And if it’s employees? Do you ask them to contribute to the company’s taxes as well? After they’ve paid their own?

You pay them less money so you can afford your taxes, like literally everyone else.

... or you never have the startup, and just have 2 people unemployed and no produce nothing of use to anyone.

Which is what's happening.

If you can't afford your taxes your business model was flawed to begin with. In the above example there is more than enough money for it to still be worth doing.

You don't seem to understand the implications here. This requires bootstrapped startups to have gross margins substantially above incumbents in order to compete and not be cash flow negative after paying taxes.

It makes it substantially more cashflow intensive to build a new software business, which entrenches incumbents and reduces competition. It favors companies who have the cash to wait for the full 5-year depreciation cycle, i.e. the opposite of most bootstrapped startups.

Quick example:

$10,000 revenue

$8,000 paid to software developer

$1,000 paid to AWS

leaves $1000 in profit.

You received $10,000 into your business account, but spent 8000+1000 = $9000. Your business account has a balance of $1000 at the end of the year.

Section 174 means you can only deduct 1/10th of the $8000 in the first year, $800. Your total deductible business expenses for the year will be 800+1000 = $1800.

Your taxable profit for the year is 10000-1800 = $8,200. If your effective tax rate is 25% (generously low), you owe $2,050 in taxes.

You pay your $2,050 tax payment and your business account is overdrafted by $1,050. You need to add $1,050 from your personal funds to the business to cover the shortfall.

Your business was cash flow negative for the year. This makes it extremely difficult to bootstrap a software company.

Well, I said elsewhere, this effectively means (heavily) taxing anyone who's doing something new (meaning adding additional taxes on top of income tax). Essentially all of Europe does this, and people here often decry how they totally lack innovation across the entire continent.

I don't think these two are unrelated.

I also don't understand the objection. It's not like anyone's getting away from taxes due to this rule. This is about a temporary exemption from company income tax IF AND ONLY IF companies have someone pay income tax on that money (and only up to the point where that keeps makes sense). This "exemption" lets you not add 15%-20% tax on top of 40-55% income tax just to try a new business as a company.

Apologies for opening a tangeant on a tangeant, but am I the only one who thinks there are 2 levels of playing master mind (and therefore wordle)? Easy level, you let the player know exactly which spots are correctly placed and which ones are there but incorrectly placed. Hard level, you let the player know only that some are correctly placed and some are there but incorrectly placed without identifiying which ones. I personnaly don't enjoy the easy level when playing mastermind, but I do enjoy the hard version which is much more investigative and in my opinion triggers the same brain process as when I'm debugging code.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Wordle implemented in what you call “hard level”. But there’s no reason it couldn’t be.

Lately I this idea for email. It would work like a twitter handle for the user but similarly to domains and dns under the hood. Then you just use this handle to register and receive email communication. If you change email provider or get locked out for some reason you can just update the email the handle points to.

I do this since a long time. I don’t use my real email postbox address. I just use email addresses from my own domain server „catch all“ to the real email postbox.

If I ever change my email provider I just have to change the catch all rule.

I actually think they missed a chance here. They could have made the code in such a way that it anonymizes the receiver. Only japan post would know where this person lives.

I believe so too. The API they provide doesn’t need to respond with the exact address until an approved carrier makes an identified request. The availability of that API needs to be perfect though!

I think that's the bet many investors are making at the moment. And if it pays off, it will do so big times as it will be almost impossible to maintain a codebase without an LLM. Therefore making them indispensable for the company using/working on said codebase. If they continue to perform linearly from the point we are now, though, then the only option is to continue making better LLMs capable of comprehending the relative mess the previous one made. Which at the limit means betting on AGI. If for some reason the progress doesn't come fast enough and too many people are making that bet, then developpers (the ones left) can expect even higher salaries than before...

The investors may be right, and yet, this is a collapse vector in “The Collapse of Complex Societies”, in one sentence, “societies collapse when they reach a point of rapidly declining marginal returns on their investments in problem solving capacity.” So we’d expect an outcome somewhere between “market dynamics will resolve this” and “war and/or violent revolution”

"Brain_s_". I find we (me included) generally overlook/underestimate the distributed nature of human intelligence, included in the AI field. That's why when I first heard of mixture of experts I was thrilled about the idea and the potential. (One could also see similarities in random forest). I believe a path to AGI(tm) would be to reproduce the evolution of human intelligence artificially. Start with small models training bigger and bigger models and let the bigger successfull models (insert RL, genetic algos, etc.) "reproduce" and teach newer models from scratch. Having different model architecture cohabit could maybe even lead to the kind of specializations we see in parts of the brain

I wish I could have sent this wikipedia entry to Mark Twain. It would have been a fine addition to his "museum". I'm sure he would have been thrilled to hear about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinderkennzeichnungs-_und_Rind...

The currently longest word in the Duden is Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-Hyperaktivitätsstörung (ADHS, German for ADHD).

I suppose this time is expressed in earth years? Or what would this duration mean on a Universe scale? Also given the nature of space-time (the time and gravity relationship) wouldn't time be almost still once, let's say, year 10⁷⁷ is reached?

Isn't time relative?

If you were in a place where time was still you'd have no idea it were the case. Time would still tick at one second per second. You could only tell when you looked at some other object/patch of space that had a different ticking clock.

Time is relative, absolutely (I had to do it, sorry). I guess in these articles they mean 10^77 years for an observer on earth. My understanding is if I was, somehow, waiting inside a black hole it would take much less time for me to observe the universe decaying. And if i'm not mistaken, then I wonder what does that mean for the universe as a whole. Maybe the question doesn't make sense when taking the whole universe as being the "observer"...

A Wolf had nought but bones and skin So exact the watch of dogs had been.

He chances on a Mastiff as powerful as handsome Fat, sleek, who had strayed by chance.

To attack him, quarter him Lord Wolf would gladly do;

But he would have to join battle,

And the Mastiff was of such stature As to defend himself with ease.

So the Wolf approaches him humbly, Enters into conversation, compliments him On his girth, which he admires.

"You fine sir could be as fat as me" Replied the Dog.

"Leave the woods, you would do well: Your like are miserable there,

Dunces, hairshirts and poor devils, Their estate is to die of hunger.

Every bite of food is hard won By dint of fang and claw. For what?

Follow me: you would have a fate much better." The Wolf replied, "What must I do?"

"Almost nothing," replied the Dog, "Chase beggars And people carrying sticks;

To flatter those at home, to please one's Master: In exchange your salary would be

A great many scraps of all kinds: Bones of chickens, bones of pigeons,

Without mentioning many caresses." The Wolf already imagines a happiness

Which makes him teary from fondness. Walking along, he saw the bald neck of the Dog.

"What is it there?" he said. - Nothing. - What? Nothing? - Nothing much.

But still? - The collar by which I am tethered Is perhaps the cause of what you see.

"Tethered?" said the Wolf: So you do not run Wherever you want? - Not always; but what matters it?

It matters so much that all your meals I would not want in any wise or manner,

And would not desire even a treasure at such price." This said, master Wolf runs off, and he runneth still.

— Jean de La Fontain, 1668 ( translated by Tad Boniecki)

The US constitution guarantees life and liberty, the great joke being that the two things are almost opposite.

I think randomness needs to be better defined. In the article it seems to be that randomness should be an evenly distributed type of event occurences. I agree that it is very unintuitive for us as, I believe, we assume randomness to be any sequence of event that doesn't follow any known/recognizable pattern. Show a section of the Fibonacci to a 10 yo kid and they will most likely find the sequence of numbers to be random (maybe they will note that it is always increasing, but that's it). Even in this article the fact that o1 always throws "heads" could indicate that it "knows" what randomness is, and is then just being random by throwing only heads.

I personnaly would define ideal randomness as a behavior that is fundamentally uncomputable and/or cannot be expressed as a mathematical function. If this definition holds than the question cannot apply to LLMs as they are a just (big) mathematical function.