This might not apply to many who frequent HN, but not enough people know about Free File options.
If your adjusted gross income is less than $66,000 you can likely file your federal and potentially state taxes for free.
If you make more than $66,00 AGI, the IRS provides fillable forms that are pretty easy to use for your federal but might not be applicable in all circumstances.
For example, California has CalFile[1] which covers most situations. There are also some options for free federal filing if your AGI exceeds $66,000 as the requirements set by Free File Alliance[2] members vary depending on the offerings (e.g. FreeTaxUSA[3] doesn't have AGI limits).
I used their system to submit my taxes this year. (Edit: the "free fillable forms" system)
Their UX is absolutely atrocious. It will do the math for you, but there are a number of intermediate fields that require you to enter a value manually, but have no indication in the form of what they are. You have to go through their instructions (separate from the IRS instructions) for the form to figure out what fields require manual entry.
Eventually I was able to work my way through the form with research and experimentation.
The only thing I wasn't able to figure out was how to get it to include the penalty for failing to pay estimated taxes. I added the form to my filing and filled it out, but I could never get the number of populate into the 1040 and their form wouldn't let me enter that value manually. While I would have preferred to pay it all at once, my only option was to wait for the IRS to calculate this and bill me for it.
Can we please, please, please get 18F to rebuild this so it doesn't completely suck? Offering a solid, free alternative to Turbo Tax and other abusive companies would be so beneficial.
I was just about to comment about this! I moved outside of the states, and have a non-US bank account, which is something that TurboTax doesn't handle in their free version. I ended up using H&R Block through this Free File, and it covered both federal (1040) and CA returns for free, which TurboTax wanted to charge $30 for CA return and like $40 or $50 for the federal since I have a non-US bank account. If you make less than $66k, definitely check out that link because it can save you a good chunk of money depending in your tax situation.
They likely wanted to charge you more because you would need to file a FBAR if your account was above $10,000 (been a while need to check that threshold hasn’t moved). Big penalty if you do it wrong so you may want to double check.
The US median income is well under $66k, making this is a moot point for more than half of filers. If you're on the cusp and trying to guess take the standard deduction.
I realized that the HF boxes fit quite nicely into surplus 19" racks, which are pretty readily available second hand and so that's the direction I went as it was very fast and easy.
I also bought a few for the kids' Lego, but I use most of them for electronic components, mechanical components, screws, nuts, etc. I've inadvertently knocked over closed bins a few times without spillage (similar to the demo in Adam's Sortimo video).
I suspect this is a another case of more than 80% as good for less than 20% of the cost.
I'm on my way home from re:Invent at the moment, but will put a tape measure on it when I get home. The 19" dimension on server racks is not the inside clearance, but includes the rack "ears" dimension, so 16.5" wide to fit inside the clearance between 19" rails sounds like it's probably the right thing. Shoot me an email (in my profile) if you need any pics or other confirmation.
Interesting. I did a DuckDuckGo search on the boxes he used (Sortimo) and this blog post [1] popped up on Allit which is suppose to be a cheaper alternative to Sortimo.
I use something similar from Raaco for my (kid's) Legos. Same grid layout with inserts that lock in place with the lid (no migration of contents if you hold vertically)
What is your one-liner? I haven't figured out a great way to succinctly describe Sourcegraph.
They are an interesting company and I'm positive your endorsement is genuine. It might be worth mentioning that they sponsor one of your projects just to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
I tell people they're building the global graph of source code.
People without any theoretical background will look confused, but CS people generally understand the deeper implications of this, I think.
I've been supportive of their mission for years, well before any sponsorship. My (unofficial) relationship with Sourcegraph isn't about money. We have shared values, pure and simple.
Early SSL/TLS termination is to reduce latency; the longer-lived connections from PoPs to Dropbox datacenters is over a TLS 1.2 connection with PFS. See an earlier blog post[1]:
> We use TLS 1.2 and a PFS cipher suite at both our origin data centers and proxies. Additionally, we’ve enabled upstream certificate validation and certificate pinning on our proxy servers. This helps ensure that the edge proxy server knows it’s talking to our upstream server, and not someone attempting a man-in-the-middle attack.
(N.B.: I work on security at Dropbox, and consulted on this design)
I'm not a lawyer, but I did work on one of the previous Transparency Reports[1]. From our most recent one:
> Between July and December 2016, Dropbox did not comply with any non-US government legal process unless issued by a US court as a result of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty process.
... if that helps answer what you're getting at :)
I don't know if they use SSL/TLS to their upstreams, I'm just saying terminating in at the edge doesn't mean that is the end of all SSL/TLS. It is totally normal to terminate SSL/TLS at the edge, pretty much anyone using an HTTPS load balancer or CDN does it, but the LB or CDN can still use SSL/TLS to the upstreams and verify certificates of upstreams.
None of the listing above told us what exactly she is doing as VP of those firms. No detail on whether she fulfill a tenichal role or administrative one.
What is your proposed solution? How does one limit a free, public resource to only people with homes? A literal smell test?
How do people without homes "completely destroy the purpose"? Are they stealing books? Breaking computers? Barricading the doors?
Do you really believe that all people without homes have "given up on life"? Not a single one is "working hard and trying to excel in life"? Have you heard of working people without homes? Particularly in LA, SF, et al. where the cost of a home vastly exceeds the income of many people?
Do you think education could be a productive method for reducing the number of people without homes?
> What is your proposed solution? How does one limit a free, public resource to only people with homes?
We already limit library use to those who live within the library's community. Just require a library card to get in, too. Morals aside, the logistics would be simple.
> How do people without homes "completely destroy the purpose"? Are they stealing books? Breaking computers? Barricading the doors?
Shooting up heroin in the bathroom? Using the water fountains to wash up. Talking angrily to their schizophrenic delusions? Stinking to high heaven? Saying "completely destroy the purpose" is a bit of an exaggeration - but the mission of the library is hampered a bit if you make them defacto daytime homeless shelters.
> Do you really believe that all people without homes have "given up on life"?
He was exaggerating, but yes - many homeless have no reasonable expectation of improving their circumstances.
> Do you think education could be a productive method for reducing the number of people without homes?
Those who aren't mentally ill or completely socially maladjusted, sure. Of course, there's a difference between "education" and "just putting them in a building full of information and crossing your fingers".
I don't say that all of your criticisms were wrong - but you went off the rails in the opposite extreme of the person you replied to. Any solution we come up with should acknowledge that libraries are vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons, and a great percentage of the homeless are not going to improve themselves without the aid of services that the library has no business providing.
> We already limit library use to those who live within the library's community.
"You have to be in the same physical location to use a building" is one of the softest restrictions in history.
In order to borrow something, sure, you have to live nearby, but a library is more than a book loan service. For example, I was crossing the US and booking the hotel for the next night every morning. If the motel I was at didn't have working internet, I'd find a library and use theirs to make the booking. I was never blocked on account on not living nearby.
That isn't even true in California, any resident of California can use any Californian library, and receive a library card to it. Which leads to an ongoing feuds between neighboring cities when one chooses not to have public libraries (see Piedmont, California)
> In order to borrow something, sure, you have to live nearby,
The question was asked, how can we logistically enforce no homeless people. The answer is (new, non-existing policy here): restrict access to those who can borrow books. That's how we could do it, logistically.
I go to the SF library frequently and it is a gorgeous library, but it is absolutely full of homeless. I have seen needles on multiple occasions, almost always you will people hear screaming obscenities or just gibberish, and you guaranteed will at least smell some pretty nasty stuff on any trip in there.
A couple days ago one of them threw themselves from the 5th story and landed in the atrium. He could very easily have killed someone in addition to himself. I have trouble rationalizing this romantic view of the homeless as these poor downtrodden, down on their luck people who just need a hand up, with the realities I see everyday of mentally ill, dangerous, and completely uncontrollable people. They definitely are not there to read. A few have developed the skill set necessary to direct the free access computers to porn sites.
That being said I agree that homeless is not effective as a blanket term to describe anyone without a home, huge difference between someone living out of their car and showering at the gym, and a schizophrenic who hasn't bathed in 6 months.
> I have trouble rationalizing this romantic view of the homeless as these poor downtrodden, down on their luck people who just need a hand up, with the realities I see everyday of mentally ill, dangerous, and completely uncontrollable people.
That is because this "romantic view" is a straw man you came up with so that you can rationalize writing a comment attacking the homeless and the mentally ill, instead of doing something constructive. Do you participate in the San Francisco Tenants Union? Are you doing anything to help SB562 (single-payer in California)? When was the last time you gave a homeless person change?
You can whine about homeless people all you want on HN but that says more about your inadequacies as a person than about the homeless. Until the lack of affordable access to housing and mental health services is resolved the homeless population in California will keep growing.
Affordable housing will do absolutely nothing for the type of homeless people OP is talking about (drug addicts and the mentally ill). They are homeless because they have no stability in their life and would not be able to hold a job to pay rent regardless of the cost.
The class of homeless you are referring to is people pushed out of their homes due to rising prices and their limited income. These people (in my experience) are not the ones going around screaming at people an not bathing for months. You would most likely not even know they are homeless.
You are not talking about the same groups of people so you are talking past each other and nothing productive will come of your exchange.
Having affordable housing only creates stability if they actually pay the rent.
From what I've observed, the problematic homeless people primarily need health care or to be put in a mental institution (for the really unstable ones). Affordable housing would certainly be nice, but having that isn't going to do anything for the ones that piss on the floor or jump off the balcony of a public library because they wouldn't be able to pay (or want to pay) any price for housing.
But what's the point of the distinction here? Are we really going to argue that the best thing we can do with mentally unstable people who are unable to hold a job is throw them on the streets?
I don't think anyone is arguing that. "Throwing them on the streets" and "discouraging them from hanging out in the library unless they are actually using it" are two different things entirely.
No,I don't want homeless kids from being discouraged from hanging out in the library just because they stink and make rich people uncomfortable. Just because some folks don't acknowledge the dark side of the USA, where is little/no support for your fellow citizens who fall off the train, doesn't mean you can grind them down even more.
"Not fair, not just? Who said life was fair? Where is there any justice" - Well, if life isn't fair and justice is just a joke, I suppose you would also be fine for those poor, homeless people you snigger and mock at to take violence as a route and murder and rob rich people ? Life is not fair right ? After all you are talking about putting them into labour camps - they can also decide that enough is enough and start a revolution. You might want to realise that you are heavily outnumbered and wouldn't be able to go to work for fear of being murdered.
Who did I mock, now? A revolution would be to actually address homelessness for what it is: a crime! The crime is allowing it to continue, as it is inhumane.
But to address it, you have to take control.
Oh, the outrage. More like oh, the apathy! You're outraged that my call to action makes sense.
Perhaps it "makes sense" but the problem is it's monstrous. Similarly, summarily executing the homeless would probably reduce the number of homeless people on the street, but I do not support it because it is obviously morally bankrupt.
Let's just see how consistent you are, how monstrous you are by your tacit acceptance of the current state.
It's thought experiment time: take all the homeless in the country, but make them all 5 years old. Do we leave them on the street to fend for themselves? No, and what must we do with them? Why? And then keep questioning why to each of your answers to get to the root of your thoughts.
Do the same experiment, but make the age 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19. How do your answers change, and if they do, answer truthfully why? How utterly heartless you are.
Your obvious inconsistencies stem from the fact that your notion of truth and what is just is completely arbitrary, planted in you by someone very manipulative and cruel. What you think is so banal as to disgust me.
If you want to talk about being disgusted, I'm disgusted by your suggestion that we create a concentration camp for the homeless. If that makes me "banal" then so be it.
There's no conviction in your words here. I must have surprised you, and maybe got you to think which is good.
Who, other than you, said anything about concentration camps? Your argument rests on essentially name calling.
You haven't pressed me on details, you haven't torn me to shreds based on argument because, apparently, you don't need to present any argument other than name calling outrage.
I'd say when your position continues to fail to do anything meaningful other than expand the homeless population, you have some serious defending to do.
Again, what I think should be done is simply giving homeless people housing. A forced labor camp is a concentration camp so there is really no misrepresentation of your argument to use the term.
And if the inmates did work but their experience was neither forced nor concentration or gulag, then you'd be all for my idea? I seriously doubt it; there's an agenda at work with you that has little to do with actually helping people.
"Simply giving homeless people housing" does nothing but brush off the real problem. That sounds like "do more of what I know hasn't worked" to me.
Let me guess what your deep fear is. How about this: you believe if we don't placate the downtrodden masses with wealth transfer programs then we'll eventually have an uprising and they'll take all my stuff and kill me and my family or something like that.
You know what causes anger and uprisings? Not simply poverty. If that was the case, you'd have 3rd world countries constantly in revolution. The jealousy and violence and revolts stem from relative wealth inequality. Rich people living and flaunting their wealth in proximity to relatively poor people. Well, we've effectively segregated ourselves in the states by class - we no longer mix classes here. So, have no fear, you're not going to get mugged by your impoverished neighbors unless you're one of those chaos-loving hipsters that is in the process of gentrifying a poor neighborhood (a.k.a. displacing the poor people.)
Now that I have allayed your fear, let me propose that your wealth transfer concepts can't "fix" the poverty problem because it allows people to stay stuck in their mental/cultural situation. If you don't fix the culture first, you're throwing good money after bad. I want measurable improvement in the homeless situation and we're clearly trending the wrong way in big cities right now. Of course there needs to be more public housing, but the culture problem needs to be addressed first.
I'm not sure how great the revival of the Victorian workhouse would be, but yes, the involuntary imprisonment and forced labor aspect of your plan is far and away the most objectionable.
It is not ok to call someone inadequate as a person for wanting usable and pleasant public spaces. We are not morally obligated to enthusiastically embrace the reallocation of every public space for use as a homeless shelter.
Cities need to get homeless services right. They also need to get libraries, parks, and transit right.
It's totally OK to call someone out for talking about people with mental illness like they were rats or cockroaches. I don't care what happens to sewer rats. I just want them out of my sight and mind. But when I see people who are sick or suffering, my first concern is with there well-being. I recognize that my own inconvenience or displeasure pales in significance to the human suffering I am witnessing.
Letting public space rot like that is a deeply regressive policy.
You and I have access to private-sector alternatives. The working-class kid who wants a quiet place to do his homework, the guy on the edge of homeless desperately applying for jobs on the public computer, someone depending on the librarian to help them navigate the welfare bureaucracy... they don't.
You may not realize it, but a great many people on the low end of the socioeconomic ladder depend on libraries as quiet sanctuaries and as a window of access to the modern, networked, intellectual world. Shouted obscenities and excrement vapor in the air ruin it for them too.
You're right, we should be deeply concerned by such dramatic scenes of intense suffering and inhumanity. But if you're even slightly concerned, the last thing you want to do is let the environment deteriorate and fester undisturbed. The guy who might consider defecating on the floor deserves a peaceful and pleasant library, too. He's not going to get it if we let such things become normal there. The characteristics of the spaces we inhabit shape our moods and behaviors, and a library which could be mistaken for a skid row alleyway serves no one.
> poor downtrodden, down on their luck people who just need a hand up... mentally ill, dangerous, and completely uncontrollable
These aren't actually incompatible with each other. I would consider mental illness to be "down on one's luck", wouldn't you?
> They definitely are not there to read. A few have developed the skill set necessary to direct the free access computers to porn sites.
I don't know if this is what you intend, but language like this makes it sounds like you're discussing some sort of monkeys, not people. Of course they can use computers. Most homeless people weren't born homeless.
San Francisco's main library had to install industrial strength sewage grinders because "patrons" were flushing all sorts of things that don't belong and were clogging the pipes.
Not to change the subject, but you know what really grinds my gears? The other day I took my wife out to dinner. We were enjoying a rare care-free night out, and then they sat this family at an adjacent table. The kids were well-behaved, but the youngest child--ugh. She had no hair, a hospital bracelet on her wrist, and bandages on her arms. We couldn't finish our dinner. Our evening was ruined. How are we supposed to enjoy ourselves while this child's pain is flaunted in front of our faces. I was so pissed off. I told the manager if they don't stop allowing these walking TV fundraiser trophies into their establishment I'll find somewhere else to spend my hard-earned money. I shouldn't have to cure cancer to enjoy my Friday night!
> I have trouble rationalizing this romantic view of the homeless as these poor downtrodden, down on their luck people who just need a hand up, with the realities I see everyday of mentally ill, dangerous, and completely uncontrollable people.
Maybe you should see the demographic as being a little more complex rather than just throwing them all into the one bucket. Rather than 'find another term' to split the demographic itself ('homeless' is a pretty accurate description of 'doesn't have a home'), perhaps you should find a different term for the groups you want to specify.
Rules. No sleeping. No drug use. No bathing in the restrooms. No shitting on anything. No violent or threatening behavior. Period.
Then enforce those rules. One violation, and you're out. Two, and you're out for good.
Librarians know who the troublemakers are. They just have no power to do anything about them. It's not illegal to be homeless, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to do violent, illegal or disgusting things without consequence.
Exactly. Coordinate with police and enforce the rules. Public spaces are created and maintained by enforcing liberal rules of access, not no rules of access.
They have these rules, but they are rarely actually enforced. Point someone to a homeless person shooting up in public or bathing in the bathroom, and see what happens.
If anything, there's a shrug and a sigh and some rent-a-cop is sent to harass. Almost never is the infraction met with punishment of any consequence.
Start actually arresting or forcibly evicting people who behave this way. They'll stop coming around. San Francisco is particularly feckless in this regard.
> "Start actually arresting or forcibly evicting people who behave this way."
This is one of those easy solutions that sounds practical on paper, but in reality doesn't hold up.
Let's say SFPD go ahead and do what you suggest. What does that achieve? If they arrest people for shooting up, are you sending them to jail? For how long? Is that going to help them get clean when smack is probably easily attainable in prison anyway? When they're released, now not only are they homeless they've got a criminal record, good luck in the job market with that hanging over you. If they go down the other route and forcibly evict them, where do they get evicted to? All it does is shift the problem to another part of the country, who are probably just as resistant to dealing with it as SF.
You have to treat the root causes of involuntary homelessness as if it's a societal disease. The threat of arresting people isn't a strong enough deterrent to break people out of their addictions, which should be clear by now, otherwise the war on drugs would already have been 'won'.
Are we to overlook all criminal behavior because enforcement might make people less employable, or just selectively ignore some laws that you don't agree with?
Perspective! If someone is shooting up in the library, their future employability is of (at best) tertiary concern to me. The pressing matter is making sure they don't continue the behavior. We can't just stop enforcing laws because it might make lawbreakers break more laws.
The city of SF actually did adopt a policy of forcing addicts into treatment by giving them an ultimatum of jail time for accumulated minor offenses. It worked, but was stopped when some bleeding-heart sued the city. I'm a liberal, but I consider that a tragedy. You can't cure addiction by arresting people, but you sure as hell can stop enabling it on a societal scale.
And also, when I say "evict", I mean "evict them from the library". I don't care where they go to shoot up; watch porn; shit in the sink; sleep or harass people, but they can't do it in the library.
> "Are we to overlook all criminal behavior because enforcement might make people less employable, or just selectively ignore some laws that you don't agree with?"
I'm suggesting we have to look at the problems holistically. Let's say someone breaks the law. The main aim of throwing someone in jail is to stop them committing more crime, correct? If jail time is going to be effective in doing so, that's fine, but if incarceration only leads to an increase in crime after the person has been released, was it worth it? Perhaps there are other ways of reducing the problem that we should consider instead.
> "The city of SF actually did adopt a policy of forcing addicts into treatment by giving them an ultimatum of jail time for accumulated minor offenses. It worked"
Do you have a link to an article showing the effectiveness of this approach in SF?
As for your other points, if someone is shitting in the sink, is the main problem that they're mentally deranged, or is the main problem that you have to witness it?
> "What if by doing that people would become willing to invest in the programs that treat these kinds of problems?"
If that's the case, great, but the impression I'm getting from many people here is that it's 'not my problem'. I don't see much of the sympathy that would drive people to act on the behalf of others.
Proposed solution: give the homeless a (publicly-funded) place to be that fits their needs even better than a library does.
In chemistry, when you have a both a product and a side-product dissolved in a liquid (say, water) and you want to purify the solution to have only the product, you don't try to take the side-product away directly; instead, you pour in another fluid with different viscosity that the side-product will prefer to its original solute, and then shake things up. After everything settles, the product is in one layer, the side-product is in the other, and you can now drain the layers into separate flasks and wash/evaporate/crystallize out your product.
People, like chemicals, can't just be told what to do; you need to give them a place they prefer to be if you want any hope of them moving there.
Look, instead of turning us into strawmen, try and understand.
I love libraries. If someone is reading a book or a magazine or even surfing Facebook on a computer I don't care what they look like, smell like, or whether or not they go back to an apartment at the end of the day.
My city has a beautiful library. They also have very liberal policies, afaik people aren't turned away.
But those tables you'd like to read a magazine at? Full of people camped out, possessions spread around them, talking, dealing.
Those isles of books? Now they are also beds.
It's really an asshole move to assume that if anyone at any point doesn't want their library turned into a shelter, then they are heartless people who hate the poor and mentally ill.
I want better health care in this country. I want better support for ensuring that everyone had a roof over their head. I also want to read a book in the library without being hassled or smelling excrement.
Libraries should be open to everyone to use as libraries.
> "I want better health care in this country. I want better support for ensuring that everyone had a roof over their head. I also want to read a book in the library without being hassled or smelling excrement."
The first two should be seen as prerequisites for the third. The first one especially.
Is it fair that libraries have inadvertently taken on the role of social care of the homeless? No, it's not. Should, as you put it, libraries be open to everyone to use as libraries? Yes, they should. However, the answer is not to shut the homeless out of yet another place, the answer is to push for cheaper, more comprehensive healthcare (i.e. single payer) so that we can address the problem head on.
I heard a great name for this line of argument recently: "but first, the revolution!"
I empathize, but this is destructive. Deciding we can't have [basic service that worked fine not long ago] until we have [complete change of heart about philosophical and policy questions at the core of people's political identities] will only run civilization into the ground.
The idea is to take a stand now. If you further marginalise those that already have almost nothing, where do you think that leads to? Are you ready to step over corpses on your way to work?
Societies are a bit like networks, they're only as strong as their weakest link.
> How does one limit a free, public resource to only people with homes? A literal smell test?
By offering something that is even more attractive than a library to people who want the roof but not the books.
One might even argue that it is undemocratic when funds for one public service (with a lot of popular support) were reappropriated for another, maybe less popular, one. Imagine (in Lennon's voice) the USAF going rogue to set up an NHS clone with money they were supposed to spend on new jets: laudable in a way yet unquestionably out of line. Not their decision to make.
> How does one limit a free, public resource to only people with homes?
By only making it free for students.
> How do people without homes "completely destroy the purpose"?
I wouldn't say it destroys the purpose, but it changes the atmosphere and environment of the place. I don't think people want to spend time with homeless and weird people around them. It sounds harsh but that's the truth.
More repulsive than "homeless and weird people" is heartless disgust for less fortunate neighbors absent any apparent concern for their well-being.
I don't want to live in a society that solves the stench of poverty and untreated mental illness by corralling people into ghettos and homeless shelters. The only humane solution to the stench of human suffering in public libraries or anywhere else is to minister to the unmet needs. Give them medical treatment, showers, food and a bed.
I have no problems with homeless and weird people.
I do have a problem with them using the space in a way that actively prevents people from being patrons. I have more of a problem with the tacit assumption that this is some kind of stopgap "shelter" and that the unilateral non democratic appropriation of public spaces to provide a poor substitite is defensible.
Planned communities that allow people to live with less effort and don't put arbitrary restrictions on them.
And homeless push out the people who could be expanding their minds and imagination, trying to improve themselves and society.
They sit there, charge their cell phones, watch youtube, sleep and shower.
No, I don't think education helps. Technology should reduce the cost of living. We need better systems and societies where paying rent shouldn't require 20+ hours of work a week.
Well, giving the homeless a better place to hang out would be one option. I don't think most of them are there to actually use the library as such (some might be, of course).
As I understand it, many shelters kick them out during the daytime, so they wind up in the library or riding public transportation to get out of the weather instead.
The city should have public showers, and yes the library should have a smell test, but before even these two things the real problem with homelessness is we do not take mental health care issues seriously, as a society.
Provide actual, sufficient, high-quality homeless shelters and services, rather than leaving every other public space (libraries, transit, parks, etc.) as a poor stand-in.
