Most active commenters
  • alchemist1e9(5)
  • stemlord(3)
  • compiler-devel(3)

←back to thread

Show HN: I built a(nother) house optimized for LAN parties

(lanparty.house)
1071 points kentonv | 13 comments | 16 Nov 24 15:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom

I wasn't quite sure if this qualified as "Show HN" given you can't really download it and try it out. However, dang said[0]:

> If it's hardware or something that's not so easy to try out over the internet, find a different way to show how it actually works—a video, for example, or a detailed post with photos.

Hopefully I did that?

Additionally, I've put code and a detailed guide for the netboot computer management setup on GitHub:

https://github.com/kentonv/lanparty

Anyway, if this shouldn't have been Show HN, I apologize!

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22336638

Show context
laidoffamazon ◴[16 Nov 24 21:22 UTC] No.42159467[source]▶
This is neat, but as a $NET shareholder and someone with another ~$1m in net worth that can't afford to buy a house for at least another 6 years this makes me think we should significantly increase taxation.
replies(8): >>42159573 #>>42159641 #>>42159944 #>>42160006 #>>42160133 #>>42162628 #>>42162813 #>>42164380 #
compiler-devel ◴[16 Nov 24 22:27 UTC] No.42159944[source]▶
When have increased taxes directly contributed to your take home pay?
replies(3): >>42160011 #>>42160599 #>>42164101 #
IAmGraydon ◴[16 Nov 24 22:36 UTC] No.42160011[source]▶
It doesn’t. They’re just expressing their jealousy in a thinly veiled and highly embarrassing way.
replies(3): >>42160113 #>>42160140 #>>42161675 #
compiler-devel ◴[16 Nov 24 22:50 UTC] No.42160140[source]▶
It truly is embarrassing. Imagine seeing something and thinking, "how can I get the government to forcefully take some of that for my benefit?"
replies(2): >>42160173 #>>42161708 #
1. alchemist1e9 ◴[17 Nov 24 03:12 UTC] No.42161708{3}[source]▶
Absolutely embarrassing and a real life demonstration of a famous quote:

“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

replies(1): >>42161806 #
2. stemlord ◴[17 Nov 24 03:39 UTC] No.42161806[source]▶
To be fair OP's website explains that most of the money isn't earned income. I'm happy for them though
replies(2): >>42164227 #>>42169548 #
3. compiler-devel ◴[17 Nov 24 14:04 UTC] No.42164227[source]▶
What do you mean by “isn’t earned income” ?
replies(1): >>42166222 #
4. alchemist1e9 ◴[17 Nov 24 19:10 UTC] No.42166222{3}[source]▶
The anti-capitalists have this crazy idea that investment income isn’t “earned” in the same way that labor income is. Of course that’s absurdly anti-capitalist and completely ignores the point of capitalism and the function of risk taking incentivized by potential rewards. Failing to make a coherent argument against active investment income, for instance entrepreneurs, they will then revert to criticism of passive investors and their eventual complaint will come to arguing S&P index investors should be taxed on “unrealized” gains.

Remember it’s all illogical nonsense motivated by Envy which they masquerade as Empathy.

replies(2): >>42169659 #>>42175869 #
5. fastball ◴[18 Nov 24 03:43 UTC] No.42169548[source]▶
Working for a company that pays you in stock and then selling those stocks is in fact earned.
6. simonhorlick ◴[18 Nov 24 04:13 UTC] No.42169659{4}[source]▶
It's motivated by the ideology of wanting a meritocracy - the idea that if you work hard you can reap rewards. Having some people in society that can sit at home and watch the S&P increase while some have to work 50-hour weeks to make ends meet is seen as problematic.
replies(4): >>42170432 #>>42175901 #>>42191470 #>>42201344 #
7. alchemist1e9 ◴[18 Nov 24 07:12 UTC] No.42170432{5}[source]▶
> the ideology of wanting a meritocracy - the idea that if you work hard you can reap rewards.

and of those hard earned rewards investing them and then sitting at home and watching the S&P increase you mean?

oh wait that’s problematic … let’s take those rewards away for “fairness” .. opps no incentives no meritocracy no prosperity

8. stemlord ◴[18 Nov 24 19:19 UTC] No.42175869{4}[source]▶
I thought "earned income" was an actual accounting term (to define a type of taxable income as opposed to passive income):

https://itap1.for.irs.gov/owda/0/resource/Commentary_Files_R...

" Earned income is money received as payment for work, including wages, salaries, bonuses, commissions, tips, and net earnings from self-employment. For tax purposes, it can also include long-term disability payments, union strike benefits, and, in some cases, payments from certain deferred retirement compensation arrangements.

Income such as investment profits and Social Security payments is considered unearned income, also known as passive income."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/earnedincome.asp

replies(1): >>42178406 #
9. stemlord ◴[18 Nov 24 19:21 UTC] No.42175901{5}[source]▶
It wasn't a judgement remark, "earned income" is what you call that which is not passive income
replies(1): >>42178692 #
10. alchemist1e9 ◴[18 Nov 24 23:31 UTC] No.42178406{5}[source]▶
That’s all accurate and I was assuming you were referring to passive income exactly as you have clarified.

That doesn’t change any of my observations as your comments imply unearned income deserves higher taxation than current is applied, which is what I object to.

11. alchemist1e9 ◴[19 Nov 24 00:05 UTC] No.42178692{6}[source]▶
What does the “to be fair” part of your sentence mean then?
12. a96 ◴[20 Nov 24 07:15 UTC] No.42191470{5}[source]▶
And your influence, merit and worth are what you're paid in salary. That sounds sane.
13. Izikiel43 ◴[21 Nov 24 05:13 UTC] No.42201344{5}[source]▶
I see this as a goal in life, not a problem