the all-important question - does "thinking of leaving" mean:
a) thinking of actually leaving the state, or
b) thinking of telling their team of accountants to claim on tax paperwork that their permanent residence is in another state
because things like this make me think it's the latter:
> In mid-December, three limited liability companies associated with Mr. Page filed documents to incorporate in Florida, according to state records.
at the amount of wealth we're talking about, it's trivial for a billionaire to buy an additional mansion in (Florida|Texas|Nevada|Wyoming|etc), and claim that as their "official" residence.
if they get billed with a wealth tax, their team of lawyers will claim that they live in that other state, and simply happen to spend a huge amount of their time on "business trips" to California.
so the success or failure of this will hinge on how thoroughly it's actually enforced. the "progressive" Governor Newsom is opposed to it:
> The measure faces opposition from Silicon Valley investors and others, including Gov. Gavin Newsom. At The New York Times DealBook conference this month, Mr. Newsom said a wealth tax was not pragmatic. The Democrat, who has been close with people like Mr. Page, is raising money for a committee to oppose the measure. The committee received a $100,000 donation from the venture capitalist Ron Conway in November, according to state campaign finance records.
which makes me think that even if it does pass, he won't make enforcement of it a priority (especially since he'll be busy running for President)
There is existing rules that document the number of days you can be in the state of California, as well as types of assets, accounts that you can have, etc. that determine if you have to pay state income taxes. A large number of people in the past moved to the NV side of Lake Tahoe, traveling into CA for work. They found out quickly that it does not work. When I left CA, I closed all my accounts based in CA and got a new drivers license in WA in the first 30 days, turned in my old one, etc. I still received a letter from CA asking for details of my move.
They can not leave because all non-western countries have no real rule of law. If you flee to dhubai from russia taking your wealth with you, it takes one phone call for you to be send "home". All those shiny private non-western kingdoms come, surprise, suprise with a king who can undo any citizen on a whim.
I am not a billionaire, but I left California largely for tax reasons too. I am in Washington state which has no income tax. If Washington state adds an income tax, I will move to another state. It is easy for wealthy people to move. And they will absolutely move not just in name. I can have just as much fun in Florida or Texas or Mexico city or St. Martin or Aspen or Spain as I can have in California. It costs a few thousand dollars to move, a rounding error for a wealthy person.
These tax laws that are so hostile to entrepreneurs will result in vast long term losses to the states that turn to socialism.
People who are able and willing to swap states on a whim don’t have roots. They’re mercenary citizens living in an insular wealth bubble. Money aside, what value do they bring to a community? I’d rather they just leave.
Every community I have lived in has benefitted enormously. I grew up in Washington state and built my first company here, employing several people in landscaping. When I lived in Los Angeles, I built a company employing over 100 Californians. Now that I am back in Washington state, I have a farm employing 5 people and have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the local economy.
I have NEVER taken any benefits from the government. I have paid millions of dollars in taxes in California and millions more to Washington state. City and counties have likewise collected huge sums from my work.
People who move from place to place can contribute more than people who stay in one place living off the system.
> I have NEVER taken any benefits from the government
Except if course billions of dollars in infrastructure dedicated to enabling your business to succeed. Also, the audacity to say that you took "no benefits" while operating a farm....
Heavily subsidized rural roads and utilities, tax incentives, all sorts of price subsidies depending on the crop. Police (which act primarily in the interests of capital), fire fighters, food safety inspectors to give people the confidence to buy agricultural products, social safety nets for the workers that farms pay as little as legally (or illegally) possible...
We desperately need to get RID of USDA inspectors so we can break the regulatory capture the big four meat processors have on meat sales. I live in WA state and have to pay $17 / hr minimum wage. You are regurgitating a lot of misinformation common on Reddit, have you ever run a farm or another business yourself? Please try starting a farm or business and your opinions will change rapidly as you see how things actually are.
Farm subsidies aren't opinions to be changed, they're hard facts. I live in the part of WA state that subsidizes all the red agricultural areas that love to talk about how much they hate us, I understand how the money flows.
Well, I firmly believe that the social value of a human being far exceeds their financial impact. It’s almost tautological that if a person can pack up their suitcase and flee anytime taxation becomes slightly unfavorable, then they’re not socially or culturally integrated into local life. Like I said: a mercenary citizen.
You might have built businesses in California and Washington (and that’s great) but it doesn’t sound like you particularly care about being a Californian or Washingtonian. So who are your people? Who are you?
I'm also defined by my friends and family, but if I decide to move states because I don't want to pay taxes, they're certainly not going to follow me. As with most people, my social circle is largely built on connections in my local community, and is not portable.
How much money would it take for me to leave them behind and start anew? Certainly not 5% of my wealth (or even 20%). And even that calculation changes completely once a long-term partner and/or children are in the picture.
there are many free "offline-only" password managers, eg `pass` [0] comes to mind.
you're charging $149. what does yours have that the free ones don't?
(other than a website full of cryptographic gibberish like "By using the unique DNA state-vector of every file as a seed, the engine generates distinct, unrelated keys for every file in the batch.")
Qbittorrent, Transmission etc. The Transmission daemon can be installed headless with negligible system load on a vast number of devices, from Raspberry Pi-like and smaller SBCs to Linux/BSD NASes, then operated from remote through the web interface or a phone app.
Then you probably don't want a free service that costs money to run where they can only make money by converting most users to paid or monetizing your information in a country where you are unlikely to have an attorney whilst operating what amounts to a honeypot for every government on earth.
For desktop use from within Plasma/KDE I'm happy with Ktorrent. Feels very intuitive, and has no problem saturating a 1GB/s pipe, and doesn't slow the system down, while doing so.
(At least not mine, which are old and almost obsolete but have enough RAM)
Otherwise follow the links from there to qBitTorrent, or its mentions from other commenters here. Am not fond of transmission at all. Feels slow and sluggish in comparison.
Galen has achieved an amazing amount over the years, both in MS research and at MS. Do you have a real reason to believe he won't achieve this or just want to character assassinate him with no evidence
(We went to the same university, ive never worked with him and actually worked at a competitor for about twenty years, but know plenty of folks who have worked with him and am fairly familiar with his work and research)
TBF this does reek of professional corporate egoism circumventing "if it ain't broke don't fix it" practicalities. Personally I'm quite fearful of how many more things it'll break.
Why? I'm a pretty dedicated Linux user, but I'd argue that Windows NT is a far better technical architecture than GNU/Linux, it's just the Win32 and shell stuff that sucks. But in this hypothetical transition, Win32 and the shell would be one of the only things that Microsoft keeps, which seems like the worst of both worlds to me.
If we're talking hypotheticals, I'd much rather Microsoft open source the NT kernel and low-level subsystems (like ntdll.dll). Open sourcing all of Windows would be even better, but that seems nearly impossible to me.
1. Unix has “everything is a file”, which is great, but it also means that you spend lots of time converting structured data to/from strings. Windows NT instead has “everything is an object”, which has the same benefits of “everything is a file”, plus the additional benefit of all the data being structured and typed. (Of course, Windows has a far worse UI for interacting with objects than Unix does for files, but the UI isn't what we're talking about here).
2. NT cleanly separates the low-level NT APIs from the higher-level subsystems [0]. Win32 isn't special at all to NT, it's just another subsystem. WSL1 was implemented as a subsystem [1], and it could cleanly support most of the Linux syscalls without needing any hacks. Similarly, it implemented full Linux filesystem semantics on top of NTFS by using the builtin attribute and alternate stream support. Wine does the reverse on Linux, but it's not nearly as clean of an architecture as NT.
3. Linux runs far more code in the kernel than NT does [2]. While this is often good for performance, it's much worse for security and reliability since kernel bugs tend to have much worse consequences than user-mode bugs. Linux and Windows have been moving in opposite directions here, with Linux moving more graphics code into the kernel with KMS [3], while Windows is moving more graphics code into userspace with WDDM [4].
4. NT was designed with much better security than Unix. Every object has an associated security token that controls its access [5], and programs can freely reduce (but not increase) the privileges granted by each token, which is a much cleaner way to implement sandboxing compared to Linux's user namespaces, where programs need to create entirely new user and filesystem hierarchies from scratch instead of just restricting the current ones. (Despite this, it's much easier for programs to implement sandboxing on Linux than on Windows)
5. Further on the security idea, Unix's concept of a single "root" account that can do everything without any restrictions is mostly a terrible idea. With Windows, there aren't any accounts that have all privileges (ignoring LocalSystem), which means that exploiting a system component usually has less consequences than on Unix. Similarly, Windows has proper RBAC [6] via UAC, so when you “Run as Administrator”, you're still running it under your account, just with an elevated security token. "sudo" is somewhat similar, except that it runs programs as root, which leads to problems with permissions on files in your home directory.
As you can see, the general theme is most components of NT have much cleaner technical designs than their corresponding components in Linux, which NT then squanders behind atrocious interfaces, while Linux puts in tons of work to create great interfaces and new features on top of much worse technical foundations. (This same argument mostly applies to the BSDs too)
Well, it's way beyond sucks. But ok: is it even possible to run windows with just a command line ... no ui, no graphics, start menu, no file manager or is the ui too integrated into the OS?
> is it even possible to run windows with just a command line
Docker supports Windows containers [0], but this requires a Windows host so it probably doesn't help you too much. Windows PE [1] does support a GUI, but it doesn't include any of the traditional shell components. Nano Server [2] is the closest to what you're talking about, but it's been deprecated.
> start menu, no file manager or is the ui too integrated into the OS
Windows Phone [3], Windows IoT [4], and Xbox are all NT-based, and none of them include a traditional file manager or shell, but they all do have GUIs.
1. Because it's not open source. This isn't purely an ideological thing, but that I tend to run into obscure bugs, so being able to look through the source and submit a patch is incredibly useful to me.
2. Because what I want doesn't exist. Windows NT has excellent technical foundations, but I really don't like using Win32 or any of the Windows shell stuff, but there's no way for regular consumers to use Windows NT without Win32. (WSL exists, but that still requires a full Windows installation)
3. The ecosystem. Linux tends to have much better support than Windows for the types of software that I use, and a hypothetical GNU/NT hybrid would have even worse than both Windows and Linux.
This is highly irresponsible for this Galen guy. If he wanted to change C to Rust, he should have gone to Mustafa or Pavan. Those 2 are currently the most intelligent people in Microsoft - very intelligent people, they got AI. Those 2 would have completed this work within a year.
for Garage's particular use case I think SlateDB's "backed by object storage" would be an anti-feature. their usage of LMDB/SQLite is for the metadata of the object store itself - trying to host that metadata within the object store runs into a circular dependency problem.
yeah, their docs look pretty comprehensive, but there's a disturbing number of 404s that scream "not ready for prime-time" to me.
from https://rustfs.com/ if you click Documentation, it takes you to their main docs site. there's a nav header at the top, if you click Docs there...it 404s.
"Single Node Multiple Disk Installation" is a 404. ditto "Terminology Explanation". and "Troubleshooting > Node Failure". and "RustFS Performance Comparison".
on the 404 page, there's a "take me home" button...which also leads to a 404.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
reply