If you haven't seen it in your investigations, then I doubt if raw timestamps would help.
(Those aren't the parts I was mentioning in the previous comment. That was as he was walking across the grass, which (on rereading) wasn't your point. This is as he is still on the roof.)
It's visible in several frames as he walks away, otherwise it blends in with his legs. It's also easy to mistake for another leg.
Given the quality of the camera, that item's shape is "consistent with" a lot of different items, including a rifle. It could've been anything from a jacket to a small suitcase, and any features smaller than a couple inches (such as a rifle barrel) would disappear between the pixels.
I wouldn't expect to see an identifiable rifle in that low-quality footage, so not seeing it isn't surprising. Album, where I tried to keep the pixelization consistent (18 pixels tall = 4"/pixel in the video, guessing 28" barrel = 7 output pixels per 430 input pixels). My unidentifiable blob is consistent with a rifle because it was made from a rifle. It's also consistent with a stick.
when you receive quite a few DMs asking you to bring back 4o and many of the messages are clearly written by 4o it starts to get a bit hair raising.
Am I missing something, or is that impossible? How could it be written by 4o after 4o was taken offline (and before it was reinstated)?
At the point of death, presumably, the person whose labour is seized does not exist. I think that's a good point to consider, since I also estimate that a significant amount of resistance to the idea of no inheritance assumes the dead person's will is a moral factor after their death.
Yes, I make that assumption. I believe I'm in very good company there, with both the general public and (many, but not all) decision theories/moral systems recognizing agreements that carry on past death. Why would you think otherwise?
I also don't agree that you're effectively limiting people's power of affecting causes they care about to what the government would do with the money, since people have other causes they care about besides their offspring, even if to a lesser degree, and...
I'm not quite sure what this post's hypothetical is supposed to be, but sure. Let's say that charitable donations are fully exempt from the tax.
People don't care about charity to any substantial extent. Donation rates are around 4%, whereas raising a child averages 15%ish per child for nearly half of a parent's career, never mind the non-financial investments in their wellbeing. It's not a complete restriction on giving, but it cuts out the most important one in many peoples' lives.
Allowing for charitable donations as an alternative to simple taxation does shift the needle a bit but not enough to substantially alter the argument IMO.
... are free to spend their money while alive to advance those.
No, they absolutely are not. Spending your money before your death is heavily constrained by uncertainty. The chance of sudden unexpected death between 20-64 totals about 1.5% (calculated from here), and the anti-loophole protections would catch more. Even outside of the worst-case scenarios, you will always die before a sufficiently-optimistic estimate (and if you aren't optimistic enough? Have fun living out your last days while completely broke, I guess.)
A relevant point I don't have an opinion on is whether the offsprings of a person are better stewards of that person's former wealth than the government.
To be clear, I was talking about the parents being good stewards by managing the wealth for the benefit of future generations (i.e. Bob, and perhaps his kids). I have opinions about how effective the government would be compared to the children, but those differences pale in comparison to tearing everything down to get the last drop of value out before you die and lose it all.
Inheritance is not about the children.
You ask whose labour is seized by a 100% death tax? The parents' labour. That's obvious enough that I feel I must be missing something. What was your (presumably?) rhetorical question supposed to make me consider?
Inheritance is a way to get people to contribute towards prosperity for the future of the human race...by convincing them to contribute towards the prosperity of Bob, their beloved son. Maybe you don't need a personal connection to take selfless actions, but that's not universal: I bet that a 100% death tax world would have a lot more golf courses and cruise ships funded by reverse mortgages and premature sales of family businesses.
A low inheritance tax tells people that they can have a direct impact on a cause they care about (usually their children) after their death. A 100% death tax tells people that they can have as much of an impact as typical government funding on the causes the government spends money on.
I know which one would motivate me to be a better steward of my wealth.
Key paragraph:
The A-12 “practically spawned its own industrial base” (CIA 2012), and over the course of the program thousands of machinists, mechanics, fabricators, and other personnel were trained in how to work with titanium efficiently. As Lockheed gained production experience with titanium, it issued reports to the Air Force and to its vendors on production methods, and “set up training classes for machinists, a complete research facility for developing tools and procedures, and issued research contracts to competent outside vendors to develop improved equipment" (Johnson 1970).
The 1952 symposium is clearly a precursor to its 1959-1964 production and development, and the 1966 one is drawing from the experiences of the industrial base it created.
EDIT: and more directly:
What can we learn from the story of titanium?
For one, titanium is a government research success story. Titanium metal was essentially willed into existence by the US government, which searched for a promising production process, successfully scaled it up when it found one, and performed much of the initial research on titanium’s material properties, potential alloys, and manufacturing methods. Nearly all early demand for titanium was for government aerospace projects, and when the nascent industry struggled, the government stepped in to subsidize production. As a result, titanium achieved a level of production in 10 years that took aluminum and magnesium nearly 30.
I think you're overstating your case on Science Beakers. Take the example of titanium, as described here. In short, what happened was:
If it wasn't for the A-12 project (and its precursors and successors), then we simply wouldn't be able to build things out of titanium. No reasonable amount of non-titanium background research would get an engineer to check their marking pen for chloride-based inks or discover osseointegration.
I haven't looked into supersonic flight technology, but I'd be shocked if they discovered nothing new from the design and operation of the Concorde.
What are the interactive elements? I didn't see any, so I'm curious what the "full experience" was supposed to be.
Re #3: The easiest demonstration is to do it. How well do you think it would go over if you said "I know you like cooperative board/card games. I found The Crew for sale at Central Gaming for $19.99, and you might enjoy playing it. Here's their address and a $20 bill." vs. just buying it and giving to them?
Kind of against #4: A gift includes permission to have and use it. This goes double when the recipient is a child, spouse, or anyone else the gift-giver has a stake in. "Why do you think those binoculars are the best way to spend $1000?" Not my choice, it was a gift! "Why do you birdwatch during our hikes?" Because I was gifted the binoculars!