What makes you think things need to be special in order to be pushing toward the future? A lot of the work of building something better is incremental and not especially innovative.

People don’t pay attention to how true innovation comes through iteration. We didn’t just magically have the devices we have today from nothing; they are the result of years of subtle improvements over time.

That anybody on HN doesn’t realise this blows my mind, but perhaps they’re only young and think the world has always been full of amazing devices like this since the get go.

It found it helpful that it was presented that simply. The point isn’t what else is or isn’t deductible, it’s that engineering salaries went from being deductible to being amortized.

Businesses don't get to say they're claiming "$900k in costs" ... it depends on what kind of costs... EDIT: and in this instance, it depends on what kind of software engineering.

But why is software engineering treated specially, here? Does Disney have to pay taxes on film animators the same way, given that they're developing a capital asset?

Probably that is a large, rich field, and when you crunch the numbers, collecting corporate income taxes on 80% of essentially all s/w developer salaries in the first year after it goes into effect was a nice push to the CBO numbers related to Trump's 2017 tax cuts.

This is what's happened at my workplace. We account for time spent working on developing new products differently that development time maintaining legacy applications. Because they are reported for tax purposes differently.

> Because they are reported for tax purposes differently.

For software that used to be an option.

Sec 174 removes the option.

This gets really “gray”. I work on web software and we tend to deploy at the end of the day. Meaning only the smallest programs are “new” or not yet in service.

This is a mess.

Seems like maintenance is better and can be deducted in the same year?

Exactly

Learning a bit more than “absolutely nothing” about Erlang would make a conversation more productive. The Wikipedia page [0] has some material relevant to your question under the “‘Let it crash’ design philosophy” heading.

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_(programming_language...

Depends on a lot of variables, I'd think:

- How dense is the wood?

- How much wood does each pip remove?

- How much water does the wood absorb per unit of volume?

- Are any capillary effects at play transferring absorbed water into the rest of the die?

- Is it better to soak the 6 side to take advantage of more surface area? Or the 1 side to take advantage of more soakable volume?

- Is the wood even uniformly dense to begin with?

Indeed. But given the ratios between the other five numbers and the waterlogged six, do you think it’s even remotely plausible that the water isn’t doing anything? For it to not be necessary, you’d expect that the die comes pre-loaded.

How much is FakeBold doing there, though? Easy to say it’s “just” TNR, but if the features of TNR that make it characterless have been supplanted with something soulful, then haven’t you just found a soulful typeface that you like?

That mistake might induce human error—which is absolutely a source of danger—but it undoubtedly had a clear path to pull around the “stopped” vehicle, and as you said, you can generally trust Wayno not to plow into pedestrians. So what made it “lucky” that no one was hurt?

If the "stopped" vehicle made the turn as the Waymo made the presumably-illegal turn into the "stopped" vehicle that was now moving?

So the answer is that we clearly need that car also to be a Waymo. Problem solved! Hah.

Why don’t we have cars talk to each other and coordinate their routing? Like some sort of peer to peer mechanism that helps them not crash each other. Why can’t vehicles be made to stop at cross walks when someone is crossing with some sort of communication to the vehicle?

There is a long and glorious research bibliography on v2v comms for this purpose :-) The obstacles are pretty obvious, the chicken-and-egg problem and trust.

As someone who works on autonomous driving, having wireless communications on a path where it’s responsible for safety guarantees is a nightmare

Solve this problem and LA traffic will get much better

Have you read enough history to know what life was like before we got rid of child labor, established weekends as a norm, regulated food products, etc.? Or do you assume that the free market provides those things because you’ve only lived in an age where you can take them for granted?

If you think someone is obviously wrong, it might be worth pausing for a second and considering where you might just be referring to different things. Here, you seem to understand “this” to mean “a serious bug.” Since it’s obvious that a serious bug could happen, it seems likely that the author meant “this” to mean “the kind of bug that led to the breach we’re presently discussing.”

I do not assume anyone is obviously wrong and prefer to ask questions. Most bugs exist in classes, and variants are something you typically consider when a bug results in a production incident.

I'm not sure I read anything that makes me confident this class of bugs could never recur. I could be reasonably confident this _exact_ bug in this _exact_ scenario may not happen again, but that only makes me more concerned about variants that may have equal or more serious implications.

So I'm wondering which claim did it for you? I only really saw pen test as a concrete action.

Making horns non-mandatory at crossings wouldn’t prevent the engineer from using it when appropriate.

Why does it only count if the cells themselves freeze? Also, am I still allowed to play freeze tag, or do we need to rename that?