Probably a lot? It would be much more tax-advantageous to do it this way, $50B worth of credits != $50B worth of spend on Amazon's part, and they might meet in the middle about how much equity that translates to.
You're Amazon. You give OpenAI $50B cash investment, they then hand you back the $50B over time because they buy $50B worth of Amazon AWS services (they would use AWS or other equivalent compute anyway). OpenAI pays an additional $1-5B in sales taxes on top of their $50B compute purchase. Now let's say you have $25B opex for said compute. You then have $25B profits, you pay 21% corporate taxes on the profits, so you too owe the government about $5B. Government collects around $6-10B on this whole transaction.
Situation B:
You're Amazon. You let OpenAI use your services by handing them API credentials that unlock what would normally cost $50B worth of services, but no money changes hands. You have zero revenue from the transaction, write off the $25B opex as a tax loss on your other profits elsewhere in the company. You thus pay ~$5B less tax on your other income as a company, and OpenAI also doesn't have to pay sales tax because they didn't actually purchase anything.
It depends how you defined “consumers”. If you mean “those who consume the good subject to the tax, rather than people who resell the good”, yes, ideally.
If you mean “not businesses” or “individuals but not corporations”, then, no.
> Ie companies reverse charge sales tax or omit it entirely.
Generally, the theory of sales taxes is that people (including corporations) pay sales tax on things they consume as a final good rather than use as an intermediate good in production or simply resell. The exact way in which that is determined varies somewhat between jurisdictions with sales taxes, but generally (assuming paper is subject to sales tax in a jurisdiction), if you are buying paper to print books that you sell, you don't pay sales tax, if you are buying paper to print internal documents that you use in running the business, you do pay sales tax.
That’s interesting, that’s not the case in the EU. Here, as long as you can argue that it’s a business expense, you don’t have to pay sales tax. Eg the internal documents are a necessary expense / cost of doing business.
My understanding is that EU nations all have VAT, not sales tax; both are broadly consumption taxes, but they function rather differently (VAT charged at each stage of production vs sales tax only at final sale to consumer, among other differences.). VAT is sort of opposite of sales tax for businesses as payers; they pay VAT on goods bought as production inputs (and collect it on behalf of government on items they sell downstream on the chain of production), but do not pay it on what they consume for internal operations (in effect, to the extent thise internal operations contribute to the value added to the product, that is what the people downstream in the chain of production are paying VAT for.)
Imagine how far technology has come in 100 years. Then imagine if the alien had just a 1 million year head start to technology. 1 million years is less than 1/1000 of the age of the universe earlier.
We have literally no idea what technology the alien could have.
Maybe there are aliens out there so advanced that they could be reading our screens right now in realtime from across the galaxy using some weird post-quantum silly sauce we can't even comprehend. But it doesn't seem likely given what we do know and observe, at least not to me (based mostly on the Fermi Paradox and thermodynamics) that there is someone 100 light years away teasing I Love Lucy from the CMB. It seems less likely that they would be able to pinpoint our location based on that, and try to annihilate us.
The aliens have the same physics we do. Science isn't magic. Without quite literally having to replace everything we have known or discovered in the past 250 years from entropy to electromagnetic theory to gravity to motion with brand new theories that somehow equally explain all known phenomenon while also allowing lots of outright magic, no, the aliens are not able to collect radio waves from below the noise floor.
> The aliens have the same physics we do. Science isn't magic.
Show a spacecraft to someone from the middle ages and they would think it's magic.
There is physics that has not been discovered. Lots of things are still unexplained.
> no, the aliens are not able to collect radio waves from below the noise floor
Before we had quadrature modulation and quadrature phase shift keying, we thought we had hit the noise floor for wireless bandwidth. After we thought we really hit the ceiling, we had beamforming. There's stuff that hasn't been thought of. We don't know the unknown unknowns.
I frankly wish we'd stop developing C++. It's so hard to keep track of all the new unnecessary toys they're adding to it. I thought I knew C++ until I read some recent C++ code. That's how bad it is.
Meanwhile C++ build system is an abomination. Header files should be unnecessary.
> Anubis uses a Proof-of-Work scheme in the vein of Hashcash
And if you look up Hashcash on Wikipedia you get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash which explains how Hashcash works in a fairly straightforward manner (unlike most math pages).
Oh fun so now we're effectively draining users' phone and laptop batteries now just to prove that they have batteries and somehow that's a proxy for them being human
Given that you're clearly completely ignorant of everything in the anti-spam space, you should probably do some research before making uninformed comments like this.
This is how I was taught. Use ( ) or -- -- here and the Oxford comma for list of 3 or more.
I get lazy with adding the comma before the "and" in list, and without fail I hear my grandmother/father/teachers pointing out how wrong I am for doing so. Same for my use of semicolons followed by "and" or "but".
I never realized the Oxford comma was even something up for debate.
Many years ago working on natural language to SQL, when we had ambiguities this is how we’d clarify things with the user (albeit with the minimal amount of brackets necessary).
reply