> The person who’s passsing the money down already paid tax on the money.

If they're passing down cash yes, but if they pass on assets like stocks or real estate, the cost basis gets stepped up to the fair market value at the time of death (in the US at least). So any capital gains accrued on those assets prior to the death of the person passing them on are just never taxed.

There isn’t a deemed disposition at the fair market value at the time of death? I thought the estate paid that capital gain which is why the inheritor receives it at the new FMV?

I think the argument is that certain kinds of inheritance, like real estate and ownership in small businesses, cannot survive the taxes. It's the "what about the family farm/store/restaurant?" argument.

No. It’s completely fucking indefensible and sitting there in plain sight.

nope.

At least some of the legally problematic reimbursement payments to Cohen happened while he was president.

Yup https://simpleflying.com/the-mcdonnell-douglas-blended-wing-...

I know you're probably just making a point but you realize this isn't true right? He would have to liquidate meta stock to make this happen, resulting in the price dropping and requiring him to liquidate more etc. etc.

He could probably take a loan against his stock.

Doing maths that depend on paper worth is pointless.

Making operations idempotent.

And the "real-world example" is just someone getting distracted, not yak shaving.

Similar thought: I think you could stay there's a spectrum of yak shaving. I wouldn't as the article call 'going down the rabbit hole' yak shaving as rabbit holes feel more intentional.

My feeling of things related to yak shaving:

Rabbit holes - intentionally following some thread of associations looking for some insight or unexpected solution

Yak shaving - While working on something important you iteratively find something more important that you feel you need to deal with first. Supposedly but not necessarily it's something you have to deal with to be able to solve the original problem.

I agree that the articles example of yak shaving is a special case of yak shaving where it isn't very clear that the shaver feels that the distraction is more important. But I suppose such feeling is always a bit implied in the word distraction.

> Yak shaving - While working on something important you iteratively find something more important that you feel you need to deal with first.

No; yak shaving is something you must deal with to continue working on your original "something important". It is solving blockers, not following distractions.

With stock though there's a company associated with the stock that (theoretically) brings in profits. Predicted future profits drive the stock price.

Every single elevator in Korea allows you to deselect a floor by simply pushing the button again.

You'd be surprised how often it comes in handy and have never had an issue with anyone deselecting someone else's floor.

Every elevator in Korea works this way. Pressing once selects, pressing again deselects.

Perhaps you could answer the two questions here, preferably relating to a named elevator model: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32005810

And maybe answer my question too: how do blind people know if they are selecting or deselecting?

Watching foreign button-mashers must be amusing!

Any asset that you can resell (Real estate, commodities) is a hedge against inflation. Bitcoin isn't special.

Putting all your eggs in the Bitcoin basket is risky because it will likely collapse because it's a less than zero-sum Ponzi scheme. It's arguably good for short term speculation but not long term investment.