I don't think this would prevent the session cookie from being sent to tag manager. The tag manager document describes setting up a specific path on the website's normal domain, not using a subdomain.
Without commenting on the larger issue the article brings up, this specific point doesn't survive scrutiny to me:
Some of the company’s tactics post-merger were garden-variety ruthless, like eliminating 87 series from its streaming platform Max, so that they won’t have to pay union-mandated residuals to the talent that created already-existing programs or pony up funds to produce more seasons of existing ones (such as “Our Flag Means Death,” one of the company’s most popular and critically acclaimed comedies—canceled after just two seasons).
In the streaming era, it's very easy for the revenue created by hosting an older piece of content to be dwarfed by residuals. Streaming services get customers largely by releasing popular new titles; it's entirely predictable that pushing for higher residuals would drive services to sunset series faster, and it's entirely reasonable for services to stop hosting titles that lose them money.
Financially, HBO's decision makes perfect sense as you said but it still sucks, especially if those series had no physical release. If a book or DVD goes out of print you could at least track down a used copy but for streaming there's nothing.
When you tax something, you get less of it. By reducing the supply of a good, taxes deter otherwise mutually beneficial transactions from happening; the loss of mutual benefit from a tax (or other policy) is called "deadweight loss".
Land value taxes have a special property in that land owners cannot respond to the tax by producing less land; the supply of land is fixed. This means LVTs do not generate deadweight loss, which makes them very efficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Efficiency
The responses here are all assuming your grandmothers taxes would go up. But bear in mind LVTs are intend to replace the existing property tax regime (at least in the US). If your grandmother lives in a quiet suburb or rural area, it's likely that her taxes would decrease under an LVT if the LVT was trying to extract roughly the same amount of overall money as a property taxes regime.
If she lives in the middle of a city, then yes her taxes may increase.
Yes, that's exactly the idea. In Chicago, where I live, there are surface parking lots in the middle of the downtown surrounded by skyscrapers. In a logical system, the owner of those parking lots would have to pay just as much in land taxes as the skyscraper owners next to them -- and since they couldn't possibly afford to do so, they'd be forced to sell to someone who would develop the land and put it to more productive use. Under the current system, though, the parking lot owner pays peanuts while the skyscraper owner is effectively penalized for putting the land to use.
The gentrification situation is similar: if someone is living in a single-family home in an area that is filling up with apartments, they're using the land much less efficiently than a replacement structure would. As land values slowly increase, the owner would be prompted to eventually sell to someone who would put it to higher value use. You could have some speed bumps in the policy to make sure this doesn't happen too fast, but if you stop it entirely you're just giving up on productive land use.
It's worth noting that property taxes have the same dynamic, since they also incorporate land value in them. The difference though is that _property taxes discourage development_, which contributes to higher rents. Land value taxes do not have this problem; a world where we suddenly swap to LVTs is a world with many more buildings and much lower average rents.
And right now they can afford to wait forever! But with an LVT they have a big incentive to either develop it immediately or sell to someone else who will.
It's no coincidence that people who support LVTs are typically YIMBYs -- we want to reform urban planning and land use to make it easier to build things.
> But with an LVT they have a big incentive to either develop it immediately or sell to someone else who will.
An LVT gives no such incentives. LVT is explicitly agnostic about how the land is being used. You pay the same, no matter how the land is being used. That's why it's economically efficient.
However, a conventional property tax (and also income tax and capital gains tax etc) disincentivise developing. An LVT can help raise enough revenue to be able to lower or eliminate those other taxes, and thus indirectly help remove disincentives to developing.
I think you might be missing the context. The scenario we're discussing is a parking lot surrounded by skyscrapers in the middle of a major city. Under a property tax regime, the owner pays little taxes because the structures on the lot are not valuable. Under an LVT, the owner pays the same (high) taxes as the skyscrapers next to it, which would be obvious uneconomical.
So under property taxes, the parking lot owner can afford to wait and have the lot sit empty; under an LVT, they have an incentive to develop.
Yes, a property tax system disincentivises developing compared to not having a property tax.
The LVT has no influence on building.
If you draw a two-by-two matrix where the columns are property tax yes/no and the rows are LVT yes/no, you will find that the rows have no influence at all, and it's all about which column you are in.
Yes, that's exactly the idea. We have a problem in the US where many metro areas do not have enough housing, in part because building big things is penalized by the tax code. By changing the tax code to not penalize construction, we hope to get more construction.
Shifting the tax burden from homeowners and productive businesses onto idle land holders means that those that drive the community will penalize investment less and use limited resources in more effective ways.
Efficiency helps the wealthy, but it can help those with less even more, as it matters more.
How many of those houses are on the fringes, and how many are in the CBD? If there's a vacant plot next to the town hall then it doesn't really matter how many vacant houses are a 1-hour drive out, that town-hall adjacent plot is being wasted.
> How many of those houses are on the fringes, and how many are in the CBD?
Take a look for yourself[0]. This is just outside of the downtown area. Loads of vacant lots. This is theoretically prime real estate, and would be ripe for development. The problem is, it's the fucking hood and no one wants to live there. Detroit emptied out over the decades and those empty lots _used_ to be decaying crack houses. So several years ago Detroit had them leveled to reduce blight. Now they're whining that people are just "speculating" by sitting on the empty land. If there was even the slightest hint that developing this land made sense economically, someone would have done it by now. It's just too convenient to the downtown area. And yet, no one has. Perhaps there's more at play than just people trying to sit on empty land.
Maybe property tax should be inversely related to improvements, considering that improved land generates tax revenue in other ways, e.g. wage tax, sales tax, etc.
Then you have to come up with a way to evaluate the improvements, which might be tricky and subjective
It seems easier to just have a land value tax, so you don’t specifically disincentivize development. Then, you can spend that tax money to provide services that promote the other stuff: beautify downtown and add public transit, that sort of thing.
A lot of property taxes go to funding schools, so...more housing = more kids = more money need to educate them. It is nice that they use property taxes from businesses as well, but to completely detach the education need formulas from tax formulas sounds really dangerous.
Are any school districts outside of Prop 13 California funded by primarily income or sales tax? But ya, you would need to do something like that if you were to tax land rather than improvements given schools, police, and lots of infrastructure needs scale up with improvements.
A significant part of the educational budget of the US comes from federal funds and federal funds are almost entirely income taxes (some other sources exist).
Most schools receive very little funding from the federal government. Maybe the poorest school districts this makes up a significant part of their funding, but for most school districts it doesn't.
The table implies funding origins via taxes (local vs. state taxes, for example). I don't think any ED money is going to CA first before going to the districts. CA is also a special case where more funding is state level (due to Prop 13).
I appreciate this guy taking the time to test this stuff out, but... 2.5 minutes per application seems really reasonable and short? Even the Post Office application that took 10 minutes seems fine. I get that you might have to apply to a lot of different jobs, but at that rate in 2-3 hours of focused work, you could apply to nearly a hundred different jobs.
The fact that it's that easy to apply belies the tone the article takes, which generally bemoans how hard job applications are. But they didn't demonstrate that it's hard at all! Moreover, the author even says in the beginning that they didn't use any of the products that help you, like LinkedIn Easy Apply.
Anyway seems interesting but this mostly just confirmed my perception that applying to jobs is pretty easy. Interviews, on the other hand...
When I apply for a job it takes me at least an hour if not more. I adopt my resumé, write the motivation letter. If I spend less then 15 minutes it means I'm doing it as a requirement from the social benefits agency, for a job that I don't want.
Funny story. When I was going the coop workshops in uni they invited in some people from microsoft to talk about what they look for in a cover letter and they straight up said they don't read them.
That's good to hear because I stopped writing them because I started to feel like it discouraged companies from looking further.
I believe people in the hiring process are looking to work efficiently and a cover letter is just more stuff to read. They want to just read your resume because that's what will get passed around and what matters. Anything in your cover letter is mostly things they want to know in the interview.
This thread is interesting to me because I was told by my manager that my cover letter was a big reason they decided to interview me for my current job. Granted this was nearly 5 years ago, so things may have (read: have definitely) changed on the hiring front since then.
The actual application step might take that long, assuming you have all your supporting documents ready. The trouble is you often need to adapt your CV to the job & write a cover letter at a minimum. Depending how much you care about the job, this might include studying the job description carefully, reading the company website, and maybe even contacting the company to request more information. Then proof-reading and editing everything. It probably takes me at least an hour for most jobs, even if the actual submission of files only took 1 minute in the end.
2.5 is fine, but 10 feels incredibly long when half the time companies don't even both emailing back a rejection. Gives the thought "since they probably won't even see it, why don't I skip the 10 and apply to 4 2.5s?".
I also don't think 2.5 minutes is unreasonably long or much of a barrier. After spending an hour looking for relevant postings at companies I'm interested in, another few minutes to actually apply is not a big deal.
What is truly annoying though is creating new accounts for each company's application portal.
> 2.5 minutes per application seems really reasonable and short?
That's what I thought as well. I suppose 2.5 minutes feels incredibly long if you're spending your day watching 10 second reels on TikTok and Instagram.
I think it's a fair point that bots should strive to be useful and not just mock people's mistakes, but in the 8 years since this was written the whole "punch up, not down" idea in comedy has gotten a lot of criticism and is kind of passe at this point, at least in my experience.
Human beings simply do not exist on a single monolith spectrum of power; who is "up" or "down" often depends quite a lot on context. If an underemployed white male comedian makes a joke about Kamala Harris, is that punching up or down? _Parasite_ is a movie that mocks a rich family even as it portrays their poorer help as scheming and untrustworthy - is that up, or down? To steal an example from this excellent Freddie de Boer post on the topic, if an adjunct professor runs afoul of a student, are they really the ones in the position of power?
In this comment you seem to be reading "punch up not down" as a very binary, fixed rule, as if it is a being used as a commandment. I don't think many people think of it that way. Of course you can make comedy about poor and disadvantaged people if you want to, the point of the phrase is that when you do so you you think carefully about it.
> In this comment you seem to be reading "punch up not down" as a very binary, fixed rule
de Boer's blogpost paints it as the opposite: it's a nebulous, indefinite phrase used to try and simplify a complex reality into something that's easy to understand. de Boer reckons that the only consistent usage is "up" referring to "people I don't like", and "down" referring to "people I like".
Yes, I disagree quite strongly with the blogpost. He writes
> For it to make any sense at all, human beings would have to exist on some unitary plane of power and oppression, our relative places easily interpreted for the purpose of figuring out who we can punch
I think this is obvious bullshit. You need a strict, easily interpreted hierarchy of oppressor and oppressed in order to implement this strawman version of the punching up/down rule. This straw man is what I was referring to when I described it as a "commandment" in my previous comment.
On the other hand when the "rule" is interpreted in a more realistic way. Which is something like "make comedy about whoever you like, but consider carefully why you want to make fun of these groups of people, and consider the context of what you're doing", then you don't need this strict hierarchy at all.
To be explicit: I don't think the concept needs a consistent definition of "up" and "down" in order to be useful.
No, that kinda is right - under special relativity, as your apparent velocity from a fixed reference frame increases, it takes more and more energy to accelerate closer to light speed, so _moving_ faster than light is disallowed.
Another way of putting this is: we know because of special relativity that you can't just strap a lot of rocket boosters on a spaceship and expect to go faster than light. That won't work; if you want to _travel_ faster than light, you have to do it another way.
For a particle travelling faster than light (a tachyon) it takes more and more energy to decelerate the closer to light speed you are, and at zero energy velocity would be infinite. At least via a naïve look at what SR says.
