I think most people who really cared about it just think it's absurd that everyone has to accept planets being arbitrarily reclassified because a very small group of astronomers says so. Plenty of well-known astronomers thought so as well, and there are obvious problems with the "cleared orbit" clause, which is applied totally arbitrarily. The majority of the IAU did not even vote on the proposal, as it happened after most people had left the conference.
For example:
> Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency's New Horizons mission to Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: "It's an awful definition; it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two reasons." [...] Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path." [...] "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room - you can't even claim consensus."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
A better insight might be how easy it is to persuade millions of people with a small group of experts and a media campaign that a fact they'd known all their life is "false" and that anyone who disagrees is actually irrational - the Authorities have decided the issue! This is an extremely potent persuasion technique "the elites" use all the time.
The Scientific American version has prettier graphs but this paper [1] goes through various measures for planetary classification. Pluto doesn't fit in with the eight planets.
I mean there's always the a the implied asterisk "per IAU definitions". Pluto hasn't actually changed or vanished. It's no less or more interesting as an object for the change.
It's not irrational to challenge the IAU definition, and there are scads of alternatives (what scientist doesn't love coming up with a new ontology?).
I think, however, it's perhaps a bit irrational to actually be upset by the change because you find it painful to update a simple fact like "there are nine planets" (with no formal mention of what planet means specifically, other than "my DK book told me so when I was 5 and by God, I loved that book") to "there are eight planets, per some group of astronomers, and actually we've increasingly discovered it's complicated what 'planet' even means and the process hasn't stopped yet". In fact, you can keep the old fact too with its own asterisk "for 60 years between Pluto's discovery and the gradual discovery of the Kuiper belt starting in the 90s, Pluto was generally considered a planet due to its then-unique status in the outer solar system, and still is for some people, including some astronomers".
And that's all for the most minor, inconsequential thing you can imagine: what a bunch of dorks call a tiny frozen rock 5 billion kilometres away, that wasn't even noticed until the 30s. It just goes to show the potential sticking power of a fact once learned, especially if you can get it in early and let it sit.
I think what you were missing is that the crux of the problem is that this obscured the fact that a small minority of astronomers at a conference without any scientific consensus, asserted something and you and others uncritically accepted that they had the authority to do so, simply based on media reports of what had occurred. This is a great example of an elite influence campaign, although I doubt it was deliberately coordinated outside of a small community in the IAU. But it’s mainly that which actually upsets people: people they’ve never heard of without authority declaring something arbitrarily true and the sense they are being forced to accept it. It’s not Pluto itself. It’s that a small clique in the IAU ran a successful influence campaign without any social or even scientific consensus and they’re pressured to accept the results.
You can say well it’s just the IAU definition, but again the media in textbook writers were persuaded as you were and deemed this the “correct” definition without any consensus over the meaning of the word being formed prior.
The definition of a planet is not a new problem. It was an obvious issue the minute we discovered that there were rocks, invisible to the naked eye floating in space. It is a common categorization problem with any natural phenomena. You cannot squeeze nature into neat boxes.
Also, you failed to address the fact that the definition is applied entirely arbitrarily. The definition was made with the purpose of excluding Pluto, because people felt that they would have to add more planets and they didn’t want to do that. Therefore, they claimed that Pluto did not meet the criteria, but ignore the fact that other planets also do not meet the criteria. This is just nakedly silly.
> because people felt that they would have to add more planets and they didn’t want to do that
The first exoplanet was detected in 1995, so it seems very unlikely this was the case. We have thousands of detected planets now and are beginning to understand them more than ever.
It is a common categorization problem with any natural phenomena.
Correct, it's called sorites paradox. At the same time when you figure out that Pluto isn't one large object with smaller moons around it, but instead a few larger objects orbiting an external barycenter it stops making sense to treat it like the other planets.
> he problem comes when the crash out costs the business and then you get nothing due to type of insurance (pretty much we pay nothing you pay everything yourself), or the ability of companies to fight endless court battles which your insurance likely does not cover.
Business automobile insurance doesn't work any differently than consumer automobile insurance. Liability payouts don't usually (ever?) have deductibles. I was recently sideswiped by a guy driving a massive pickup truck for work and their insurance paid me promptly and fairly without any fuss at all. At least the state liability insurance laws I am familiar with do not change just because you're a business.
Mozilla did lose their way. It happened because they abandoned their core users: you. People who loved Firefox so much they practically forced it on everyone around them.
Google released Chrome with a massive advertising campaign, reaching even to television. They put ads for Chrome on the world's biggest web properties. It was packaged in installers. Not to say it wasn't a good browser - but it wasn't obviously better than Firefox. This marketing campaign bought them a ton of marketshare.
Mozilla's response, instead of sticking by Mozilla evangelists, nearly all of whom were power users, was to decide that the browser was too complicated for its users. It needed to be more like Chrome. It needed to be the browser for the proverbial grandma. So they axed features (like Panorama), configurability, and extensibility, alienating everyone who really cared. Only they didn't have the marketing heft of Google, so they didn't get Grandma, either.
Ever since then they've been panicking and grasping at straws and shoving in shovelware like Pocket in obviously vain attempts to regain what they had. And they never will, until they make people like you and me LOVE Firefox again.
I've been saying for over a decade that Mozilla decided to abandon their core demographic - power users, instead going after people who "really like chrome, but think that it’s just too fast and doesn’t use enough memory".
I always questioned how big that demographic was. Looking at a chart of Firefox's market share would seem to indicate that I might have been on to something.
But Mozilla just keep doubling down on trash. They're not actually interested in hearing what people want. People like me tried to tell them before we abandoned Firefox. But they weren't interested in listening. It's been this way for 10 years or more now.
I've long been of the opinion that the best thing for Mozilla would be for it to die, so that some other FOSS group (maybe the FSF, or debian, someone like that) could take its place with a firefox fork. And maybe even start actually improving the software again.
Multiple factors, e.g the perceived lack of an immediate need, and also Mozilla's control of the firefox codebase.
For instance, one improvement that a more user-respecting group might contribute is ripping out all the AI slop. But as pointed out in the article, Mozilla like the AI slop and wouldn't accept those changes.
If Mozilla was to disappear, orgs like those I mentioned would likely see a more urgent need to take over in order to break the chrom(ium) monoculture.
To be fair, Mozilla-affiliated developers have accomplished some serious cleanup in recent years.
New & redesigned features are fake tabs with special permissions instead of that unholy intertwining of web standards and local UI in C++. Storage is almost-proper sqlite3. Dynamic linking against system libraries old&new just works(tm). Even the vendored Rust packages more or less build fine, now even across multiple compiler versions. Plus, AMDs new-ish CPUs with ginormous L3 brought recompile (and thus, bisect) times to almost reasonable levels, so that is not as pressing of an issue any more. I would guesstimate only 25 years left at the current speed till Firefox can be considered maintainable again.
When Chrome was released, the advertising I recall focused on one killer feature that Firefox didn't get for many years after that: Speed.
Chrome's JIT JavaScript was so much faster than everyone else's interpreted JavaScript that you could run a materially different kind of software in the browser. It was like the difference between a slow interpreted language and a fast compiled one. Chrome's rendering was also fast.
There was even a cartoon explaining how the new JavaScript engine worked.
Chrome felt like the next generation of browser.
I say this as someone who remained a fan and user of Firefox throughout. I stuck with Firefox through its relatively slow years.
Firefox caught up, but it took years. It got its own JIT JavaScript, but there were a few years after that where Firefox's rendering was relatively slow by the new standards. However, Firefox has excellent performance all round by now.
I was disappointed when Chrome came out that JIT JavaScript could even be a marketable feature and wasn't already the default in the best open source browsers, because it seemed like such an obvious thing to do for many years prior, and not particularly difficult. I guess market forces resulted in nobody deciding to do it in Firefox, or any other open source browser, until competition made it a necessity. I was quite surprised, because Firefox seemed like the product of passionate technology nerds, and performance JITs are very fun and satisfying things to make, with visible results.
> When Chrome was released, the advertising I recall focused on one killer feature that Firefox didn't get for many years after that: Speed.
And sandboxing. Browser sandboxing was rare due to the memory required, and Chrome released right around when it started being practical to run tabs in separate processes.
Random thought, but Kagi is acting like I wish Mozilla would. Their main product is a search engine, but they’ve been trying out a slew of other initiatives, all of which seem well thought out and integrate LLMs in an exclusively thoughtful, opt-in way. Surely many of them will end up being failures, but I can’t help but be impressed.
Maybe it’s because I’m a power user and they tend to cater to power users, idk — that’s definitely what the comment above yours is hinting at.
But at this point, I think we can all agree that whatever Mozilla is doing now isn’t working… so maybe power users are worth a shot again?
Search is quite the undertaking, so I'm not really hoping that Mozilla takes that on in particular. I'm just pointing out the odd reality that I tend to trust Kagi (a for-profit) to fight the general good fight in a way I agree with more than I trust Mozilla (a non-profit).
> There is no evidence that children with fever, as opposed to hyperthermia, are at increased risk of adverse outcomes such as brain damage.10,12,24–26 Fever is a common and normal physiologic response that results in an increase in the hypothalamic “set point” in response to endogenous and exogenous pyrogens.12,26 In contrast, hyperthermia is a rare and pathophysiologic response with failure of normal homeostasis (no change in the hypothalamic set point) that results in heat production that exceeds the capability to dissipate heat.12,26 Characteristics of hyperthermia include hot, dry skin and central nervous system dysfunction that results in delirium, convulsions, or coma.26 Hyperthermia should be addressed promptly, because at temperatures above 41°C to 42°C, adverse physiologic effects begin to occur.10,12,27 Studies of health care workers, including physicians, have revealed that most believe that the risk of heat-related adverse outcomes is increased with temperatures above 40°C (104°F), although this belief is not justified.7,26,28–30 A child with a temperature of 40°C (104°F) attributable to a simple febrile illness is quite different from a child with a temperature of 40°C (104°F) attributable to heat stroke.
You cannot get a dangerously high fever. You can get a dangerously high body temperature from heat stroke, or I suppose you could have some rare hypothalmic disease. But fever as an immune response is not dangerous to adults or children.
This is often the case. In the absence of clear, overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I find it best to accept what ancient writers say. In this case, Herodotus wrote about cats in Egypt and clearly thought them a fascinating novelty. If a well-traveled Greek from Halicarnassus thought that cats required several paragraphs of description and were something he specially associated with Egypt, it would seem pretty likely that a) cat domestication occurred in Egypt based on his full description and b) domesticated cats did not spread out of Egypt until quite late.
This happens again and again because nobody can make a career out of saying "yes, Herodotus/Thucydides/Polybius/etc were right." Well, at least not until many other people spend their careers writing about how they were wrong.
One fascinating passage in Herodotus's description mentions that cats were attracted to fire and would sometimes run into them and die. My edition describes this in a footnote as a ludicrous embellishment. I agreed...until I dated a girl who told me (unprompted, never having heard this) how her pet cat had done exactly this.
It’s pretty demoralizing to see how many people accept at face value a totally anonymous lawsuit backed by Norm Lubow. The plaintiff never made any court appearances and the suit was withdrawn or dismissed each time, in the first case because nobody even lived at the address “she” gave.
Ultimately Lubow recruited a patent lawyer to run the case who also apparently never met her. Then a real lawyer set up a press conference for her. This was the first time any journalist got to meet her in person - and it was the Daily Mail. They reported it was all made up and the case and “Katie Johnson” disappeared forever.
But still it keeps coming up again and again, because people really want to believe their political enemies are evil. I guess it’s no different than the conspiracy theories Clinton was killing people. I just hope we as a country get better.
> But why would we care what Nietzsche would think and for whom he wrote?
Because we're reading an article titled "Why Nietzsche matters in the age of artificial intelligence": the author ought then to know what he's talking about.
This is reasonably common with all pop writers about any philosopher, but it's nearly ubiquitous for Nietzsche. For a long time, I found this baffling. You can understand why someone might be confused about what Heidegger or Kant meant about something. Nietzsche writes very clearly and simply. This led me to realize that after a certain point, understanding has much less to do with cognitive capability and more to do with your emotional background and prejudices, something akin to what Nietzsche called the "intellectual conscience." I no longer actually read any article on any popular website about Nietzsche because you can be sure they don't have anything interesting to say; they don't understand the guy they're talking about.
The average HNer, who is fairly literate and well-informed about tax-prep, tends to misunderstand the situation.
Using tax preparation software is the cheap (or free!) alternative to what millions of Americans are doing. It was a change for the better for people who didn't do their own taxes. A regular person's taxes can always be done electronically for free, or if they really want, for $20-$100 through tax prep software.
What millions of Americans do is pay a local accountant hundreds of dollars. The accountant pays himself out of their refund. He is "their guy" who is going to find all the "loopholes" to get them the biggest possible refund. He is also a shield between them and the vengeful and anal IRS that will garnish their paychecks or possibly even imprison them for making mistakes. (This is how the accountants market things, not reality.)
The masses generally don't want to "fix" e-filing/tax prep because a) you can already do it for free if you want to, it just requires a third-party which may be dumb but isn't getting most people fired up or b) they don't care about tax prep software at all because they're using an accountant.
There are 800k people out there with Preparer Tax Identification Numbers(PTINs) being paid to file other people's taxes. Looking around for the estimates for the actual stats of the percentages of people supposed to use these preparers varies from 25-55%.
> The average HNer, who is fairly literate and well-informed about tax-prep, tends to misunderstand the situation.
The fact that TurboTax is cheaper than a local CPA does not change the fact that Intuit actively lobbies to prevent free tax filing.
In a sane world the IRS should send a letter to every tax-paying household in February that says “we owe you X”, “you owe us X”, or “your taxes are complex, please work with a tax specialist”. Also in a sane world this would be free and the government would be incentivized to simplify the tax code so that as many people as possible were in one of the first buckets. In our world the government is aggressively lobbied for complex tax codes and prevention of free tax filing.
> A regular person's taxes can always be done electronically for free, or if they really want, for $20-$100 through tax prep software.
Define “regular”. Per TurboTax, only 37% of people qualify for free filing.
I have never tried to go through the TurboTax free file route but based on my experience with the paid service, I imagine they aggressively upsell free filers with the exact same scare tactics you associate with CPAs.
I suspect GP is simply misinformed about the reality of the situation. They also explicitly state “you can already do it for free if you want to, it just requires a third-party”.
They are missing the context that only a fraction of filers are eligible to use free filing and that TurboTax paid something like 140 million to settle claims that they are misleading filers. That suit is why they now admit only 37% of people are even eligible to file for free.
Free Fillable Forms is free for everyone. It is technically a third party. It’s very simple if you have the average tax filing situation.
There are also other services that provide free efiling regardless of income, it’s not just TurboTax.
At the end of the day, you can always do the paperwork if you really don’t want anyone seeing your taxes and mail it. Could it be better? Oh sure, but it’s difficult for me to feel very passionate about it.
> In a sane world the IRS should send a letter to every tax-paying household in February that says “we owe you X”, “you owe us X”, or
As mentioned in sibling posts, the IRS does NOT have the information it needs to get even close on your taxes. They know your reported income. They do not know your marital status, how you’re going to file, if or how many kids you have and will be filing for, and many other things. These all have MAJOR tax impacts.
An additional factor is state taxes really need to be packaged together with the actual solution.
> Oh sure, but it’s difficult for me to feel very passionate about it.
Just passionate enough to say that everyone unhappy with Intuit lobbying against free tax filing and simplified tax codes doesn’t understand?
> As mentioned in sibling posts, the IRS does NOT have the information it needs to get even close on your taxes. They know your reported income. They do not know your marital status, how you’re going to file, if or how many kids you have and will be filing for, and many other things. These all have MAJOR tax impacts.
This is misleading. The IRS does have this because for most people it does not change year to year. It would also be trivial for them to provide a way to input this data if/when it does change.
I’m not entirely sure what your point is. You say you don’t care about this but seem very invested in defending Intuit’s lobbying.
You also seem to be simultaneously claiming that the US tax system is too complex for the government to feasibly automate and that filing taxes is trivial.
Either you hold contradictory viewpoints here or you have some undisclosed interest in this area.
I'd like to defend the notion of using a CPA a bit. I started using one when I became a partner in a passthrough LLC. I was now self-employed and was responsible for paying taxes on the businesses income as well as my own personal income. Filing that first year was incredibly stressful and time consuming, and I came to the conclusion that sometimes the right thing to do is to hire someone who knows what theyre doing.
Your post paints accountants as con-men, swindling people and promising "loopholes". Maybe some are, but they do provide a valuable service, especially if your tax situation is non-trivial.
I would love for the tax code to be simplified enough that I don't feel compelled to hire someone who put in the work to understand it, but that's simply not the case right now.
I think GP’s point was that the vast majority of individuals have taxes that look like “one W2, maybe a couple 1099s, and standard deduction.” Many of these people have been scared into using a CPA when they really just need to plug-and-chug a few numbers into tax software.
As soon as the words “passthrough LLC” (or “farm” or “S-corp” or “itemize”) are on the table, it’s usually worth it to pay $1,000 for a professional, assuming your time is worth something.
Exactly. Tax complexity drives the CPA / tax prep need.
That said, there is a huge swath of America that's being preyed on by strip-mall tax prep, who derive zero benefit from it. (And an industry whose profits ultimately trickle up to the tax prep software companies)
I was blown away when I learned one of my wife's friends, who has a single W2 and some bank interest, pays H&R Block every year to file her taxes! No stocks or rental income or IRAs or anything else that could complicate things. But still she, and millions of Americans, pay these companies to fill out what amounts to a single form. Eye opening.
Entering a 1099-B for stocks is dead simple, you enter in a few numbers (cumulative buys, sells, and wash sales) and you’re done. You transmit your trade history to the IRS digitally.
It takes me about 20-30 minutes to enter a W2, 1099-INT, 1099-B, 1099-B (futures) and a 1256 (straddles and index options) into FreeTaxUSA every spring.
Just like every other company, HR block sells emotions, not a product. The two emotions are: not getting in trouble with the IRS, and getting a good deal (with whatever advantage the HR block employee can find applies to you). Maybe also not having the stress of having to learn how to do your taxes. (WTF is an AMT?)
As for "having most of your tax information", they don't. They know your reported income. You see that on your W2s/1099s/etc. What they don't know is whether or not you had a kid this year, or whether you lost a kid this year, whether you got married or divorced, if your spouse is claiming the kids this year or not, the number or amount of your charitable contributions, whether you have deductible mileage expenses, or a million other things.
The info that the IRS has from your employer is maybe 5 boxes on your return. Literally takes a few minutes to take the info from your w-2 and put it on a 1040.
If it's so easy, why is the IRS unable to do that? Why must I retype all of the information that they already have? If there's anything they don't have, I have zero issue tying that in myself.
The number and type of people living in your household is not an edge case. It applies to almost everyone, has huge tax impacts, and the IRS doesn’t know.
They can’t. Because IRS IT has been starved, beaten and abused for 20 years. If they had the resources and leadership, all of this could be possible via MOUs and better data access/normalization from the mainframes.
Filing a 1040 in the US is also very easy and takes a few minutes and can be done for free.
Another factor most people are ignoring is that state taxes are filed at the same time and each state has its own separate system. These third parties let you fill in and file both at the same time. It would be nice if the US gov did this too but it requires a total restructuring of the American system, and Intuit’s lobbying has nothing to do with why it hasn’t happened or for that matter why the tax codes looks like it does.
Not for most people. It’s a giant pain in the ass if you have bank accounts and want to file correctly.
If all you do is plug in your w-2 and pretend that’s your whole tax return and you don’t care about anything except the standard deduction, sure. That’s not correct for most people.
> state taxes are filed at the same time and each state has its own separate system
Can we stop pretending like this is a problem insurmountable for the federal government?
This idea that TurboTax can make this work but the government can’t is absurd.
25% of returns include the child tax credit and 16% include the earned income tax credit. These aren’t wealthy people filing with CPAs. These are lower income folks who specifically benefited from the IRS direct file program.
Again, you seem to simultaneously believe that nearly everyone has trivial taxes to file while believing that the government cannot reasonably support free direct filing for these people. I have to wonder how you reconcile these beliefs in your head. “I mean, this is so simple. Any moron can do it. But not the agency specifically responsible for handling trillions in tax revenue. Nah, too complex for them.”
Credits are applied after you take the standard deduction. You subtract the standard deduction, figure out your taxable income, then subtract credits and taxes already paid.
> These aren’t wealthy people filing with CPAs. These are lower income folks who specifically benefited from the IRS direct file program.
Lower income people were not using IRS direct file. That’s would be the economically rational thing to do, but this is exactly the market the strip mall CPA target. They also offer advances. I have tried and tried and tried to get lower income people to use free or direct file. Virtually none are interested. They have “their guy” who is getting them a great refund.
I do not even understand the terms you are using. In France (and other EU countries), "figuring out taxable income", "standard deduction", "subtracting credits", etc. are not your concerns.
The web page has all this information, you say OK and you are done. There is not a single "figuring out" you need to do.
This is, of course, the case for 95% of the population. You can be in the 5% where your tax filing becomes very complicated. In that case, though, you give this to a CPA and the cost of this service is zero compared to the amount of euros you deal with.
The IRS has no idea what deductions and credits are applicable to you and has no way of finding out. They could maybe prefill your reported gross income but then they’re at a loss.
In other countries there are such things as national citizen registries with domicile and familial information, this doesn’t exist in the US. If it did you could use that information to get much more of a start.
> Credits are applied after you take the standard deduction.
I did not state otherwise. The point is that you are misstating the complexity of the typical tax return. It is not in fact “enter your W-2, take the standard deduction, and done” for most people, even for those with relatively straightforward taxes.
> Lower income people were not using IRS direct file.
I don’t think the IRS has released this data. I do know that direct file was specifically limited to simple cases though.
Yes, in many European countries dependents and marital status changes are registered in a national civil registry, which the tax authority can query directly.
Countries like the U.S., Canada, the U.K. cannot easily do that without huge data-sharing reforms.
The federal government doesn't always know if you've had a child or if you've died. Not even specifically the IRS, but its possible for you to have a child and never involve any organization that reports to the federal government.
It is absolutely possible, just as there are tons of other exceptions that Direct File wouldn't cover. The point is that there's a golden happy path that many people trot along where things could just be easy.
For example:
> Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency's New Horizons mission to Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: "It's an awful definition; it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two reasons." [...] Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path." [...] "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room - you can't even claim consensus." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
A better insight might be how easy it is to persuade millions of people with a small group of experts and a media campaign that a fact they'd known all their life is "false" and that anyone who disagrees is actually irrational - the Authorities have decided the issue! This is an extremely potent persuasion technique "the elites" use all the time.
reply