Proof of concept exercise; it'll work better when Democrats regain control of the entire country and there’s nowhere to run

/

California to Push for a Billionaire Wealth Tax Aimed at 180 People

A wealth, not merely an tax. The plan will require all California residents to declare their total net worth, defined broadly as all global assets, including interests in private companies, real estate, art, and intellectual property to the state’s revenue authorities. For now, although everyone must answer Caesar Augustus’ summons, only billionaires would actually be taxed, at 5%, “and just once — trust us”. When that money runs out, however, and it will, well, here’s a reminder: the 1913 Revenue Act was also aimed at only the top 1% of taxpayers, and topped off at 6% on income — not total assets — over $500,0000 ($32 million in current dollars). Your current tax bill may differ.

The “2026 Billionaire Tax Act,” which was received by the California attorney general on Thursday, would use the one-time funds to plug holes in the state’s health care system caused by reductions in federal funding enabled by the “One Big Beautiful Bill” legislation passed over the summer. Some 10% of the funds would be used to support public K-12 education. {

[UC Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez] believes that the initiative will easily make the ballot because of the organizing experience of the union and polling which shows a majority of voters are behind the idea.

“It has a very good shot at passing and becoming the first tax on the ultrarich in the world,” he told The Standard.

Organizers say the tax would affect only about 200 Californians — the wealthiest 0.0005% of residents — while stabilizing hospitals, community clinics, long-term care facilities and K-12 schools threatened by the federal reductions.

If this initiative qualifies, it would mark the first time that a state ballot measure imposes a temporary tax on billionaires’ total wealth. Proponents hope California’s model will inspire emergency funding mechanisms in other states.

Opponents of the legislation argue that it will only push billionaires out of the state; although those who choose to leave to avoid paying the tax would have to do so before the start of 2026.

“Even if it’s a one-time tax, it would increase the chances of these people to relocate,” Enrico Moretti, another UC Berkeley economics professor, told Bloomberg. “It would also reduce the chances that these people bring their companies and their (employees) to California in the future.”

Nah, why would they leave?

Many of the billionaires are unlikely to leave the state, proponents said, because they have relied on its infrastructure, workforce and markets to build their wealth.

Certainly, there are a lot of New Yorkers, including NYC’s probable next mayor, who believe the same thing. We continue to live in interesting times.

Two new listings. Both, of course, are in Greenwich’s most coveted neighborhood, but only one has a gourmet professional chef’s kitchen; no wonder it’s twice the price.

/

And imagine what it’d fetch were the equipment moved indoors

21 Birch Lane, $6.395 million, “Magnificent Georgian Colonial on one of Mid-Country's most coveted lanes.”

this one’s for the birds

15 Audubon Lane, $3.1 million, “in one of Greenwich's most coveted backcountry locations.”

What's facts got to do with it?

/

Glenn Reynolds:

Actually, of course, it was a Jewish kingdom when Jesus was born. And it didn’t become Arab or Muslim until the Mohammedan invasion of the 7th century. Today’s inhabitants of “Palestine” are settler-colonialists. Israel is fighting a war of indigenous resistance to colonization.

Bonus material:

Narwani brings impressive credentials to the craft. After earning a masters in journalism from Columbia, she was for four years (2010–14) a senior associate at St. Antony’s College, Oxford. It was during those years that she began to make her mark covering the Middle East from her bureau-of-one in Beirut. Her accounts of the war as it truly unfolded have opened many eyes over the years ….

I had intended to write about our country's approaching death loop, but then Google's AI helped me find a more troubling topic: Google's AI “summaries”

/

“I’m not sure you’re authorized to know that”

So, I started a post about this: the House Minority leader’s stated intention to go after Trump donors when he and his associates regain control of either the House, the Senate, or both:

Hakeem Jeffries Vows to Criminalize White House Ballroom Donors

“More likely this is part of what Donald Trump has been doing since day one of his presidency,” Jeffries claimed, “running the largest pay-to-play scheme in the history of the country and probably soliciting, uh, donations from people who’ve got business, uh, before the United States government.”

Jeffries went on to promise that the matter “will” be investigated, insisting, “All of this will have to be uncovered. It will. And these people are gonna be held accountable, uh, no matter how long it takes.”

He closed with a thinly veiled threat aimed at Trump’s supporters and donors: “That’s gonna be the reality of the situation, and that’s our warning to all of these people participating, uh, in this scheming to manipulate taxpayer dollars and, of course, to destroy the people’s house. The White House, uh, belongs to the American people. It doesn’t belong to Donald Trump.”

I’d thought to bring up similar threats made by Jeffries last week to pursue not only White House ballroom donors, but anyone who’d “collaborated” or cooperated with Trump during his administrations. I’d seen videos of Jeffries saying that, but couldn’t lay my hands on an example immediately, so I turned to Google’s new, enhanced search feature. Imagine my surpise to learn that, according to Google, it never happened:

AI Overview

Based on recent public statements, there is no evidence that House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, "When Democrats retake power, we’re going to seek prosecutorial vengeance"

. The statement is a fabricated quote. In fact, Jeffries has publicly criticized the use of the justice system for political retribution. 

Well. I knew I’d seen him make that exact threat, so I dug deeper, without the assistance of Google’s censors, and here’s what those guardians of knowledge deny exists:

Here’s the full video of Jeffries vowing to take vengeance. Begin at 2:25

And here’s the danger of the new AI research tool: very, very few Google AI users go beyond what that company’s algorithms tell them is a true and accurate answer to their question, even when, as seen here, that summary is neither. Non-political questions seem to yield objective results* , but political issues not so much, yet most questioners are content to rely on what Google’s far-left programmers feed them, and don’t check the original source materials.

Pew Research Confirms Google AI Overviews Is Eroding Web Ecosystem

Research shows only 1% of users click a link in AI summaries. It also confirms that Reddit, Wikipedia, and YouTube are the most cited.

According to the research findings:

Users End Their Browsing Session

“Google users are more likely to end their browsing session entirely after visiting a search page with an AI summary than on pages without a summary.

This happened on 26% of pages with an AI summary, compared with 16% of pages with only traditional search results.”

Users Refrain From Clicking On Traditional Search Links

It also says that users tended to not click on a traditional search result when faced with an AI summary:

“Users who encountered an AI summary clicked on a traditional search result link in 8% of all visits. Those who did not encounter an AI summary clicked on a search result nearly twice as often (15% of visits).”

Only 1% Click Citation Links In AI Summaries

Users who see an AI summary overwhelmingly do not click the citations to the websites that the AI summary links to.

The report shows:

“Google users who encountered an AI summary also rarely clicked on a link in the summary itself. This occurred in just 1% of all visits to pages with such a summary.”

*Here’s an example of what would seem to be a useful, objective answer to a run of the mill inquiry. I know nothing about the physics involved, though, so it’s possible that the answer is entirely wrong; nevertheless, I’m willing to trust it, but unfortunately, most users are extending that trust to everything Google’s AI search engine produces, which spells trouble.

These are results for what's the mathematical explanation for how something like a garden hose can wrap itself into a knot?

AI Overview

A garden hose wraps itself into a knot due to the interplay of entropy, statistical mechanics, and topology

. The mathematical explanation is that random movements will almost always lead a flexible, agitated string toward one of the vast number of tangled configurations, rather than the single, perfectly untangled state. 

The principle of entropy

In physics, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy (or randomness) of a closed system will naturally increase over time. A straight, untangled hose is a state of very low entropy, as it has a high degree of order. In contrast, there are countless ways for that hose to be tangled, representing a state of high entropy. 

  • Statistical probability: Any time the hose is moved, shaken, or jostled, the universe is simply choosing one of the available configurations. Because the number of tangled states is exponentially larger than the number of untangled states, a random motion almost guarantees a move toward a more disordered state.

  • A simple analogy: Imagine a box filled with puzzle pieces. There is only one way for the puzzle to be perfectly assembled, but an enormous number of ways for the pieces to be in a jumbled mess. If you shake the box, it is far more likely that the pieces will settle into a messy state than a completed one.

Mathematical knot theory

Knot theory is a branch of topology that classifies and studies the properties of mathematical knots. While mathematical knots are closed loops (unlike a hose with ends), the principles help explain the entanglement process of flexible objects. 

  • Invariants: Mathematicians use concepts like "crossing numbers" and "polynomial invariants" to classify and distinguish between different knots. Experiments with agitated strings have found that the longer and more flexible a string is, the more complex the knots that form.

  • Reidemeister moves: Knot theory describes how a knot can be transformed, or untangled, using a series of three basic moves called Reidemeister moves. However, these transformations are often difficult to apply in the real world, which is why a tangled cord is so hard to quickly untangle. 

Physical and mechanical factors

The mathematical probabilities are amplified by the physical characteristics of the hose and the actions performed on it.

  • Length and flexibility: Research has confirmed that longer and more flexible strings are far more likely to become knotted. A short, stiff object simply doesn't have enough length or the freedom of movement to form a coil or a loop that a free end can pass through.

  • The tumbling mechanism: The process of a hose wrapping itself up usually begins with a loose, random coiling motion. One free end can then "braid" its way through a loop created by another part of the hose, initiating the first crossing.

  • Kinks versus true knots: It is important to distinguish between a temporary kink and a stable topological knot. A kink is a local, folded-over section that can be unbent, but it can also be the first step in forming a stable knot. The stiff, non-elastic nature of many hoses, combined with a "memory" of a coiled shape, makes them especially prone to kinking.

  • Improper coiling: The way a hose is stored also affects tangling. When you coil a hose by pulling the end off a fixed reel or hook, it introduces a twist with every loop. This added torsional energy increases the likelihood of a more complex entanglement. 

  • Why Do Earbuds Get Tangled? | The Children's Museum of Indianapolis

    We answer the question with help from Discover Magazine. In a recent study, physicists from UC San Diego put strings and knots to ...

    The Children's Museum of Indianapolis

  • ELI5: How do hoses and extension cords get tangled so easily?

    Jun 16, 2024 — Spontaneous Knotting and Entropy: Hoses and extension cords get tangled easily due to the principles of entropy and sp...

    Reddit

  • ELI5, Why do wires or string always seem to tie themselves ...

    Dec 11, 2024 — Tangle Probability: Wires and strings are much more likely to become tangled than untangled because there are signific...

There'll always be an England, you just won't want to live there (Updated)

/

London woman fined $200 for pouring splash of coffee down storm drain before hopping onto bus

A London woman was slapped with a hefty fine for pouring a splash of her coffee down a storm drain before hopping on a bus, according to reports.

Burcu Yesilyurt made the split-second choice to empty “just a tiny little bit” of coffee from a reusable cup of joe down the drain instead of risking spilling it on her bus to work in southwest London on Oct. 10, the BBC reported.

As soon as the drop of java dribbled out, Yesilyurt was immediately swarmed by three officers at the bus stop and slapped with a £150 fine — or roughly $200 — under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which makes it illegal to dump waste in a way that could pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.

Three - THREE — enviro-agents of the state were clustered together, hanging around on the same corner, waiting for something to do, and then —Hosannah! —they sprang into action.

“As soon as I turned around, I noticed three men, enforcement officers, chasing me, and they stopped me immediately,” she told the outlet.

The law enforcement encounter over such a minor, unsuspecting move left Yesilyurt feeling “shaky.”

“It was quite a shock,” she said.

She hadn’t seen any signs in the area indicating that she was not allowed to dump anything into the drain, and was told by officers that she should have poured the morning brew in a nearby rubbish bin.

“It feels quite unfair. I think the fine is extreme. It’s not proportionate,” Yesilyurt said.

After reports of the incident went viral across social media — where users balked at the “ridiculous” fine — local officials decided to drop the offense on Wednesday.

The Richmond Council canceled the fine, declaring it was “likely” that Yesilyurt’s appeal would have been approved anyway, the outlet reported.

The council still maintained that the law enforcement response was “justified.”

ECO-TERRORIST LOOSE ON THE STREETS:

UPDATE.

HERE’S A FUN ONE: