powerslacker (u/powerslacker)

powerslacker commented on Coffee won’t give you extra energy, just borrow a bit that you’ll pay for later theconversation.com/nope-... · Posted by u/throw0101c

fleddr · 3 years ago

Coffee is the one subject where I'm proudly anti-science.

I'll drink it regardless, as many as I want. I'll pretend the negatives don't exist which by means of placebo is true in my "lived experience".

Denial is an undervalued life skill. When somebody declares a complicated problem, you simply decide "no it isn't" and then you move on.

powerslacker · 3 years ago

Good for you. For the most part I agree on the denial bit. Particularly when the "lived experience" is centuries of casual human trials.

powerslacker commented on Ask HN: How to overcome job search exhaustion? · Posted by u/dsattt

powerslacker · 3 years ago

1) Take a short break of at least a full day and do something you enjoy. Get some exercise and some fresh air if you can.

2) Mentally prepare yourself for the grind ahead. A lot of the jobs you are applying to are already filled by the time you get there or the job has been pulled due to economic slowdown but the company is still interviewing because they are disorganized.

3) Try and make a list of the reasons why you are pursuing this job and this career specifically. Clarity around why you are choosing to take on potentially hundred of these gruelling interviews can help you keep your eye on the prize.

4) Be conciously grateful for your blessings. Some people never make tech lead but want it, you seem to have accomplished it early and have acquired a ton of valuable experience. There are others in far worse circumstances. Take heart, although this situation is very tough, because you have a set of problems that many would love to have.

Hope this helps you in some way. May God bless you.

powerslacker commented on Ask HN: Why do we allow Equifax, Transunion, and Experian to exist? · Posted by u/nde

powerslacker · 3 years ago

These behemoths are a major vertebrae in the backbone of the US economy. Without Equifax, Transunion, Experian and Dun & Bradstreet a huge portion of economic activity would come to a grinding halt. The vast majority of sales of housing, cars, computers, phones, hot tubs, etc. are all reliant on on-demand credit scoring. We have made serious strides in regulating them, but disbanding them would be a financial disaster. Regulation has actually made the problem a bit worse since it has essentially turned the credit reporting industry into an oligopoly, further centralizing consumer data collection so attackers only have to hit a single target to get almost everything.

powerslacker commented on Gen Z's bleak financial future bbc.com/worklife/article/... · Posted by u/pmoriarty

cykros · 3 years ago

The old taxation=theft trope grows a bit tired...and frankly, I say this as someone who leans libertarian. At the end of the day, businesses derive value through infrastructure and in some cases, even regulation, without which the income streams being taxed would not be as readily available. Do I love the systems by which taxes are decided upon, or how the money is often allocated? Absolutely not. But taxes on income that benefits from the caretakers of the environment in which a business operates are no more theft than is operating such a business without compensating those who are caretakers of said environment.

Now, you can absolutely argue that the taxes being imposed or suggested are unnecessarily high, or perhaps that most of the money being levied is being squandered on things that those paying see no benefit from (which perhaps one could argue is theft, but that last part is crucial), and I'd not argue one bit with you in many cases. I'll be the first to say that the use of Western tax dollars in Ukraine is an absolute slap in the face for the taxpayers who see no benefit therefrom, and who had nothing to do with the coups that led to the war in the first place.

But taxation in and of itself isn't theft, any more than property, in and of itself, is theft. As long as the left and right just keep shouting "THIEF!" at each other, we don't really have any hope of getting anywhere.

powerslacker · 3 years ago

Not all taxation is theft. However, taxation taken specifically from one person or group in order to benefit another is theft. Taxation for the purpose of maintaining the military, police, roads, and other necessary public infrastructure is not theft. For example, it is not theft for the Senate to pay for reasonable military salaries. It is theft to levy a 100% tax on billionaires in order to redistribute those funds to all non-billionaires whether in cash, benefits, or other property.

The "benefit of the public" is a better standard than no standard - but is in and of itself insufficient to contain the state to its rightful domain.

powerslacker commented on Gen Z's bleak financial future bbc.com/worklife/article/... · Posted by u/pmoriarty

hotpotamus · 3 years ago

The laws of physics are the same the Earth over through time and geography; moral supernatural law, not so much. Gravity has touched me pretty hard on occasion, and in fact punished me in ways I did not soon forget - unlike human law, it is not subject to capricious human referees.

What does your transcendent/moral supernatural law say the top marginal tax rate should be?

powerslacker · 3 years ago

This kind of response tells me I've struck a nerve. I don't have these kinds of conversations because I want people to vote for conservatives in the upcoming elections. While I certainly would not mind that outcome, what is far more important to me is the spread of the Kingdom of God. The fact of the matter is that the Bible has plenty to say on the proper function of government and even the levying of taxes and the purposes those taxes are to be used for. But even if the Bible had an entire book dedicated to marginal tax rates it is unlikely that you would care. The reason you would not care is because you, like all mankind, are opposed to the rule of God, because if there is a transcendant standard then you are guilty of violating that standard. I'm not picking on you specifically, this is applicable to all mankind, including me. We are all in rebellion against God's law and we are all guilty of violating it (Romans 3:23). If we were fairly judged according to God's standards we would be doomed. The good news is that the transcendent creator of the universe has made it possible for rebels to be reconciled to Him even though they are breakers of His law. Jesus the Nazarene is the promised Messiah which was prophesied to the nation of Israel (Isa 59). For over 2000 years, word of His death, burial, and resurrection revealed to mankind that the author of the universe gave a revelation of Himself to man through Moses, the Prophets, and Jesus - confirmed by the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus resurrection is the miraculous proof that he holds divine authority and that His claims are true (1 Cor 15). Those who believe with sincere faith in the capacity and work of the Lord Jesus will be saved from sin, reconciled with the Father of all created things, and be gifted with the presence of the Holy Spirit. I didn't come to these conclusions because I'm smarter than you or because I'm more holy than you. I'm terribly guilty of violating God's laws. It is because of the mercy and goodness of God that I have been saved and that I trust in His word. To know and understand these things is a gift from God. It is a gift I pray he will give to you and to all those who read this.

powerslacker commented on Gen Z's bleak financial future bbc.com/worklife/article/... · Posted by u/pmoriarty

hotpotamus · 3 years ago

I suppose the problem you run into is that supernatural moral law is ephemeral and probably caught up in some religion or other which means something different to every member of that religion (as far as I can tell), whereas as actual law is written down, and actually exists.

powerslacker · 3 years ago

Laws are non-material by definition. You can't eat or touch the law of gravity for example.

Using "caught up in a religion" or "means something different to every member" as a reason to ignore an argument is arbitrary and an a priori dismissal of potential evidence contrary to your beliefs. In other words, you are ruling out a position simply because you are prejudiced against that position.

There are laws which claim to be moral supernatural law which are written down. If these laws are what they claim to be and are truly of supernatural origin then not only do they exist, they exist in a greater capacity than laws written by human hands or instruments.

A transcendant law presupposes a transcendant author and arbiter.

powerslacker commented on Gen Z's bleak financial future bbc.com/worklife/article/... · Posted by u/pmoriarty

hotpotamus · 3 years ago

Well, I agree with you that the wealthy should vote for conservatives if money is their primary concern. I'm however not in the tax bracket that US conservatives are interested in helping though.

> Further, this particular question is whether the government legally ought to be able to tax without limits. You seem to be conflating that with if the government is able to tax without limits.

I fail to see a distinction here. The government defines what is legal. I suppose one can appeal to some higher power as the source of all law or something idealistic like that, but that's not how the IRS or the Texas State tax assessor work.

powerslacker · 3 years ago

> I fail to see a distinction here. The government defines what is legal. I suppose one can appeal to some higher power as the source of all law or something idealistic like that, but that's not how the IRS or the Texas State tax assessor work.

Right. That's what I mean by conflating. One can appeal to a higher law. I'd argue that's the only way you can make a moral judgement about the actions of a government, since as you've pointed out they have the ability to create laws. So either there is a law that can be used to judge whether a 100% tax on the individual is justified or there isn't. If there isn't a higher law, then you're right - the government is a law unto themselves. They are totally sovereign and no one can make any moral judgement about their actions since by definition their might makes them right. Alternatively, there is a higher law: a supernatural moral law that transcends the will of men and which the governments of the world and all the people of the world are accountable to. If that's the case then there is a limit to how far the government is able to justifiably tax its citizens - the amount that the transcendent law allows gives them jurisdiction to tax.

It's important to note that if there is no law that transcends the state, then the state is not limited by moral law in any way. In that case it's the source of moral law and nothing that the state does can ever be justified as moral or immoral since under such a worldview the state is the judge of good and evil.