As others have said, running out of motherboard SATA slots doesn’t mean you need a new machine to support expansion.

You can get m2 adapter slots for more SATA drives.

If you think you’ll be building a NAS in the future, and are cheap like I am, you might consider getting a pci-e expansion card for SAS rather than SATA drives. They’re backwards compatibile with SATA drives, but open you up to being able to use SAS drives which are common in enterprise data centers. You can get used lots of those drives on eBay WAY cheaper per TB when the data centers hour them out.

I’ve got a machine with 16 SAS drives running the unRaid OS, and I’m very happy with it for data hoarding and media serving. The drives (with shipping) cost $5/TB.

In 24 hours as President Elect, was the promise.

That link says we don’t EAT that much plastic per week.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/21/microplastics-brain-pollution-health

This is saying that our brains are at this point 0.5% plastic by weight.

The typical human has the same amount of plastic in their brain as there is in a credit card as a result of the relatively newly ubiquitous presence of plastic nanoparticles in our environment.

Frankly I’d be shocked if jamming a credit card into a human brain wouldn’t cause some measurable difference to how the brain operates.

Edit: I guess the specific reference of a credit card is still undergoing peer review! There are many published papers showing polystyrene in the frontal cortex, though.

People who are experts in the subject.

Propegandists thrive by trying to convince people that they can’t trust anyone, because it makes foolish people believe that every voice carries equal merit.

What value is a summary when you fully acknowledge that you can not trust it for accuracy?

He had a golden opportunity to make that argument and instead talked about how much property he owned and to talk about a loading dock he drove by.

I’m not from the US

The world is burning. Now. With the justice systems you’re alluding to.

The energy is in the form of complex but stable intramolecular bonds

Banners body has a store of extremely high energy particles. When he transforms, they are converted to much lower energy particles and the energy is converted to mass (e=mc^2). When the hulk goes back to banner, is the same process in reverse: mass is converted to much more highly energetic particles.

This is all predicated on the assumption that people already have a familiarity with organizing their thoughts and intentions in a way that even have a prayer of being understood by a machine.

There are a lot of ways people innately organize their thoughts. Some of them translate much more easily than others to code.

For some people, even step 1 is a hurdle that there are insufficient resources to clear.

You can’t make the hole for the air to escape with your hands though

Ok, I’m just going to go ahead and pitch an alternative and then you can weigh in on the relative merits.

In my mind, the issues aren’t the loans themselves, it’s that they’re secured by shares. Billionaires are able to realize real value from those shares without paying taxes in them.

I think if you want to use shares as collateral, you need to pay the taxes on them.

You wanna use shares to back a loan, fine, but the instant you do, all taxes on those shares are due at FMV.

This isn’t without precedent: when an employee has unvested shares with a company and meet a companies retirement eligibility criteria, the IRS sees that those shares are “no longer at substantial risk of forfeiture” and several social taxes are due, despite the shares not being sold or even technically owned by that person.

We can extract fair tax values from securities even before they’re sold. We already do.

Tax the assets used to secure the loans and it gets the taxes into the system without removing voting rights. Win/win, and it’s a scalpel directly targeting the root.

It was a fucking ballsy move to advertise their Xmas NFL livestreaming during that trainwreck

This is a bad system for several reasons:

-It requires an arbitrary use-agnostic choice of value. Why 10 million? Why not 5? Why not 50?

-it requires an arbitrary time scale. Why 5 years? Why not 3? why not 10? Why not limit once in a lifetime?

We’re defining a system here with numbers out of thin air with no context around anything. These are fundamentally badly designed systems. No amount of fiddling with the parameters will make up for the fact that it’s fundamentally flawed.

Also, beyond that, you would be amazed how many scenarios exist for people and businesses to secure large loans that this would impact. The goal is to actually tax the super rich who are dodging taxes, not kneecap legitimate useage. You’d hurt hundreds of thousands legitimate borrowers and just shove Bezos and Musk into using alternative mechanisms to leverage their security holdings.

I know you think I don’t understand your proposal. I challenge you to consider that I do, and still think you can reconsider the root cause of the issue and come up with alternative ideas. You’re stuck on the loan aspect. That’s a symptom, not the cause.

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.