. Let's not treat LTCG differently from wage income. But trying to infer the money borrowed should be taxed at the amount borrowed is just insane. Borrowed money is not income. Bezos is not doing this to evade paying taxes, he is doing it to take advantage of spreads.

(1) It's not really double taxation, because what is taxed is the income received by the inheritor, who never paid any taxes on it before.

(2) Yeah, inflation is a legit complaint for both

peterdn · 4 years ago

> But ignoring that, the double taxation applies to income not spent. It is irrelevant to this discussion, in which Bezos borrows to spend.

It's not irrelevant if Bezos spends his borrowed money on real estate and generally vacuuming up other assets that are likely to appreciate in value faster than his loans. It's not like he consumes all of it (or even most? I don't know, but I doubt it. How on Earth do you consume a billion dollars?).

> Thus there is no double taxation for you or for Bezos(2).

As I already explained there is for me if I don't consume all of my taxed gains before I die, or if I use it to purchase assets that outlive me.

> Bezos is not doing this to evade paying taxes, he is doing it to take advantage of spreads.

He's clearly doing it for both reasons. At least to avoid, not evade. I accept that he's legally not required to pay tax in this situation, but the whole point is I'm saying that should probably change!

> So here, too, this is just complaining about things that aren't actually happening in order to get a justification for complaints about "injustice". It's a lot of very angry people applying who/whom logic rather than getting the details right about how much is paid.

Dismissing this as "just complaining" is really missing the wider point. That is that "buy, borrow, die" is a well documented strategy that the ultra-wealthy use to avoid paying tax and that is widely considered a tax loophole (even by those familiar with basic accounting and tax economics). Whether it's a loophole or not isn't even really the point, rather that we should change things such that people who "buy, borrow, die" actually pay something like CGT.

peterdn commented on 10 years of whatever this has been apenwarr.ca/log/20211117... · Posted by u/zdw

rsj_hn · 4 years ago

So now we are in the weeds about inheritance tax, but the idea is that you pay 40% on your inheritance which clears your tax obligations for that inheritance and resets all the cost basis calculations, and then after that you pay gains when you sell from the time you inherited.

That is not a tax loophole.

E.g. if someone buys stock for $10, then the share price grows to $100 and they die, so that a family member receives $100 of stock, and then the share price goes up to $110 and the inheritor sells, then in the current system, the inheritor pays:

$40 on receipt of shares at $100 (cost basis for him is zero)

$4 on sale of shares at $110 (cost basis is now 100)

for $44 in taxes paid on that stock.

RSUs also work in the same way -- you pay taxes the moment you get them, and then if you keep them, when you sell your cost basis is the price of the shares when you were given them. That is important to know if you like to hold onto your RSU shares for a while -- know that your cost basis is not zero, but whatever the price of the shares were when you paid taxes for receiving them as income.

peterdn · 4 years ago

> That is not a tax loophole.

In your opinion. However, some people clearly believe it _is_ a tax loophole, presumably including those you're discussing with upthread.

One of the talking points against inheritance tax is that it taxes the same money twice. If I'm a middle earner I pay taxes on my income, and I pay CGT when I dispose of assets to pay for my car or retirement or whatever. Taxes are then levied a second time on what's left when I die.

People above are pointing out that, in contrast, extremely wealthy people manage to avoid the income/CGT part by borrowing against their assets tax-free and repaying the loans once they die and after the assets can be stepped up. So yes, inheritance tax may still be paid, but a great deal of their day-to-day income while alive is untaxed. Inheritance tax should be _in addition to_ income/CGT rather than instead of it, and part of the perceived injustice is that the ultra-wealthy get to dodge this in ways "ordinary" people can't.

Based on that I personally would call it a loophole.

peterdn commented on 10 years of whatever this has been apenwarr.ca/log/20211117... · Posted by u/zdw

rsj_hn · 4 years ago

> And don’t you think that the bankers and heirs wouldn’t simply agree to have the heirs pay the loans back after they inherit the assets?

OK, at this point you are just speculating wildly, right? You are inventing tax loopholes that don't exist, and when this is pointed out, more loopholes are invented which also don't exist. Point is, that's not how consumer lending, tax law, or inheritance law works. Those loans will be settled requiring asset sales at his death. If banks forgive a loan, that debt forgiveness is counted as income and is taxable.

Actually it is likely they will be wound down before his death as he will want to reduce his personal asset holdings and put them in a trust, because the inheritance taxes on all of his wealth are much stricter than any income taxes. But reducing his asset holdings will require de-leveraging because loans against equity require quite a bit of collateral.

peterdn · 4 years ago

> You are inventing tax loopholes that don't exist

Are you aware of "step-up in basis" [1] that is widely considered a loophole around CGT for inherited assets? Any gains on assets up to the point they are inherited will not be subject to CGT.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stepupinbasis.asp#step-...