He didn't break the law. The company was registered in Montana, and he bought the Ferrari in Texas where it was also destroyed in his "durability" test. Why should he pay taxes there? It's not a loophole it's just the law
Neither of us fully understand the entire context of the legal battle, since there is a gag order and neither of us are Cody Detwiler. Certainly though registering luxury vehicles like this under an LLC is common thing to do, and the Cody case is particularly silly because the vehicles were for his company.
It's really not a loophole, it's just how vehicle registration is done. That vehicle never drove into the state of Tennessee and was used for his business, why should it be registered where he lived and not where the company is set up?
And the IRS still requires US Citizens living and working abroad to file tax returns. Tennessee can decide how to tax its residents on their businesses and other assets. "It's just how taxation is done."
Not enough people are prepared if this isn't a bubble. I think he's betting on this being a bubble which would imply building more supply would be a mistake, because they'll end up with a factory and no more customers.
It's starting to look more and more like we will always need more memory.
Well if you gave three billion dollars to a normal school it would turn into a prestigious university (think Michael Bloomberg donating billions to Hopkins to turn it from a decent second rate university to a world class university).
That said they're building a new campus so they'll be able to admit more students.
Sure but the ABWR was built in Japan, and the largest impediment to safe and profitable nuclear reactors is regulatory. The Trump admin have made substantial efforts to simplify the process to approve nuclear reactors however we have yet to see whether that's enough, or whether they'll be able to hit their 12-18 month licensing approval goals.
> the largest impediment to safe and profitable nuclear reactors is regulatory
I don't know any evidence of that. My understanding is that it's a highly complex technology, many components unavoidably take a long time to construct, and it may be fundamentally uneconomic.
Has anyone, anywhere in the world profitably (subtracting subsidies) constructed one?
Given that the nuclear industry would shut down overnight if having to pay its own insurance costs it’s quite hard to take you seriously when you say it’s not subsidized.
The Price-Anderson act and equivalents around the world tells a different story.
In Sweden in 2022 the right wing coalition which won promised new nuclear would appear if only it was allowed. Quickly they abandoned large scale nuclear in favor of SMR, PowerPoints reactors are always cheap.
Four years later, we are at:
- The state takes essentially all financial risk, even borrowing the money because Vattenfall refuses to put it on its own balance sheet.
- The state provides a huge direct taxpayer handout.
- The state takes the construction risk. Cost overruns means taxpayers put in more.
- The state subsidizes the entire final waste repository.
- The state subsidizes roughly the entire accident liability.
- The state guarantees the electricity price for 40 years.
That rather proves the point about what happens when new nuclear meets actual financing conditions.
And right wing coaltion just lost the latest election two weeks ago. Seems like we didn't get any new nuclear after all.
As I wrote before: your "claims" are largely just your opinions, some misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the relevant information, but most importantly they are irrelevant.
And I won't engage in your Gish gallop.
Of course, you could have understood that the first time I wrote it.
But feel free to further demonstrate your lack of understanding.
This meme that nuclear power plants are unprofitable and require subsidies has been spread wide and far by the anti-nuclear lobby, but is still false.
As an example, when the Greens started to come into government in Germany, they tried to force nuclear operators out of business by creating onerous safety rules just for the purpose of forcing them out of business.
It didn't work.
The plants were so profitable that they could afford even the most ridiculous additional safety requirements. So they had to make them illegal.
Furthermore, you can look at France. EDF has been immensely profitable, despite having to sell a large amount of electricity at discounted rates.
Your comment is interesting: It fits well enough in one group's political talking points - anti-regulation, anti-liberal, revisionist information, absolute and not weighing costs and benefits - that it makes me quite skeptical. Add a YouTube video as a source and it crosses a threshold for me.
That doesn't make it wrong!
> Do you have any evidence for your claim?
No; you agree it's a well-known claim. I've never heard what you say (that I recall). Including the GGP claim that most aren't subsidized.
And yes, misinformation about nuclear energy is widely disseminated and thus "well known". Are we really at the point that Trump's "people are saying" is the standard for evidence?
I'm not who you responded to but my recollection is that most reactors are decades old. The old ones do well. but the new ones are unprofitable/have issues. ABWR, for instance, is unprofitable.
What is your source for ABWR being "unprofitable"? Anything beyond "people are saying"? Because I sure couldn't find any. So I asked Google. This is what Google said:
When isolating the existing, completed Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs), they are highly profitable—provided they are actually allowed to operate.
1. If what you claim were true, if LLMs represent "what people are saying" it would still mean that the claim people here were making about "what people are saying" is false.
2. What you claim is false. The processes are quite different.
3. I did not present the Google answer as "the truth". I presented it only as what it is: "what Google said". In the context of "I couldn't find any online corroborations of the previous poster's claims".
If you confuse "this is what Google said" with "this is the truth", that's a you-problem.
The claim that ABWRs are "unprofitable" has now been asserted several times without any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, the only thing I actually have to do to dismiss that claim is say "wrong".
> If you lay it out like that, does it make what you say more true?
No.
It was just as true before as it is after.
> You were the one using that phrase.
I was using that phrase to describe what people were doing. Do you understand the difference between doing something and describing that thing that people are doing?
>> I did not present the Google answer as "the truth". I presented it only as what it is: "what Google said".
> Oh baloney.
That is literally what I wrote: "Because I sure couldn't find any. So I asked Google. This is what Google said:"
Again, if you can't tell the difference between "this is what Google said" and "this is the truth" then that is most definitely a you-problem. On three levels:
- first, they are literally and undisputably different words.
- second, believing that those two different sets of words mean the same thing is..."interesting".
- third, even if you yourself believe that these words mean the same thing (which, again, "interesting"), assuming that others partake in that interpretation is at best presumptuous.
Because the exact opposite will happen. The idea that allowing AI reviewers will increase accuracy is probably foolhardy. People being people will get lazy and review less by hand if at all. And the LLMs will miss plenty of things. Then those papers will get into the training sets for the next LLMs. I think you can see where this goes overtime.
The issue is generally not accuracy in my experience (humans are even lazier about this). The issue is that LLMs do not understand what is interesting and what is procedural.
What's the incentive or practical way to stop this? There is no incentive from anyone.
Journals get less money from less submissions, conferences get less money from less submissions, manual reviewing takes more time which decreases the time you can spend generating papers yourself, less submissions means less acceptance means less funding grants.
The only possible thing is some idealistic demogogue take that knowledge will get diluted, it will be bad for humanity, etc, which moves the needle exactly 0 in a capitalist society with our incentives.
Mistral makes a lot of their money in regulatory-captured environments, where people have or want to use and EU-based model. There may be safety concerns but Mistral isn't saying this out of the goodness of their heart, they're saying this because they don't want to compete on model competency, they want to ban their competition.
It could be to market more towards women, who they may have both independently determined aren't paying for AI as much. I don't have any data to go one way or another but I can imagine lots of reasons to make the agent cute that aren't nefarious
I don’t think that view holds up to data, for instance you’re more likely to get shot by police as an unarmed white person than black person, when adjusted for population/crime. Even ignoring this, the number of unarmed black people shot per year is usually <20, so it’s not like the problem is endemic.
It's not a government problem, it's a competition problem. Fundamentally 1-3% is actually a very competitive rate for organizing the easy transfer of money and handling fraud. Merchants would rather the cost be free, and banks may want a larger slice of the pie, but until someone comes up with a better way of paying money for both sides this is the best we have. If government got involved all that could happen is fees would increase and then we'd miss out on future efficiency improvements and savings.
There are distortions in that "market" because credit cards aren't just for payment acceptance and fraud handling (which are narrow functions).
In the U.S., many credit cards bundle short term credit, rewards, travel benefits, insurance etc. This bundling is why merchants can pay up to 2-3% in fees.
The payment clearance and settlement parts are much cheaper. That's why many countries are able to build domestic payment rails (e.g. Pix in Brazil) that process transactions at low cost.
The USPS is overwhelmingly the most efficient and inexpensive way to ship things. Try sending a letter cross country with UPS - it costs $15. USPS costs $0.50.
The USPS lost $9B last year. If our government considered The USPS a real public good, they would pick up the bill and give them more budget. Instead, The USPS had to get in bed with Amazon to keep the lights on and start delivering on Sundays.
It was $2.7 if you remove the forced retirement obligations that private companies don't have to do, which is only about 3% shortfall. And a large part of that was also due to private competition taking more of the market - in part because the USPS isn't as competitive as it could be, again because of costs incurred outside its control.
Certain individuals, such as Susan Collins and Tom Davis, who were the largest names behind the 2006 law to force this on the USPS, were clearly doing it in an attempt to make the USPS fail/become less competitive. PACs affiliated with FedEx, UPS, etc gave more than $192,000 to Collins’s campaign / PAC from 2000 to 2004. FedEx’s PAC has given Collins more donations than any other congressional candidate in that PAC's history.
There is a huge chain of evidence suggesting members of congress don't want the USPS to succeed due to self interest.
reply