Everything I know about the pancreas I learned from Al! (I don't know if that says something bad about me or good about Al...)

Why do you want everything "flat"? It's inequitable to those who work for a living, it will reduce revenue, and there's no good evidence it will reduce waste or corruption. I'm guessing your goal is primarily #2 (reducing revenue), with the notion that if government revenue is cut it will reduce wasteful spending. This is a fallacy. Just because there's less money doesn't mean governments will spend it more wisely. In fact, rapid, thoughtless cuts, as we are seeing under Trump, has wasted a ton of money, probably more than was claimed to be saved. For example, Trump's latest move to cut the Department of Education (well, move it to various other agencies) has resulted in chaos, limits on ability to provide services to students and families, and a re-renovation to the tune of $100 million+. to a building that was just recently renovated for $50 million+ to meet the needs of the department moving there. AND, now that the education-related units are all going to be split up, the efficiency they once had by being together (they were separate at one point in the past and then were brought together for "efficiency") is gone. You can't tax-cut your way to efficiency.

And a flat income tax at the federal level is never going to happen.

Does the asteroid feature slime creatures from outer space?

I'm sure Al is celebrating the achievement with a Twinkie wiener sandwich....

And when the federal government - or any other government - creates a better, easier, faster, more simple tool similar to bitcoin for their existing currency, the value of BTC will be zero.

Most taxes in the U.S. are already "flat taxes." Gas tax, property tax, sales tax, social security tax, medicare tax...all "flat taxes." Turning the federal (and state?) income tax into a flat tax will likely reduce overall tax revenue and will not solve the tax evasion problems you mention.

I'm all for eliminating many of the tax breaks for the wealthy, especially the mortgage deduction for high earners, the capital gains tax on investments being so low for the wealthy, and the ability to hide income in offshore accounts. And an IRS that has been so gutted they don't have the resources to audit or pursue tax cheats. But a "flat income tax" won't fix these problems.

The other issue with a "flat tax" is that it removes one of the biggest mechanisms the federal government has to influence behavior of citizens. For example, if the government wants to incentivize people to have children, a tax deduction for families. If the government wants to incentivize putting solar panels on your home, a tax deduction for solar investments. And on and on. A flat tax takes away the government's ability to incentive (or punish) behaviors that are in the public's interest.

...business school, but without any pesky professors, accreditations, or quality control? AND I get to give my best ideas to Andreessen (and other VC types) who will then make a bunch of money on my idea and my work?

Where do I sign up?!?!?!

Yes, and it only counts against other profits you made during that same year. (There's no tax refund if you have negative profits for a year, although in some instances you might be able to apply those losses across multiple years.) AI says there's a $15 million limit to the deduction (maybe per year?) for movie production.

So if WB paid, say, a 20% corporate tax rate (haha, I'm sure that's much too high), a $15 million deduction from earnings only saves $3 million in tax bill ($15 x 0.2). So the execs decided to take the guaranteed $3 million (maybe x2) rather than gamble and pay for promotion and see what the movie could make in the theaters. Seems like a very stupid gamble. But, then again, most CEOs are not smart people.

I will, I promise :)!

Yes, in California you have to imagine this because demographic quotas are illegal for hiring in California. And having a racially diverse workforce in California is easy, since some 66% of the people who live there are non-white.

Should they be allowed to re-build these homes with kindling, so it easily burns in two years when the next fire sweeps through, leaving the government and charitable people to foot the bill once again for the cleanup and replacement? Or, I don't know, should rebuilt homes be required to reduce the chance of the death and danger from fire and be required to meet safety requirements?

We already have this, it's called "fan fiction."

In any case, there's something like 4 million new books released *every year.* We really don't need AI to be able to add more output more quickly - if you have a weird niche book interest, I'm confident you can find hundreds of books that fill that niche that are released every year by actual people.

The appeal of AI to the publishers is that they don't have to pay anyone but themselves. Which has been their dream for decades.

Publishers are bastards.

Where did I say anything about laws? But, now that you mention it, yes, I fully expect we will see new laws once one of these devices cause a problem for a rich person.

Not wanting to have my every action, interaction, or participation in public life recorded, uploaded, analyzed, dissected, and monetized for teh LOLs is a "fetish" deserving of "therapy"? (I would argue fetishists are much more likely to own these glasses than non-fetishists.)

I wouldn't call myself a victim, at least not as much as women, those with disabilities, accents, from other countries, or have other affectations that are much more likely to be victimized by these devices than me. And that doesn't even account for artificially generated confrontations that are done for the purpose of creating "content."

I'd like to, and it is much easier for me to be me when you're not shoving that stupid camera in my face.

You believe secretly filming people, and then showing these secretly-captured videos to your friends, is good "entertainment and enjoyment?"

Maybe I'm old. But to me it sounds creepy, stalker-ish, and obnoxious behavior.

How do you have any idea what I was or was not bitching about 30 years ago? What a strange argument.

Yes, spy cams have been around for decades. But they weren't mass marketed and sold in the millions, over 7 million Meta glasses just last year. And, 30 years ago, it was much more difficult to upload, share and access videos from said spycams. Today, a video shot in a random Walmart in southern California can be viewed nearly anywhere in the world in moments; and getting it taken down once it is broadcast globally is nearly impossible.

It's not like people are using these glasses to film their child's soccer game. People are wearing them, filming all the time, with the hope that some rando will do something stupid or weird or odd and they can then go viral and make $$. While as a member of said public, it means feeling like you are being filmed all the time everywhere by strangers for the purpose of the LOLs or to even have your image and likeness abused, manipulated, distorted in harmful ways. Even though most said filming in public places is technically "legal," I find it intrusive, offensive, rude, and boorish behavior that has been enabled and made simple and even more powerful by these stupid glasses, which to me clearly have no legitimate, beneficial purpose.

That's the thing with these glasses: there is no legitimate use. The primary purpose is to conceal the fact that you are recording video. When could that possibly "benefit mankind as a whole"?