Windex007

They aren't used interchangeably so this implies a different definition or at least distinct connotations.

The problem isn't that i "don't understand the gap". The problem is that this isn't what I'm asking.

How do you define for the purposes of this hypothetical law which loans would be taxed as income?

Telling me how rich Bezos is is completely tangential.

I've been trying to use the Socratic method to prime the pump that

-The root of the problem isn't the loans themselves, it's that they can "realize value" from shares (using them to secure a loan) without selling them.

But that doesn't seem to have gotten anywhere because of how excited people are to hear any question to be somehow a doubting of how rich these guys are?

If that is the case, and you step back, can you consider an alternative strategy besides just some messy spaghetti definition of "income loans" vs other loans?

My mortgage was many times my yearly income.

So then you just have frequency, which is easily gamed by getting fewer larger loans. Maybe one every three to five years? At that point it really is just a mortgage with stock as collateral rather than a house.

Like, you're not wrong in your intuition that the system is problematic. Mine (and others) point is that the devil is in the details, and they're not trivial.

How do you establish that a loan is or isn't "acting as income"?

Power costs is a poor tax in the same way skipping the dentist and getting a root canal later is.

Also in the process of power efficiency-izing my lab. It just wasn't a feasible option before, I didn't have the means. I just paid interest via electricity.

How is how well known they are relevant? Would that make a leak more or less palletable? Are you familiar with the "five eyes"?

Not in love with the "big boy" from factor but when I believe they're going to enter "long term support" territory I absolutely would be interested.

I get your point, but intelligence agreements break down if countries start letting their personnel leak information.

Canada has access to sensitive US intelligence. What do you think would happen if someone in CSIS leaked it?

Like, Israel bad, it was probably ethically correct to leak it, but I think your line of reasoning isn't fantastic from an actual argument perspective. It was a tweet sized, easily consumable expression of disagreement, and I can appreciate that art for what it is.

I don't really care what they look like. If any truck actually could meet the promises these made, I'd buy the shit out of them:

-All electric

-Sophisticated sensor suite to improve operational safety

-Working performance comparable to F150

-low maintenance

-Can be used as home power backup

-not a Deathtrap

-not a Killing machine

It hits the electric points, but that's it. It's a bad truck. It doesn't fulfill any of the "smart" promises. Death trap killing machines in constant recall that can't handle rain... Let alone do work.

The aesthetic doesn't even make my list of complaints. It's like the whole industry has been trying to make trucks as shitty as possible for like 30 years. Give me a '94 ranger electric conversion kit and it's game fucking over cyber truck.

He's already conditioned his base with fake pictures and videos of tons of stuff. He's already convinced them to reject a reality they can see and hear and touch.

Putin could release that tape, DNA, and have the Pope and Joe Rogan personally attest to it's authenticity and it wouldn't matter.

Trump would say "deepfake" , fake news, radical left fabrication. His base would believe him. We've been living in a post-truth world for longer than most of us are willing to admit.

There is no kompromat that could shake his base.

Modus Tollens

Creepiest thing about this is that the implication that the adult has been hung upside down