You could foresee that under the covers there is always going to be some prompting but it's going to be performed rarely by few people?

(Also you can write your own fw)

The sexuality is not "changing" significantly, what changed is that it's getting less dangerous to 1. realize that you are not straight 2. not be straight 3. tell people (including polls) that you are not straight...

The competitor website is not a slightly suboptimal result for the query: it's literally the wrong result if I'm not adding "alternative" to the search query. I'm sorry.

Obviously ideally they should be limiting the orders by person, but without national id and with scalpers ready to make a penny wherever they can we cannot have nice things.

I responded to this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29845491

> your punitive tax increases

again, never even talked bout INCREASES, only stopping cuts. Do you know the difference between not cutting and increasing? If you do are you just trying your hand at fearmongering? Nah... you seem the kinda folk who would only argue in good faith.

Just one thing tho:

> Your point sounds like, no tax cuts because my slogan says so

ehm, nope. I don't have a slogan, I have some research (the original post https://academic.oup.com/ser/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ser... ) that contradicts the 90s slogan that still is used today to justify cutting taxes. So hopefully this and more peer reviewed studies will put the practice justified by the 90s slogan to rest.

It's funny because it's not even about increasing taxes, it's just about the CUTS. You are going to be ok, don't be scared...

And the fact that SF government doesn't work doesn't negate that tax cuts for the rich don't trickle down, so why should the 99% support these cuts if they are not going to benefit from them?

I don't want you to vote against your interests, I want all others to vote in favor of theirs (against politicians that sell the tax cuts as "trickle down economics")

you say:

> I used to believe taxes were a good way to redistribute wealth

and then, you don't believe that works because:

> I moved to San Francisco and saw how a welfare super state prioritizes its spending

So you are suggesting that the ONLY other possible option when the rich are taxed is that those taxes are mismanaged, but that is just not true: certainly there are varying degrees of "mismanagement" possible. In particular some of those mismanagement scenario might still result in better outcomes for less wealthy.

Given your other comments I'm sure you are already thinking: "who even cares about the less wealthy" but that seems to be the topic of the discussion, the original post is about how tax cuts don't result in "trickle down", which is how they are marketed and sold to the less wealthy.

My worry with the blockchain is that now it has VCs that are going to pump so much funds in it to keep it spinning and force everybody to use it because you need that service, and now (in the future) it's only provided through the blockchain (because the alternative off-chain company cannot raise funds so it doesn't exist, it fails, or it's a worse experience).

But thinking about coming up with an unknown, generic face (GAN style, if you will): I cannot see it. Or something simpler, an apple: very foggy visual+takes a lot of effort to keep seeing the vague blurry image I might be able to come up with.