> Provide documentation and numbers, otherwise this alleged "significant" contribution is just hand-waving.
Last I heard Google employs around 70k people just in California and that has its genesis in Page and Brin inventing something. Thats pretty damn significant. Those people pay taxes, give to charities, etc…
> It's a total perversion of the fundamental idea of capitalism that governments are competing for companies and wealthy people. That's not how capitalist competition is supposed to work.
Exactly what authority or controlling doctrine are you appealing to here? Of course regional governments are going to try and attract local investment.
> Last I heard Google employs around 70k people just in California and that has its genesis in Page and Brin inventing something. Thats pretty damn significant. Those people pay taxes, give to charities, etc…
So is your view is that a bunch of people much less wealthy than Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities is equivalent to Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities???
In other words, rich people don't have to pay taxes as long as their employees do? Bizarre.
And again, Page is not even involved much anymore in Google, which was founded in 1998. Does he for some reason get a free pass on taxes forever, because he did something in the 20th century?
> Exactly what authority or controlling doctrine are you appealing to here?
I'm appealing to economic theory, which posits the benefits of sellers competing with each other for consumers in a free market. It does not posit the benefits of governments competing with each other for sellers, and in fact that grossly distorts the market.
> So is your view is that a bunch of people much less wealthy than Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities is equivalent to Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities???
What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact.
> In other words, rich people don't have to pay taxes as long as their employees do? Bizarre
I never made this claim. Not sure why you are.
> Does he for some reason get a free pass on taxes forever
I hope you are not suggesting that he is breaking some law here by choosing to relocate to a more favorable financial environment for him. People of all incomes make (legal) financial decisions every day for their own benefit. Of you feel the laws are in some way unfair, elect people who will change them.
> appealing to economic theory…
There are lots of economic theories (especially around capitalism). You are assuming laissez-faire somehow trumps others? Why?
> What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact.
Yes, he co-founded Google in 1998, nobody disputes that. But how is that relevant to his personal tax rate in 2026?
You're changing the subject, because we were talking about things Page is doing now, not what he did in the past. I was responding to this: "The Page Family operates a number of philanthropic initiatives, non-profits, and other companies outside of Alphabet."
> I never made this claim. Not sure why you are.
What are you arguing, exactly?
> I hope you are not suggesting that he is breaking some law here by choosing to relocate to a more favorable financial environment for him.
No. Paul Graham claimed that California cost itself by driving away Page, whereas I suggested that California wasn't actually losing much by doing so, since Page probably doesn't pay much in taxes now.
> There are lots of economic theories (especially around capitalism). You are assuming laissez-faire somehow trumps others? Why?
I am not a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. However, many people are proponents, and argue that it leads to the best outcome for society. My point is that nobody, except perhaps the billionaires themselves believes that governments competing for the presence of billionaires leads to the best outcome for society. To me it seems like the worst of all possible worlds.
> The idea that Iranians are marching in the streets begging for a monarchy is so absurd only the dumbest will believe it.
What they are begging for is change. What they know practically is basically two forms of government in modern memory. It would not be unusual to advocate for the other alternate you know or your grandparents have told you about.
I tend to view these reports through 2 user lenses. User 1 - the user who generally uses signed, safe software, using the device for non-engineering productivity, content consumption, and creative uses.
Then there is the user 2s. Thats the user with the unsigned software. That download and compiles the random “Show HN” without deep examination. That is experimenting at the lower levels, and might have written some home brewed scripts and apps running on their device.
Generally the user 1s aren’t complaining about updates unless there is an controversial UI or UX change. These are the more reliable reference group for the overall success or failure of an OS update.
User 2s contain all the edge cases configurations that the OS publisher can never fully test for, and generally just aren't reliable evaluators of OS updates.
Good luck, the US is still trying to get the equal rights amendment (which everyone basically agrees with) ratified for going on 54 years now.
I cant imagine the process gyrations and political wrangling it would take to convince our political leadership in congress and basically every red state legislature to take on a new amendment specifically tuned just towards prisoner’s rights.
It’s been perfectly fine for me too. I don’t understand the folks tossing it so much hate…I have to think for them it’s more about subjective style complaint than objective complaints. Operationally my Mac experience hasn’t changed.
Within an hour of using it, I honestly stopped noticing the differences.
It’s been fine for me, I have been running since 26 beta 2 on iPhone, iPad, and Mac. I have noticed zero bugs, it’s been perfectly usable with only two design decisions that I dislike, but are minor.
On Mac, the corner handle grab change was a miss but doesn’t affect me much because I don’t do much window resizing.
On my iPad, the fly in and fly out animation for the App Library doesn’t necessarily follow your swipe direction.
I’ve never seen a lock screen wiggle, my guess that might be related to debris or finger moisture more than the OS
There are 10 iPhones in my immediate family orbit, all running 26 (Including an iPhone 12 Pro). Users ranging from their early teens to 90 and I am the one they call when there is any tech issues.
No one is complaining. Not too bad for an inconsistent and broken release.
That is nice for your family, but we have opposite experiences, my anecdata is just the opposite. Plenty of people are complaining. It's not always the most salient topic given current events (I'm in the United States) but it's just kind of like when Windows 11 or Windows 8 released.
> So to arrest someone while they are following the steps they're supposed to be following
I think the issue complicating this man’s situation is that it appears when you dig into the details that for nearly 16 years he was skirting the system and only tried getting his legal situation resolved just a few months prior to his detainment. He is choosing to fight it which is resulting in the long detention.
Personally I believe we need some legal carve outs for this type of situation, but there is simply no doubt that this guy made a series of poor decisions prior to April of 2025 that has created the situation he is in.
This is the one thing that pops up often in these cases and my European head can't understand this. Obviously people do this because they can but why does the system allow this? People should be forced to sort out their legal situation one way or another in timely manner, because if something happens after decades (like what's going on now) it will cause lots of damage for many people including families with children. This many people living in legal limbo also encourages lawless behavior of the agencies.
It would be very hard to skirt the system like that in many European countries. Not impossible, some people do it anyway, but that means more or less living completely underground without healthcare, driving license, any sort of banking etc.
There was a similar problem in Sweden. In the old system a person could first seek asylum, get denied, then seek a work visa, get denied, then seek a student visa, get denied and then repeat the process since now enough years has passed. People could also simply go underground for a period of time and then restart the process.
Two law changes was added last year to prevent this. First, any decision remains in force indefinite as long the person remains in the country. The second is that all applications will be running simultaneous and the final decision is given at the same time, with no option to change application afterward if the result returned negative.
The system has some drawbacks, especially if the applicant apply for the wrong thing and don't change it until the decision has been reached, but it removes stalling and delaying tactics.
> In the old system a person could first seek asylum...
Yes but that still means communicating with the institutions and having some sort of legal status. What is en masse happening in the US and to a lesser extent was (or is, not sure, but see for example the Windrush scandal) happening in the UK is that people legally enter the country and have for a time legal standing to reside there, but that lapses, laws change etc., and just nobody cares deeply enough to solve the situation one way or another? And then decades pass and bad things start to happen. But all of this was entirely avoidable and I don't mean just 'not voting for Trump' avoidable, but in a systematic manner.
We could compare that to the situation in Spain where there is a group of illegal migrant workers who are exploited as cheap work force. Now they are given a chance to legalise their status but that too is happening after decades of neglect. Of course there are similar groups in other countries.
The Windrush situation is a bit different - the people involved were British Subjects, and didn't need any documentation when they arrived in the UK.
The only thing that changed was the introduction of the "hostile environment" policy in 2012, meaning that everyone (including full UK citizens) must now prove that they have permission to be in the country before getting a job, renting a home, getting a bank account, etc.
The Windrush generation always had that permission, and continued to have it - what they didn't have was the documentation to prove it. And, to make matters worse, the Home Office had disposed of their arrival records so in many cases it became all but impossible for them to get it.
(I know this is a minor quibble, but I think it's worth pointing out that the people affected shouldn't have needed to regularise their situation, because it was never irregular in the first place!)
> I think it's worth pointing out that the people affected shouldn't have needed to regularise their situation, because it was never irregular in the first place!
This is what I don't agree with and exactly why I mentioned Windrush as an example. The situation was irregular because while they were legally entitled to stay, they didn't have a simple way to prove it. And once they needed that, it became an issue.
Now I assume most of them regularised their situation and some didn't and since the state knew enough about them to try to deport them, it should have fixed their status in the first place by issuing them the needed documents. But it didn't! And that was my original point - the state neglected their situation for decades, let them adapt to changing legislative environment on their own (or not), only to swing the axe (wrongly) without warning. If they were issued a citizen ID long ago none of that could ever happen.
> We could compare that to the situation in Spain where there is a group of illegal migrant workers who are exploited as cheap work force
The term we should be using here is human trafficking. It is a extremely common practice in construction and farming. As a police officer said here in Sweden in a news article, if they went to a single major construction site the yearly budget for human trafficking violations would be used up for that site alone. It is an open secret that construction sites has a tier based system for workers, where the most illegal workers (and there are different degrees to that) get the most dangerous assignments, least amount of safety equipment, longest hours, and with the lowest pay.
A lot of the calculation on the cost of reduced immigration get based on the resulting increase in costs to construction and farming. It is quite insane how much of the economy is based on exploiting people.
In the US it’s easier. Certain states will issue you a drivers license even with a questionable immigration status. Once you get that, maintaining it is easy for long periods of time….basically obey the traffic laws and don’t drink and drive take an eye test and written test every 5-7 years and you are golden and keep it.
With a DL check cashing is a snap and it looked like this guy was a building sub-contractor which can and often operate in cash. Cash secured credit cards give you access to plastic. Healthcare doesn’t require an ID and hospitals are compelled by law to treat you if you are in a life threatening situation. Urgent care clinics will gladly accept cash to fix your sniffles.
I think the biggest issue that allows it is just inconsistent enforcement of our immigration laws from administration to administration and the general bureaucratic reset that happens every 4 to 8 years.
Thank you, this is a valuable perspective. So essentially every person that lives this way doesn't pay income tax (and/or possibly other taxes) and the states, and most of the time the federal government too, just don't care?
If you are getting paid in cash you are only paying income tax if you actually set out to do so. Operating fully in cash is getting harder and harder as we progress to a more cashless society, but right now, still do-able.
The government always cares when it is not getting its share, but enforcement is probably more by accident rather than intention. If you are living modestly and are not calling out any sort of government paper trail to yourself (avoiding government services, police interactions), you are probably not going to attract any investigation.
These sweeps that we are seeing change that a bit. Easier to get ensnared.
you can still file taxes regardless of your immigration status if you can get an SSN. It used to be easy to do that using your DL. So you have people who have been in the country for many years and have an SSN, pay taxes, etc., but technically are still "undocumented"
yeah, probably so. but what should matter is whether you're in compliance _now_. But if we do really want to arrest people who were at some point out of compliance in terms of their visa status, let's start with Elon and Melania, and we can talk about going through everyone's else's history and deporting them if they broke the immigration rules.
There are quite a few missing but important details not in the news story. Apparently he complicated matters and put himself into a no win legal situation by choosing against applying for asylum. The “forged” signatures turned out to be a close match to checks that were provided to the court that he admitted to signing. He also admitted to the court that his memory was hazy around that time. There was also no need for immigration officials to forge his name on those documents because if he refused to sign the notice document it had the same legal result as if he did. SOP would be for an immigration official to simply indicate “refusal to sign” on the document.
Unfortunately our laws don’t always protect us from ourselves.
My guess is you haven’t spent much time in Miami or Florida. It’s most definitely not just theme parks and beaches.
reply