In respect to the narrative about AI, that the Capitalists investing in AI are not simply looking for tools to replace people, funding journalism is the obvious solution to a need for more and better quality training data.
In respect to the actual motivations of profit driven Capitalists investing in AI, the purpose is to replace journalists with lower cost/article LLMs spewing 'content' out at impossibly high rates to feed low effort click farming. In this world, as the original poster highlighted, the entire idea is a satire. An absolute joke. Its not a serious proposal in any sense, because paying journalists is the opposite of the goal of the use of AI. If adopted it would, as implied by the original comment, result in the journalism world cannibalizing itself, journalists eating their own future to survive today. (Possibly a reason to invoke swift? just maybe?)
This proposal is not swiftian satire. Swift was not seriously proposing eating babies, and that should be obvious to all audiences. Swift was exaggerating the callous attitudes toward Ireland to subject that attitude to ridicule. But not all satire operates this way. Some satire uses irony and the ironic contrast between an obvious serious solution and the barriers imposed by the reality of profit driven motives similarly serves to expose the gulf between stated motives and the actualities.
....That update was noted and your PC mag article linked in the Techdirt coverage.
Even with Canada walking back on the original statement outright banning the devices, restricting devices and sales to “move forward with measures to restrict the use of such devices to legitimate actors only” is troublesome for security researchers.
My condolances for your inability to distinguish between a letter and a word. Life must be difficult for you.
You have asserted claims not made by OSU, in an effort to justify OSU's actions. Please limit yourself to infringement detailed in the complaint. Infringement caused by comparisons not detailed in the complaint are not at issue, and are simply a moving goalpost.
The Block O trade dress, while iconic, does not give OSU the onwer of the trademark to control any use of the letter O in a block font.
The block O tradedress is traditionally a single solid Red block letter O on a white background. VoHio includes two block 'O's, one that is solid black, one that is a red outline, both as part of one larger word.
Moreover, the trade dress of the Block O is specifically not a traditional "O". The Block O uses angled corners and straight lines. The ViHio Os are traditionally rounded bold characters.
Your claim would seem to amount to "OSU owns any use of bolded capital O".
Let us first, when making this quote, include the word 'wrong' you are referencing in your reply.
The bot said it was fine to take workers’ tips (wrong, although they sometimes can count tips toward minimum wage requirements)
[Emphasis Mine] As best I can determine, you have changed the context of the word wrong here.
In NY, NY has a Tipped Minimum Wage. A tipped minimum wage is lower than standard minimum wage. Tips+wages must still meet the standard minimum wage, and wage rates still must meet the tipped minimum wage. It is factually accurate to say tips "....can count toward minimum wage requirements". The word wrong in the article relates to factual inaccuracy. Indeed, if we look at the Merriam-Webster definition we are using the Adjective definition 3 - Not according to truth or Facts; inaccurate.
You have noted a moral wrong. Adjective definition 1 (not according to the moral standard; SINFUL, IMMORAL) or 2 (not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention; IMPROPER). By asserting claims about tipped minimum wage were "also wrong" you tell me that the context should be adjective definition 3: inaccurate. It makes a muddle of your point, and is easily misread.
This kind of context mistake can lead to deeper misunderstandings and if not brought under control can potentially isolate you as your rhetoric holds less and less meaning to those around you.
Sigh that was me. And to be clear, when I say "lawyers commenting around this issue, I mean lawyers commenting on the issue of when fair use applies generally.
That is to say, I blamed my browser because I was blaming my own stupidity and a nameless browser was a better scapegoat than the website I didn't blame.
No, im going to guess its one of a combination of a more privacy focused browser than Chrome, me declining Cookies at some time in the past, and an overall trend toward logins expiring faster. I click the remember me button, if I don't get a cookie I'll assume its a failing on my end.
You are describing hypocrisy. The accusation of hypocracy is an accusation that the accused has set out a standard they do not follow themselves. The point of the accusation is to express the unspoken standard. that this person considers themselves above the normal standard, and demand they explain their intent.
I prefer to not speculate as to intent. I can’t read other people’s mind. But i can point out their stated intent and their genuine intent conflict and use the accusation of hypocrisy to do so.
“I didn’t tell you the law only applied to you, i just falsely implied it applies to everyone” highlights a lie being told. If that lie has no value, it wouldn’t have gotten told. An accusation of hypocrisy is the exposing of this lie. regardless of why that lie was told.
OP has failed to provide evidence supporting their conclusions. OP is granted leave to amend their complaint with evidence supporting the plausibility of their claims.
Of note are the following claims:
Claims that the actions of individual countries are the actions of the EU.
Claims that the EU forced Tesla to build a local factory before selling to EU countries.
Claims that, when choosing to increase limited output by building new factories, placing factories in the largest untapped markets was not the superior fiscal option rather than place another factory in the US.
Claims that Volvo does not manufacture the S60 in the US.
Claims that Mexico is not "America".
Claims that US manufacturers building American market cars in Mexico is fundamentally different than EU manufacturers building in Mexico.
Claims that Amazon is an arm of the US government and its EU hires are US government employees paid by the US taxpayer.
Claims Amazon is immune to local labor laws.
Claims Amazon is immune to Local Union laws.
Claims the EU dicates the practices of European Car Manufacturers.
A point Techdirt tries to make, one of Techdirt's themes, is that consumer privacy isn't simply a service level problem, that its an internet wide problem, and blaming any single service is ignoring the forest for the trees.
The point of the article is to discuss contemporary revelations about a specific program that was one of many.
That said, your point stands. By connecting to the internet, OP has likely had dozens of companies siphon his data. The ISP he uses, or the VPN he uses, or both, his phone service provider, his phone manufacturer, His bank, whatever provider willing to be paid by dead drop he sourced his computer components from.
OP will likely claim they have incredibly complex security processes, and they think no one can get their data. This wouldn't be the first time a commenter blamed facebook users for privacy failures, and when pressed on what we should have done, such commenters always fall back on labyrinthine security process that relies on existing completely off grid homestead miles away from anything, and never engaging in society except to spend hours every day in a coffee shop rotating hundreds of online sockpuppets to avoid notice.
In theory Thats the basis behind shotspotter in the first place. I'd believe we could do it under laboratory conditions.
But in reality, shotspotter can't reasonably ever get a clean pickup of either. Unless the mic is placed fortuitously, its pickup wont be directionally placed to get a clean pickup and basic city sounds mean some level of interference would be present even in a 'clean' pickup. Then you add echoing, dampening, and distortion brought on by the irregular environment. Its as much guess work as science.
...they said they’ve stopped, but never said it would be permanent (so if you’ve got your kid in the front seat, make sure they know never to press an “I Agree” button).
The comment was contextually targeted at future GM action not the current situation. I do not discount the possibility of GM delivering a new terms for the use of the embedded OnStar equipment via the infotainment screen and an active "I have read this click" like websites use to legally impose draconian data collection.
Automotive has been way behind the tech enshittification curve, and just because we are wise to these tricks does not mean automakers wont rely on the passivity of feckless regulators to get in on the gold rush.
While Musk's explicit efforts to directly cater to far-right ideologs would suggest he would cynically support support for Anti-DEI positions, I find you can instead point to direct action by Musk as to why its genuinely surprising Twitter hadn't lead the charge on this.
Elon Musk is actively engaged in a war on DEI. He made a series of anti-DEI Xitter posts and followed up with erasing DEI references in Tesla corporate 10-K documents. And thats why Twitter not also having a explicit DEI ban is surprising to me. I'd have thought the free speech platform would be the better place to lead that charge.
To baselessly speculate, I think we are seeing the limits of the far-right edge lords to push Musk the guy who loves money. SpaceX can't put out an Anti-DEI statement. Not while SpaceX is under lawsuits for discrimination. And I think Twitter has similar issues within its. I speculate Musk has been convinced of the danger. Like with the SEC "funding secured" investigation, Musk can be conviced of the danger to his money, at least temporarily.
Slightly more grounded alternative speculation that changes Depending on Musk's opinions: Either hes a true believer as suggested by his tweets, and the Anti-DEI shit is going into the company that can make money and let Twitter burn. or hes been told anti-DEI is shortsighted and burns revenue long term, nad the only company hes implementing at is the company that can theoretically afford to lose revenue for a political pop.
Relatively few people with overweight BMI due to muscle are mistaken for being fat. And those that are likely are better equipped to discuss their health/exercise routines with a doctor than the average. Of bigger concern is that the math is normalized on a specific average height decades ago. The math doesn't just break down at low body fat, it breaks down at achievable heights on both ends of the scale. The big problem with BMI is the big problem with Body fat measurements. They are largely meaningless for accurately assessing health and diagnosing issues.
A spot check of BMI and body fat tells doctors very little about your health. A trend line can in some cases aid diagnosis but can not identify specific issues (given most Americans see their doctor maybe 1/year, few have accurate trend lines) But most often, medical professionals at all levels have leaned on an assumption that BMI or Body fat percentage indicates current health. This has lead to national news coverage of serious health issues being diagnosed as simply being fat.
Obesity is a cause of Diabetes type 2, and excess joint strain. Thats it. Everything else is a symptom of a sedentary lifestyle or bad diet. Obesity and this issues it causes are mitigated by exercise and diet, and so yes, a treatment for obesity can mitigate the risk of major health issues associated with being sedentary or bad diet. For decades, addressing obesity was considered sufficient to address the underlying health issues.
But, and this is super important, a healthy diet and healthy exercise will not necessarily result in weight loss in any reasonable time frame for an obese person. Noticeable weight loss can take years, and in some cases will require more drastic dieting and other weight loss interventions after years of metabolic damage.
Even if simply commenting that the weight itself is an issue due to joint injury, medical professionals continue a stereotype that the weight is the problem. This leads to dissuading obese people in making the smaller changes in their life that can have excellent health outcomes without the loss of weight. These small steps often being key first steps to sustainable changes in lifestyle. On top of the already discussed issue that while focusing on wieght loss, doctors have been known to ignore patient concerns both increasing the likelyhood of the patient resorting to unhealthy, unsustainable weight loss and the likelyhood serious medical complications go unnoticed or even worse, unreported.
Therefore, In seeking to combat the issue of obesity, the AMA recommends to avoid considering weight as a measure of health, and instead focus on objective measures of metabolic health that can see progress at a much more granular level. Any eagle eye view can note that Obesity is a health issue, but Body fat percentage is only marginally better than BMI at measuring the health problems people are actually facing. All BFP can tell you is to be slightly more accurate at whether or not you have a chance at developing health complications 20 at some time in the future, and other measurements tell you that better.
I fail to see your point. Or rather, your point seems to be missing key data to draw your analysis. You have replied to a comment discussing the reality of testing new software in a production environment and why software developed for that environment has the limitations it does (a limited beta). You have countered that the limitations exist and they shouldn't.
And? How does that affect the reality of what the developers tasked with software that will work first time for the pool of millions of eligible taxpayers? I'll bring your criticism to the 1950s as soon as time travel becomes availible.
The IRS does not write tax law. Congress does. Turbotax wasn't built in a year. Its been being built for decades. I don't see how the IRS could change retirement income tax law nor simply recreate turbotax in a year. I pointed out that Rome wasn't built in a day and you asked why Rome was so big then.
A single form of retirement income would make things easier. A single form of ordinary income would make things easier. Hell, making income income and not treating them differently would make things easier. That is not the law.
I could go on about ways we could better streamline the system. Eliminate loopholes, as they say. Im not talking about what could have been if our tax laws were reasonable. I am commenting about the feasibility of accomplishing a specific task in the environment it needed to be accomplished in. And to that end, with the starting environment the IRS had, I would not have expected more than what we have in this first step pilot product.
Assume the IRS could have changed the law in 2023 to retroactively align all retirement plans, regardless if they are Pensions, private corporately managed plans, private personally managed plans, or public social programs, to a single set of rules. That's a pretty stupid assumption, but lets use it. Retirement income is income that is tax-advantaged - i.e. you pay fewer taxes on retirement income than normal income. Any retirement plan requires verification of tax-advantaged status of the income and the surety the software handles the tax advantages correctly. That is an added complication that would disqualify retirement income from a limited eligibility test run of the most basic form of return.
As opposed to the 303 creative ruling getting cert as I remain, the decision is thoughtful and holds to the rule I've advocated for since Masterpeice Cakes to balance 1A rights of expression and rights of equal protection in commerce. Distinguishing between 'off-the-shelf' and bespoke goods when creative expression is involved. To argue otherwise directly questions the ability of the state to dictate the expression of individuals. Within the current legal landscape, and to your argument that this court could ignore their own legal arguments to unilaterally push the US toward theocracy, I'd argue its a much more dangerous precedent that the government could compel creative output through legislative action than set the precident that you can not legislate someone to engage in creative expression.
As a former tax preparer, Retirement income is
a surprisingly complicated category to handle. It almost always requires additional verfication to determine if penalties apply, when income taxes apply can very depending on the source of the income and how it is structured. Its not complicated by hand, you mostly just breeze over a lot of inapplicable questions, but in software that can be a mess, and since this seems to be a narrow pilot launch before investing in the more complex stuff, retirement income is one of the things that you drop. Better than those claims about audits coming true when its discovered the IRS software was bugged and failed to apply the early withdrawl penalty.
In respect to the narrative about AI, that the Capitalists investing in AI are not simply looking for tools to replace people, funding journalism is the obvious solution to a need for more and better quality training data. In respect to the actual motivations of profit driven Capitalists investing in AI, the purpose is to replace journalists with lower cost/article LLMs spewing 'content' out at impossibly high rates to feed low effort click farming. In this world, as the original poster highlighted, the entire idea is a satire. An absolute joke. Its not a serious proposal in any sense, because paying journalists is the opposite of the goal of the use of AI. If adopted it would, as implied by the original comment, result in the journalism world cannibalizing itself, journalists eating their own future to survive today. (Possibly a reason to invoke swift? just maybe?) This proposal is not swiftian satire. Swift was not seriously proposing eating babies, and that should be obvious to all audiences. Swift was exaggerating the callous attitudes toward Ireland to subject that attitude to ridicule. But not all satire operates this way. Some satire uses irony and the ironic contrast between an obvious serious solution and the barriers imposed by the reality of profit driven motives similarly serves to expose the gulf between stated motives and the actualities.
....That update was noted and your PC mag article linked in the Techdirt coverage.
WTF are you talking about?My condolances for your inability to distinguish between a letter and a word. Life must be difficult for you. You have asserted claims not made by OSU, in an effort to justify OSU's actions. Please limit yourself to infringement detailed in the complaint. Infringement caused by comparisons not detailed in the complaint are not at issue, and are simply a moving goalpost. The Block O trade dress, while iconic, does not give OSU the onwer of the trademark to control any use of the letter O in a block font. The block O tradedress is traditionally a single solid Red block letter O on a white background. VoHio includes two block 'O's, one that is solid black, one that is a red outline, both as part of one larger word. Moreover, the trade dress of the Block O is specifically not a traditional "O". The Block O uses angled corners and straight lines. The ViHio Os are traditionally rounded bold characters. Your claim would seem to amount to "OSU owns any use of bolded capital O".
Let us first, when making this quote, include the word 'wrong' you are referencing in your reply.
[Emphasis Mine] As best I can determine, you have changed the context of the word wrong here. In NY, NY has a Tipped Minimum Wage. A tipped minimum wage is lower than standard minimum wage. Tips+wages must still meet the standard minimum wage, and wage rates still must meet the tipped minimum wage. It is factually accurate to say tips "....can count toward minimum wage requirements". The word wrong in the article relates to factual inaccuracy. Indeed, if we look at the Merriam-Webster definition we are using the Adjective definition 3 - Not according to truth or Facts; inaccurate. You have noted a moral wrong. Adjective definition 1 (not according to the moral standard; SINFUL, IMMORAL) or 2 (not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention; IMPROPER). By asserting claims about tipped minimum wage were "also wrong" you tell me that the context should be adjective definition 3: inaccurate. It makes a muddle of your point, and is easily misread. This kind of context mistake can lead to deeper misunderstandings and if not brought under control can potentially isolate you as your rhetoric holds less and less meaning to those around you.Sigh that was me. And to be clear, when I say "lawyers commenting around this issue, I mean lawyers commenting on the issue of when fair use applies generally.
That is to say, I blamed my browser because I was blaming my own stupidity and a nameless browser was a better scapegoat than the website I didn't blame.
No, im going to guess its one of a combination of a more privacy focused browser than Chrome, me declining Cookies at some time in the past, and an overall trend toward logins expiring faster. I click the remember me button, if I don't get a cookie I'll assume its a failing on my end.
You are describing hypocrisy. The accusation of hypocracy is an accusation that the accused has set out a standard they do not follow themselves. The point of the accusation is to express the unspoken standard. that this person considers themselves above the normal standard, and demand they explain their intent. I prefer to not speculate as to intent. I can’t read other people’s mind. But i can point out their stated intent and their genuine intent conflict and use the accusation of hypocrisy to do so. “I didn’t tell you the law only applied to you, i just falsely implied it applies to everyone” highlights a lie being told. If that lie has no value, it wouldn’t have gotten told. An accusation of hypocrisy is the exposing of this lie. regardless of why that lie was told.
One day, browsers will figure out how to my remember me, and when I quickly paste a comment I was typing off site, I'll already be logged in. One day.
OP has failed to provide evidence supporting their conclusions. OP is granted leave to amend their complaint with evidence supporting the plausibility of their claims. Of note are the following claims: Claims that the actions of individual countries are the actions of the EU. Claims that the EU forced Tesla to build a local factory before selling to EU countries. Claims that, when choosing to increase limited output by building new factories, placing factories in the largest untapped markets was not the superior fiscal option rather than place another factory in the US. Claims that Volvo does not manufacture the S60 in the US. Claims that Mexico is not "America". Claims that US manufacturers building American market cars in Mexico is fundamentally different than EU manufacturers building in Mexico. Claims that Amazon is an arm of the US government and its EU hires are US government employees paid by the US taxpayer. Claims Amazon is immune to local labor laws. Claims Amazon is immune to Local Union laws. Claims the EU dicates the practices of European Car Manufacturers.
A point Techdirt tries to make, one of Techdirt's themes, is that consumer privacy isn't simply a service level problem, that its an internet wide problem, and blaming any single service is ignoring the forest for the trees. The point of the article is to discuss contemporary revelations about a specific program that was one of many. That said, your point stands. By connecting to the internet, OP has likely had dozens of companies siphon his data. The ISP he uses, or the VPN he uses, or both, his phone service provider, his phone manufacturer, His bank, whatever provider willing to be paid by dead drop he sourced his computer components from. OP will likely claim they have incredibly complex security processes, and they think no one can get their data. This wouldn't be the first time a commenter blamed facebook users for privacy failures, and when pressed on what we should have done, such commenters always fall back on labyrinthine security process that relies on existing completely off grid homestead miles away from anything, and never engaging in society except to spend hours every day in a coffee shop rotating hundreds of online sockpuppets to avoid notice.
Are you advocating for a murder spree, or is there a death penalty for setting off firecrackers in your jurisdiction?
In theory Thats the basis behind shotspotter in the first place. I'd believe we could do it under laboratory conditions. But in reality, shotspotter can't reasonably ever get a clean pickup of either. Unless the mic is placed fortuitously, its pickup wont be directionally placed to get a clean pickup and basic city sounds mean some level of interference would be present even in a 'clean' pickup. Then you add echoing, dampening, and distortion brought on by the irregular environment. Its as much guess work as science.
Take a stab at context.
The comment was contextually targeted at future GM action not the current situation. I do not discount the possibility of GM delivering a new terms for the use of the embedded OnStar equipment via the infotainment screen and an active "I have read this click" like websites use to legally impose draconian data collection. Automotive has been way behind the tech enshittification curve, and just because we are wise to these tricks does not mean automakers wont rely on the passivity of feckless regulators to get in on the gold rush.While Musk's explicit efforts to directly cater to far-right ideologs would suggest he would cynically support support for Anti-DEI positions, I find you can instead point to direct action by Musk as to why its genuinely surprising Twitter hadn't lead the charge on this. Elon Musk is actively engaged in a war on DEI. He made a series of anti-DEI Xitter posts and followed up with erasing DEI references in Tesla corporate 10-K documents. And thats why Twitter not also having a explicit DEI ban is surprising to me. I'd have thought the free speech platform would be the better place to lead that charge. To baselessly speculate, I think we are seeing the limits of the far-right edge lords to push Musk the guy who loves money. SpaceX can't put out an Anti-DEI statement. Not while SpaceX is under lawsuits for discrimination. And I think Twitter has similar issues within its. I speculate Musk has been convinced of the danger. Like with the SEC "funding secured" investigation, Musk can be conviced of the danger to his money, at least temporarily. Slightly more grounded alternative speculation that changes Depending on Musk's opinions: Either hes a true believer as suggested by his tweets, and the Anti-DEI shit is going into the company that can make money and let Twitter burn. or hes been told anti-DEI is shortsighted and burns revenue long term, nad the only company hes implementing at is the company that can theoretically afford to lose revenue for a political pop.
Relatively few people with overweight BMI due to muscle are mistaken for being fat. And those that are likely are better equipped to discuss their health/exercise routines with a doctor than the average. Of bigger concern is that the math is normalized on a specific average height decades ago. The math doesn't just break down at low body fat, it breaks down at achievable heights on both ends of the scale. The big problem with BMI is the big problem with Body fat measurements. They are largely meaningless for accurately assessing health and diagnosing issues. A spot check of BMI and body fat tells doctors very little about your health. A trend line can in some cases aid diagnosis but can not identify specific issues (given most Americans see their doctor maybe 1/year, few have accurate trend lines) But most often, medical professionals at all levels have leaned on an assumption that BMI or Body fat percentage indicates current health. This has lead to national news coverage of serious health issues being diagnosed as simply being fat. Obesity is a cause of Diabetes type 2, and excess joint strain. Thats it. Everything else is a symptom of a sedentary lifestyle or bad diet. Obesity and this issues it causes are mitigated by exercise and diet, and so yes, a treatment for obesity can mitigate the risk of major health issues associated with being sedentary or bad diet. For decades, addressing obesity was considered sufficient to address the underlying health issues. But, and this is super important, a healthy diet and healthy exercise will not necessarily result in weight loss in any reasonable time frame for an obese person. Noticeable weight loss can take years, and in some cases will require more drastic dieting and other weight loss interventions after years of metabolic damage. Even if simply commenting that the weight itself is an issue due to joint injury, medical professionals continue a stereotype that the weight is the problem. This leads to dissuading obese people in making the smaller changes in their life that can have excellent health outcomes without the loss of weight. These small steps often being key first steps to sustainable changes in lifestyle. On top of the already discussed issue that while focusing on wieght loss, doctors have been known to ignore patient concerns both increasing the likelyhood of the patient resorting to unhealthy, unsustainable weight loss and the likelyhood serious medical complications go unnoticed or even worse, unreported. Therefore, In seeking to combat the issue of obesity, the AMA recommends to avoid considering weight as a measure of health, and instead focus on objective measures of metabolic health that can see progress at a much more granular level. Any eagle eye view can note that Obesity is a health issue, but Body fat percentage is only marginally better than BMI at measuring the health problems people are actually facing. All BFP can tell you is to be slightly more accurate at whether or not you have a chance at developing health complications 20 at some time in the future, and other measurements tell you that better.
I fail to see your point. Or rather, your point seems to be missing key data to draw your analysis. You have replied to a comment discussing the reality of testing new software in a production environment and why software developed for that environment has the limitations it does (a limited beta). You have countered that the limitations exist and they shouldn't. And? How does that affect the reality of what the developers tasked with software that will work first time for the pool of millions of eligible taxpayers? I'll bring your criticism to the 1950s as soon as time travel becomes availible. The IRS does not write tax law. Congress does. Turbotax wasn't built in a year. Its been being built for decades. I don't see how the IRS could change retirement income tax law nor simply recreate turbotax in a year. I pointed out that Rome wasn't built in a day and you asked why Rome was so big then. A single form of retirement income would make things easier. A single form of ordinary income would make things easier. Hell, making income income and not treating them differently would make things easier. That is not the law. I could go on about ways we could better streamline the system. Eliminate loopholes, as they say. Im not talking about what could have been if our tax laws were reasonable. I am commenting about the feasibility of accomplishing a specific task in the environment it needed to be accomplished in. And to that end, with the starting environment the IRS had, I would not have expected more than what we have in this first step pilot product. Assume the IRS could have changed the law in 2023 to retroactively align all retirement plans, regardless if they are Pensions, private corporately managed plans, private personally managed plans, or public social programs, to a single set of rules. That's a pretty stupid assumption, but lets use it. Retirement income is income that is tax-advantaged - i.e. you pay fewer taxes on retirement income than normal income. Any retirement plan requires verification of tax-advantaged status of the income and the surety the software handles the tax advantages correctly. That is an added complication that would disqualify retirement income from a limited eligibility test run of the most basic form of return.
As opposed to the 303 creative ruling getting cert as I remain, the decision is thoughtful and holds to the rule I've advocated for since Masterpeice Cakes to balance 1A rights of expression and rights of equal protection in commerce. Distinguishing between 'off-the-shelf' and bespoke goods when creative expression is involved. To argue otherwise directly questions the ability of the state to dictate the expression of individuals. Within the current legal landscape, and to your argument that this court could ignore their own legal arguments to unilaterally push the US toward theocracy, I'd argue its a much more dangerous precedent that the government could compel creative output through legislative action than set the precident that you can not legislate someone to engage in creative expression.
As a former tax preparer, Retirement income is a surprisingly complicated category to handle. It almost always requires additional verfication to determine if penalties apply, when income taxes apply can very depending on the source of the income and how it is structured. Its not complicated by hand, you mostly just breeze over a lot of inapplicable questions, but in software that can be a mess, and since this seems to be a narrow pilot launch before investing in the more complex stuff, retirement income is one of the things that you drop. Better than those claims about audits coming true when its discovered the IRS software was bugged and failed to apply the early withdrawl penalty.
In 2019, Cyber insurance paid ransoms. Its one of the reasons ransomware attacks got so big. They pay.