Miscellaneous Discussion Thread II
Quote: ChumpChangeNew York, the millionaire capital of the world, is using AI-generated letters to challenge remote workers moving to low-tax states.
The letters could help beat staff shortages, although it’s unclear if this is part of the reason they were implemented. The state reported an increase in audits in 2022 but a decrease in auditors.
Tax departments across the US are using both human auditors and AI to examine cellphone records, which will help figure out where taxpayers are spending most of their time and subsequently where they owe taxes, Hodgson Russ LLP partner Mark Klein said.
link to original post
Kind of an inevitable development. 30 years ago, I was living in WA state while working in Portland, OR, and commuting. Still had to pay 9% OR state taxes on my entire income. WA had no state income taxes (still doesn't). Still resent it. But if you either lived in WA and worked in OR, or worked in WA and lived in OR, you owed full state income taxes. And it was challenged many times in court, and lost every time.
Funny story. I was in the control tower, so couldn't try this, but 2 guys in the approach control did. The approach airspace was a 40 mile radius from PDX, which is on the border of WA and OR. So these guys claimed that half their work was in WA, and half in OR, and only paid 50% of their state income taxes. (And, as it happened, more than 50% of our traffic was on the WA side, so they were being generous in paying that much.)
IRS came after them, and it ended up in court. Where they, as always, lost. All they got themselves was full payment including interest and penalties, their accounts red-flagged, and years more of audits. But I still admire their ingenuity.
If the business center is in NY, there's years/decades of precedence forcing the telecommuters to pay NY state taxes where their business is physically located, for whatever portion of their salary comes from that company. They can deduct the cost of their dedicated workroom and all tools needed to telecommute, but I doubt they can prevail. I wish them luck. It would be a great win.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: ChumpChangeNew York, the millionaire capital of the world, is using AI-generated letters to challenge remote workers moving to low-tax states.
The letters could help beat staff shortages, although it’s unclear if this is part of the reason they were implemented. The state reported an increase in audits in 2022 but a decrease in auditors.
Tax departments across the US are using both human auditors and AI to examine cellphone records, which will help figure out where taxpayers are spending most of their time and subsequently where they owe taxes, Hodgson Russ LLP partner Mark Klein said.
link to original post
Kind of an inevitable development. 30 years ago, I was living in WA state while working in Portland, OR, and commuting. Still had to pay 9% OR state taxes on my entire income. WA had no state income taxes (still doesn't). Still resent it. But if you either lived in WA and worked in OR, or worked in WA and lived in OR, you owed full state income taxes. And it was challenged many times in court, and lost every time.
Funny story. I was in the control tower, so couldn't try this, but 2 guys in the approach control did. The approach airspace was a 40 mile radius from PDX, which is on the border of WA and OR. So these guys claimed that half their work was in WA, and half in OR, and only paid 50% of their state income taxes. (And, as it happened, more than 50% of our traffic was on the WA side, so they were being generous in paying that much.)
IRS came after them, and it ended up in court. Where they, as always, lost. All they got themselves was full payment including interest and penalties, their accounts red-flagged, and years more of audits. But I still admire their ingenuity.
If the business center is in NY, there's years/decades of precedence forcing the telecommuters to pay NY state taxes where their business is physically located, for whatever portion of their salary comes from that company. They can deduct the cost of their dedicated workroom and all tools needed to telecommute, but I doubt they can prevail. I wish them luck. It would be a great win.
link to original post
IRS came after them or the state?
i think this is applying the "how to make your fish look the biggest" trick which of course means extending your arm so the fish [or bat] is very close to the cameraQuote: rxwineHammerhead bat.
[not showing image]
link to original post
I'll still say wow!! Quite a specimen . Had to look this up on wikipedia, never heard of these things
Quote: rxwineHammerhead bat.
link to original post
Wow, I thought that was a lion.
Quote: DRichQuote: rxwineHammerhead bat.
link to original post
Wow, I thought that was a lion.
link to original post
It's a trick picture the guy is holding it by the scruff of its neck so it's really close to the camera lens to make it look huge. They actually weigh less than a pound. They are big for bats but not as big as the picture tries to make out
Quote: DRichQuote: rxwineHammerhead bat.
link to original post
Wow, I thought that was a lion.
link to original post
There was always that one guy who walks around with a parrot on his shoulder.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: DRichQuote: rxwineHammerhead bat.
link to original post
Wow, I thought that was a lion.
link to original post
It's a trick picture the guy is holding it by the scruff of its neck so it's really close to the camera lens to make it look huge. They actually weigh less than a pound. They are big for bats but not as big as the picture tries to make out
link to original post
I understand but with a wingspan of 38 inches I would run away from it.
Quote:At 1:20 a.m. Eastern Time, he was exploring the platform when he entered the domain into the search bar and was surprised to find it listed as available. Contrary to usual indications, the option to add the domain to his cart was visible, which is typically not seen unless a domain is genuinely available for sale.
Upon clicking the "add to cart" icon, the domain was successfully added to his cart, confirmed by a green checkmark. Ved proceeded to checkout, curious to see if the transaction would go through. He recalled, "I was hoping I would get an error at some time saying the transaction did not go through, but I was able to complete the purchase, and my credit card was actually charged!"
He immediately received access to Google Webmaster Tools notifications, confirming his temporary ownership. He provided screenshots of the emails and proof of the charge appearing on his credit card as well.
Ved also reported the incident to Google Security. In his post, he mentioned, "Google has reverted, has acknowledged the incident, and is investigating into the incident."
Google reached out and was reportedly "excited" to compensate Ved with $6,000.13, an amount humorously reflecting the brand’s name numerically. When Ved decided to donate the sum to charity, Google commendably doubled the reward to $12,000.
Girl tells him to place bet.
He is second seat, first to right of first base so he sees the first player do something. Cards to him. I think he had a 17.
He: "What do I do?"
Her: "You need to stand."
Wait for it...........
He politely pushes his chair out and stands up!
Best thing I have seen at those tables in years!
Dog Hand
Code enforcement actually thought it was cool so alls well that ends well I suppose.
Suppose X is a continuous uniform random variable f(x) = 1/(b-a) for a<=x<=b. Usually we are interested in making probabilistic statements about x, for example a cumulative probability P(X<= c) where a<=c<=b. What if we wanted to make probabilistic statements about f(x) itself? The possible height of the probability density function f(x) would be 0<=f(x)<= 1/(b-a). Would it be legit to consider f(x) itself to be a random variable since the probability mass is still unity whether you look at the density function from the horizontal (x axis) or from the vertical f(x) axis. I want to be able to make probabilistic statements about the height of the probability density function of a random variable. Is this possible, e.g, p[f(x)] <= d where 0<=d<=1/(b-a). The cumulative density function for the continuous uniform is easy to find, I do not see how I could make a cumulative density function for f(x) that would allow probabilistic statements about f(x) itself. Thank you.
Edit: goal is to be able to do this for the doubly truncated normal distribution. Starting with the uniform just to try to wrap my head around the derivation process and to help conceptualize if this idea even makes sense as the doubly truncated normal has a messy density function which can only cloud up the initial thought process.
