Yeah? Well, so’s your face!

careful not to cut yourself on that edge.

Yeah, we’ll fix our ((democracy)) by killing all the ((bad people)) ((Rich people))

FTFY.

Nothing good comes from antagonizing ICE directly. You will not stop a single person from being kidnapped by confronting ICE directly. They’ll just go back and get more funding, more manpower, more resources, more militarization, and more and more people will be kidnapped. So it’s not really like treating the cough with Robitussin. It’s more like treating it with cocaine. Or asbestos.

If “Slashing Tires” is your level of commitment, you’re better off slashing the tires of a random millionaire. Instead of ICE demanding more resources for their operations, that millionaire will demand resources be diverted to protecting their cars instead of abducting people. Meanwhile, we all cheer every time we read about a 1% being targeted.

I will absolutely judge people for their wasted, wasteful, and futile efforts. Trying to target ICE agents just ensures you’ll be locked up or dead. You won’t stop any immigration action. You won’t spare a single victim from being persecuted. You’ll just serve as a warning to everyone else not to resist.

If you’re choosing violence, choose an effective target.

I, too, need this information. I now know how and when I’m going to die, I just need to know where.

You are wrong.

Eating enough rich people stops everyone’s friends from being kidnapped.

Don’t fight the puppet. Guillotine the puppeteer.

You don’t knife tires to fight back against ICE.

ICE is the symptom, not the disease. If ICE was a persistent cough, knifing tires is treating it with Robitussin. Except that this particular cough is caused by tuberculosis, and the Robitussin will just make you feel better. While you die.

You need to treat the disease, not the symptom. To fight back against ICE, barbecue a billionaire.

ISPs like to offer, say $65 for service (without committing to a specific speed… Their 100/100 service is “up to 100Mbps” and not a guarantee.)

They then want to charge a modem rental fee - another $5/mo. They want to charge a wifi access point rental fee - another $5/mo. They want to charge various regulatory fees, universal access fees, taxes, etc. They want their advertisements to say “$65/mo”, but they want to collect more like $90/mo.

You can buy your own modem and save that $5/mo (but they often push back against that, claiming your modem isn’t compatible, or that other customers have complained about inferior service with that modem). You can use your own wifi AP and save that $5/mo (but again, they discourage it…) You can’t get away from the regulatory fees.

If I put federal law enforcement and National Guard into a nice sleepy Southern town, is anyone gonna riot?”

Probably, yes.

The only thing the good ol’ boys hate more than them “liberal queers” is the federal government sticking its nose in their business.

Ask Cliven Bundy if he’ll put up with the National Guard in his “sleepy” town.

The entire concept of “rent” needs to die in a goddamn fire. There are much better arrangements to fill the niche you are talking about. What is lacking is a regulatory environment making those arrangements preferable to rent.

“Rent” is typically a year-to-year arrangement. Every year, the deal is renegotiated and the tenant ends up paying more.

A “Land Contract” is (initially) similar to rent, but it is negotiated only once, and the monthly fee is fixed for the life of the agreement, like a mortgage.

For the first three years of the agreement, you pay your monthly fee, and you live in the home. You are free to walk away at any time.

If you stay longer than three years, the entire agreement automatically converts to a private mortgage, with your first three years of payments considered the down payment. You continue to make the same payment, but now you are earning equity.

All that is well and good, but landlords won’t offer land contracts, because land contracts favor the tenant/buyer.

Not to worry. We’re going to restructure property taxes. We’re going to have landlords begging tenants to switch to land contracts. The way we do it is by offering an owner-occupant exemption to property taxes. This is called a “homestead exemption” in some states. Basically, if you occupy a home, you pay a tiny fraction of the property taxes that you would owe if you didn’t occupy that home. Or, more accurately, if you are an investor, your property tax rate is going to the moon.

Land Contract tenants/buyers are considered “owners”. The property you are living in is owned by the occupants, and financed by the landlord/seller. The property taxes are at the owner-occupant rate, not the investor rate. Property taxes on “rentals” melt all the profits the landlord could be earning, so they are incentivized to switch to land contracts.

The more complex answer is that the stock market at this point is just a speculative mess where numbers are made up because the price isn’t dictated by what the company is currently capable of doing but rather what the company potentially could be doing in thue future.

You seem to be under the impression it was ever anything else.

If thr only thing electronics are 100% efficient

Heat pumps are much more than 100% electrically efficient. They are around 300% electrically efficient.

Watt for watt, a heat pump sinks a lot more heat into your house than either a resistive heating element or a raspberry pi.

if you’re actually using the waste heat from a PC does that mean its basically 100% energy efficient?

Yes, but there is a big caveat: Heat pumps are much greater than 100% electrically efficient.

No, that doesn’t violate thermodynamics. We don’t count any of the thermal energy input into the “source” side of the heat pump, but it ends up on the “sink” side anyway. We are only comparing electrical input to thermal output, and the thermal output is much greater than the electrical input: Heat pumps are much more electrically efficient at heating your home than any form of resistive heating, including the waste heat from your PC.

A mining rig might be able to exceed the economic efficiency of a heatpump, but we would need much more data to attempt that calculation.

That’s only true if we’re comparing GPU mining to resistive heating. Both are equally efficient at converting electrical energy to heat: 100%.

The numbers don’t look nearly as good when we compare GPU mining to a heat pump. Heat pumps utilize an additional, uncounted source of free energy (outdoor heat). Since we aren’t counting that additional energy, the electrical efficiency of the heat pump is much greater than 100%.

We need someone to do to the Democrats what the Tea Party did to the GOP.

We need a Guillotine Party.

Long ago, yes, but not by 1989.

Or, US economic influence is considerably greater than you considered.

Tell me: What is the correct withholding for an individual who claims dependent credits (line 3) and/or deductions (line 4(b)) equal or greater than they expect in total income?

The math says that number is zero. Any number other than “zero” is not the correct withholding. There is no legal or mathematical justification for any other number: The correct withholding is “zero”.

The confusion arises from what “exempt status” actually means. If you read the instructions on the W4, you’ll find that what it actually means is that you are not disclosing your dependent credits and deductions via W4. You complete only steps 1(a) (your Name); 1(b) (your social security number) and 5 (signature and date). You write “exempt” under line 4© and provide no further information. You are not informing your employer or the IRS why there should be zero withholding; you are only informing them that you are exempt from withholding.

In this hypothetical, I’m not claiming exempt status. I don’t qualify to claim it, because I had a tax liability last year. That does not mean that some entirely arbitrary amount of money must be withheld for taxes I don’t actually owe. It means that I must actually disclose that I intend to claim credits and deductions exceeding my total income.

From the W4 instructions:

Exemption from withholding. You may claim exemption from withholding for 2025 if you meet both of the following conditions: you had no federal income tax liability in 2024 and you expect to have no federal income tax liability in 2025. You had no federal income tax liability in 2024 if (1) your total tax on line 24 on your 2024 Form 1040 or 1040-SR is zero (or less than the sum of lines 27, 28, and 29), or (2) you were not required to file a return because your income was below the filing threshold for your correct filing status. If you claim exemption, you will have no income tax withheld from your paycheck and may owe taxes and penalties when you file your 2025 tax return. To claim exemption from withholding, certify that you meet both of the conditions above by writing “Exempt” on Form W-4 in the space below Step 4©. Then, complete Steps 1(a), 1(b), and 5. Do not complete any other steps.