In a 9,000-word expose, a writer for Harper's visited San Francisco's young entrepreneurs in September to mockingly profile "tech's new generation and the end of thinking."
There's Cluely founder Roy Lee. ("His grand contribution to the world was a piece of software that told people what to do.") And the Rationalist movement's Scott Alexander, who "would probably have a very easy time starting a suicide cult..."
Alexander's relationship with the AI industry is a strange one. "In theory, we think they're potentially destroying the world and are evil and we hate them," he told me. In practice, though, the entire industry is essentially an outgrowth of his blog's comment section... "Many of them were specifically thinking, I don't trust anybody else with superintelligence, so I'm going to create it and do it well." Somehow, a movement that believes AI is incredibly dangerous and needs to be pursued carefully ended up generating a breakneck artificial arms race.
There's a fascinating story about teenaged founder Eric Zhu (who only recently turned 18):
Clients wanted to take calls during work hours, so he would speak to them from his school bathroom. "I convinced my counselor that I had prostate issues... I would buy hall passes from drug dealers to get out of class, to have business meetings." Soon he was taking Zoom calls with a U.S. senator to discuss tech regulation... Next, he built his own venture-capital fund, managing $20 million. At one point cops raided the bathroom looking for drug dealers while Eric was busy talking with an investor. Eventually, the school got sick of Eric's misuse of the facilities and kicked him out. He moved to San Francisco.
Eric made all of this sound incredibly easy. You hang out in some Discord servers, make a few connections with the right people; next thing you know, you're a millionaire... Eric didn't think there was anything particularly special about himself. Why did he, unlike any of his classmates, start a $20 million VC fund? "I think I was just bored. Honestly, I was really bored." Did he think anyone could do what he did? "Yeah, I think anyone genuinely can."
The article concludes Silicon Valley's investors are rewarding young people with "agency". Although "As far as I could tell, being a highly agentic individual had less to do with actually doing things and more to do with constantly chasing attention online." Like X.com user Donald Boat, who successfully baited Sam Altman into buying him a gaming PC in "a brutally simplified miniature of the entire VC economy." (After which "People were giving him stuff for no reason except that Altman had already done it, and they didn't want to be left out of the trend.")
Shortly before I arrived at the Cheesecake Factory, [Donald Boat] texted to let me know that he'd been drinking all day, so when I met him I thought he was irretrievably wasted. In fact, it turned out, he was just like that all the time... He seemed to have a constant roster of projects on the go. He'd sent me occasional photos of his exploits. He went down to L.A. to see Oasis and ended up in a poker game with a group of weapons manufacturers. "I made a bunch of jokes about sending all their poker money to China," he said, "and they were not pleased...."
"I don't use that computer and I think video games are a waste of time. I spent all the money I made from going viral on Oasis tickets." As far as he was concerned, the fact that tech people were tripping over themselves to take part in his stunt just confirmed his generally low impression of them. "They have too much money and nothing going on..." Ever since his big viral moment, he'd been suddenly inundated with messages from startup drones who'd decided that his clout might be useful to them. One had offered to fly him out to the French Riviera.
The author's conclusion? "It did not seem like a good idea to me that some of the richest people in the world were no longer rewarding people for having any particular skills, but simply for having agency."
There's Cluely founder Roy Lee. ("His grand contribution to the world was a piece of software that told people what to do.") And the Rationalist movement's Scott Alexander, who "would probably have a very easy time starting a suicide cult..."
Alexander's relationship with the AI industry is a strange one. "In theory, we think they're potentially destroying the world and are evil and we hate them," he told me. In practice, though, the entire industry is essentially an outgrowth of his blog's comment section... "Many of them were specifically thinking, I don't trust anybody else with superintelligence, so I'm going to create it and do it well." Somehow, a movement that believes AI is incredibly dangerous and needs to be pursued carefully ended up generating a breakneck artificial arms race.
There's a fascinating story about teenaged founder Eric Zhu (who only recently turned 18):
Clients wanted to take calls during work hours, so he would speak to them from his school bathroom. "I convinced my counselor that I had prostate issues... I would buy hall passes from drug dealers to get out of class, to have business meetings." Soon he was taking Zoom calls with a U.S. senator to discuss tech regulation... Next, he built his own venture-capital fund, managing $20 million. At one point cops raided the bathroom looking for drug dealers while Eric was busy talking with an investor. Eventually, the school got sick of Eric's misuse of the facilities and kicked him out. He moved to San Francisco.
Eric made all of this sound incredibly easy. You hang out in some Discord servers, make a few connections with the right people; next thing you know, you're a millionaire... Eric didn't think there was anything particularly special about himself. Why did he, unlike any of his classmates, start a $20 million VC fund? "I think I was just bored. Honestly, I was really bored." Did he think anyone could do what he did? "Yeah, I think anyone genuinely can."
The article concludes Silicon Valley's investors are rewarding young people with "agency". Although "As far as I could tell, being a highly agentic individual had less to do with actually doing things and more to do with constantly chasing attention online." Like X.com user Donald Boat, who successfully baited Sam Altman into buying him a gaming PC in "a brutally simplified miniature of the entire VC economy." (After which "People were giving him stuff for no reason except that Altman had already done it, and they didn't want to be left out of the trend.")
Shortly before I arrived at the Cheesecake Factory, [Donald Boat] texted to let me know that he'd been drinking all day, so when I met him I thought he was irretrievably wasted. In fact, it turned out, he was just like that all the time... He seemed to have a constant roster of projects on the go. He'd sent me occasional photos of his exploits. He went down to L.A. to see Oasis and ended up in a poker game with a group of weapons manufacturers. "I made a bunch of jokes about sending all their poker money to China," he said, "and they were not pleased...."
"I don't use that computer and I think video games are a waste of time. I spent all the money I made from going viral on Oasis tickets." As far as he was concerned, the fact that tech people were tripping over themselves to take part in his stunt just confirmed his generally low impression of them. "They have too much money and nothing going on..." Ever since his big viral moment, he'd been suddenly inundated with messages from startup drones who'd decided that his clout might be useful to them. One had offered to fly him out to the French Riviera.
The author's conclusion? "It did not seem like a good idea to me that some of the richest people in the world were no longer rewarding people for having any particular skills, but simply for having agency."
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Saturday afternoon Sam Altman announced he'd start answering questions on X.com about OpenAI's work with America's Department of War — and all the developments over the past few days. (After that department's negotions had failed with Anthropic, they announced they'd stop using Anthropic's technology and threatened to designate it a "Supply-Chain Risk to National Security". Then they'd reached a deal for OpenAI's technology — though Altman says it includes OpenAI's own similar prohibitions against using their products for domestic mass surveillance and requiring "human responsibility" for the use of force in autonomous weapon systems.)
Altman said Saturday that enforcing that "Supply-Chain Risk" designation on Anthropic "would be very bad for our industry and our country, and obviously their company. We said [that] to the Department of War before and after. We said that part of the reason we were willing to do this quickly was in the hopes of de-esclation.... We should all care very much about the precedent... To say it very clearly: I think this is a very bad decision from the Department of War and I hope they reverse it. If we take heat for strongly criticizing it, so be it."
Altman also said that for a long time, OpenAI was planning to do "non-classified work only," but this week found the Department of War "flexible on what we needed..."
Sam Altman: The reason for rushing is an attempt to de-escalate the situation. I think the current path things are on is dangerous for Anthropic, healthy competition, and the U.S. We negotiated to make sure similar terms would be offered to all other AI labs.
I know what it's like to feel backed into a corner, and I think it's worth some empathy to the Department of War. They are... a very dedicated group of people with, as I mentioned, an extremely important mission. I cannot imagine doing their work. Our industry tells them "The technology we are building is going to be the high order bit in geopolitical conflict. China is rushing ahead. You are very behind." And then we say "But we won't help you, and we think you are kind of evil." I don't think I'd react great in that situation. I do not believe unelected leaders of private companies should have as much power as our democratically elected government. But I do think we need to help them.
Question: Are you worried at all about the potential for things to go really south during a possible dispute over what's legal or not later on and be deemed a supply chain risk...?
Sam Altman: Yes, I am. If we have to take on that fight we will, but it clearly exposes us to some risk. I am still very hopeful this is going to get resolved, and part of why we wanted to act fast was to help increase the chances of that...
Question: Why the rush to sign the deal ? Obviously the optics don't look great.
Sam Altman: It was definitely rushed, and the optics don't look good. We really wanted to de-escalate things, and we thought the deal on offer was good.
If we are right and this does lead to a de-escalation between the Department of War and the industry, we will look like geniuses, and a company that took on a lot of pain to do things to help the industry. If not, we will continue to be characterized as as rushed and uncareful. I don't where it's going to land, but I have already seen promising signs. I think a good relationship between the government and the companies developing this technology is critical over the next couple of years...
Question: What was the core difference why you think the Department of War accepted OpenAI but not Anthropic?
Sam Altman: [...] We believe in a layered approach to safety--building a safety stack, deploying FDEs [embedded Forward Deployed Engineers] and having our safety and alignment researcher involved, deploying via cloud, working directly with the Department of War. Anthropic seemed more focused on specific prohibitions in the contract, rather than citing applicable laws, which we felt comfortable with. We feel that it it's very important to build safe system, and although documents are also important, I'd clearly rather rely on technical safeguards if I only had to pick one...
I think Anthropic may have wanted more operational control than we did...
Question:Were the terms that you accepted the same ones Anthropic rejected?
Sam Altman: No, we had some different ones. But our terms would now be available to them (and others) if they wanted.
Question: Will you turn off the tool if they violate the rules?
Sam Altman: Yes, we will turn it off in that very unlikely event, but we believe the U.S. government is an institution that does its best to follow law and policy. What we won't do is turn it off because we disagree with a particular (legal military) decision. We trust their authority.
Questions were also answered by OpenAI's head of National Security Partnerships, who said "We control how we train the models and what types of requests the models refuse."
Question: Are employees allowed to opt out of working on Department of War-related projects?
Answer: We won't ask employees to support Department of War-related projects if they don't want to.
Question: How much is the deal worth?
Answer: It's a few million $, completely inconsequential compared to our $20B+ in revenue, and definitely not worth the cost of a PR blowup. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do for the country, at great cost to ourselves, not because of revenue impact...
Question: Can you explicitly state which specific technical safeguard OpenAI has that allowed you to sign what Anthropic called a 'threat to democratic values'?
Answer: We think the deal we made has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic's. Other AI labs (including Anthropic) have reduced or removed their safety guardrails and relied primarily on usage policies as their primary safeguards in national security deployments. Usage policies, on their own, are not a guarantee of anything. Any responsible deployment of AI in classified environments should involve layered safeguards including a prudent safety stack, limits on deployment architecture, and the direct involvement of AI experts in consequential AI use cases. These are the terms we negotiated in our contract.
They also detailed OpenAI's position on LinkedIn:
Deployment architecture matters more than contract language. Our contract limits our deployment to cloud API. Autonomous systems require inference at the edge. By limiting our deployment to cloud API, we can ensure that our models cannot be integrated directly into weapons systems, sensors, or other operational hardware...
Instead of hoping contract language will be enough, our contract allows us to embed forward deployed engineers, commits to giving us visibility into how models are being used, and we have the ability to iterate on safety safeguards over time. If our team sees that our models aren't refusing queries they should, or there's more operational risk than we expected, our contract allows us to make modifications at our discretion. This gives us far more influence over outcomes (and insight into possible abuse) than a static contract provision ever could.
U.S. law already constrains the worst outcomes. We accepted the "all lawful uses" language proposed by the Department, but required them to define the laws that constrained them on surveillance and autonomy directly in the contract. And because laws can change, having this codified in the contract protects against changes in law or policy that we can't anticipate.
Altman said Saturday that enforcing that "Supply-Chain Risk" designation on Anthropic "would be very bad for our industry and our country, and obviously their company. We said [that] to the Department of War before and after. We said that part of the reason we were willing to do this quickly was in the hopes of de-esclation.... We should all care very much about the precedent... To say it very clearly: I think this is a very bad decision from the Department of War and I hope they reverse it. If we take heat for strongly criticizing it, so be it."
Altman also said that for a long time, OpenAI was planning to do "non-classified work only," but this week found the Department of War "flexible on what we needed..."
Sam Altman: The reason for rushing is an attempt to de-escalate the situation. I think the current path things are on is dangerous for Anthropic, healthy competition, and the U.S. We negotiated to make sure similar terms would be offered to all other AI labs.
I know what it's like to feel backed into a corner, and I think it's worth some empathy to the Department of War. They are... a very dedicated group of people with, as I mentioned, an extremely important mission. I cannot imagine doing their work. Our industry tells them "The technology we are building is going to be the high order bit in geopolitical conflict. China is rushing ahead. You are very behind." And then we say "But we won't help you, and we think you are kind of evil." I don't think I'd react great in that situation. I do not believe unelected leaders of private companies should have as much power as our democratically elected government. But I do think we need to help them.
Question: Are you worried at all about the potential for things to go really south during a possible dispute over what's legal or not later on and be deemed a supply chain risk...?
Sam Altman: Yes, I am. If we have to take on that fight we will, but it clearly exposes us to some risk. I am still very hopeful this is going to get resolved, and part of why we wanted to act fast was to help increase the chances of that...
Question: Why the rush to sign the deal ? Obviously the optics don't look great.
Sam Altman: It was definitely rushed, and the optics don't look good. We really wanted to de-escalate things, and we thought the deal on offer was good.
If we are right and this does lead to a de-escalation between the Department of War and the industry, we will look like geniuses, and a company that took on a lot of pain to do things to help the industry. If not, we will continue to be characterized as as rushed and uncareful. I don't where it's going to land, but I have already seen promising signs. I think a good relationship between the government and the companies developing this technology is critical over the next couple of years...
Question: What was the core difference why you think the Department of War accepted OpenAI but not Anthropic?
Sam Altman: [...] We believe in a layered approach to safety--building a safety stack, deploying FDEs [embedded Forward Deployed Engineers] and having our safety and alignment researcher involved, deploying via cloud, working directly with the Department of War. Anthropic seemed more focused on specific prohibitions in the contract, rather than citing applicable laws, which we felt comfortable with. We feel that it it's very important to build safe system, and although documents are also important, I'd clearly rather rely on technical safeguards if I only had to pick one...
I think Anthropic may have wanted more operational control than we did...
Question:Were the terms that you accepted the same ones Anthropic rejected?
Sam Altman: No, we had some different ones. But our terms would now be available to them (and others) if they wanted.
Question: Will you turn off the tool if they violate the rules?
Sam Altman: Yes, we will turn it off in that very unlikely event, but we believe the U.S. government is an institution that does its best to follow law and policy. What we won't do is turn it off because we disagree with a particular (legal military) decision. We trust their authority.
Questions were also answered by OpenAI's head of National Security Partnerships, who said "We control how we train the models and what types of requests the models refuse."
Question: Are employees allowed to opt out of working on Department of War-related projects?
Answer: We won't ask employees to support Department of War-related projects if they don't want to.
Question: How much is the deal worth?
Answer: It's a few million $, completely inconsequential compared to our $20B+ in revenue, and definitely not worth the cost of a PR blowup. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do for the country, at great cost to ourselves, not because of revenue impact...
Question: Can you explicitly state which specific technical safeguard OpenAI has that allowed you to sign what Anthropic called a 'threat to democratic values'?
Answer: We think the deal we made has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic's. Other AI labs (including Anthropic) have reduced or removed their safety guardrails and relied primarily on usage policies as their primary safeguards in national security deployments. Usage policies, on their own, are not a guarantee of anything. Any responsible deployment of AI in classified environments should involve layered safeguards including a prudent safety stack, limits on deployment architecture, and the direct involvement of AI experts in consequential AI use cases. These are the terms we negotiated in our contract.
They also detailed OpenAI's position on LinkedIn:
Deployment architecture matters more than contract language. Our contract limits our deployment to cloud API. Autonomous systems require inference at the edge. By limiting our deployment to cloud API, we can ensure that our models cannot be integrated directly into weapons systems, sensors, or other operational hardware...
Instead of hoping contract language will be enough, our contract allows us to embed forward deployed engineers, commits to giving us visibility into how models are being used, and we have the ability to iterate on safety safeguards over time. If our team sees that our models aren't refusing queries they should, or there's more operational risk than we expected, our contract allows us to make modifications at our discretion. This gives us far more influence over outcomes (and insight into possible abuse) than a static contract provision ever could.
U.S. law already constrains the worst outcomes. We accepted the "all lawful uses" language proposed by the Department, but required them to define the laws that constrained them on surveillance and autonomy directly in the contract. And because laws can change, having this codified in the contract protects against changes in law or policy that we can't anticipate.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
After a heist and the departure of its boss, the French institution wrestles with water leaks, strikes and much-criticised plans for a €1bn renovation
Just over a year ago, Laurence des Cars, the intellectually brilliant (if famously prickly) former head of the largest and most-visited museum in the world, wrote a somewhat alarming note to her boss, France’s culture minister.
Des Cars, who on Tuesday resigned as president of the Louvre, lamented the advanced state of disrepair of the iconic museum’s buildings and galleries.
Continue reading...An old Dutch ritual of going outside to watch the coming of night – or dusking – is having a revival across Europe. Fans of the practice say it’s a great way to disconnect from screens and find peace
I’m wandering around a walled garden on the edge of the North York Moors at dusk. The darkening sky is faintly illuminated by a sharp sliver of crescent moon and the first stars. Bats are swooping in search of supper, an owl is softly hooting and the dark outline of a ruined castle looms beyond the walls.
But what is really striking about the scene is what’s missing: artificial light. There are no solar lamps or electric bulbs; no torches or phone screens. As parts of the garden recede into the gloom, others are thrown into sharp relief: the bare branches of winter trees; a russet-coloured hedge; clumps of snowdrops, glowing bright in the moonlight.
Continue reading...Regional authorities withdraw permit after citing risk of organised crime infiltration linked to a subcontractor
It is one of Europe’s most celebrated shorelines, framed by mountains and 19th-century villas and famed for its Caribbean-blue water and white sand.
But Mondello beach in Palermo, Sicily, has also been mired in controversy, the subject of complaints stretching back a century from residents and tourists who say its private lidos, cabins and deckchairs have left scant room for public access.
Continue reading...US president says Khamenei’s death is ‘justice for the people of Iran’ as he repeats call for regime change
A visual guide to the US-Israeli strikes on Iran – and Tehran’s response
War on Iran: how the US-Israeli bid for regime change unfolded
Iran’s judiciary has confirmed the deaths of two senior military figures. The Guards’ commander, General Mohammad Pakpour, and Ali Shamkhani, the head of the national defence council, were killed in Saturday’s attacks, according to the Iranian judiciary’s Mizan online news portal.
At least 133 civilians have been killed, and 200 civilians injured during the US-Israel war on Iran, according to the US-based organisation HRANA (Human Rights Activists News Agency).
At least 59 incidents have been recorded across 18 provinces in Iran, according to HRANA, which described “a large-scale, multi-wave operation”. Tehran recorded the highest number of incident, it said.
Donald Trump beloofde in 2024 dat hij oorlogen zou beëindigen, niet beginnen. Toch heeft hij in het afgelopen jaar militaire aanvallen bevolen in zeven landen. De jongste operatie tegen Iran is de meest ingrijpende tot nu toe: een grootschalige luchtaanval in samenwerking met Israël, vele malen omvangrijker dan de gerichte bombardementen op nucleaire installaties in juni vorig jaar.
"Disgusting and Evil"
Het meest verontrustende aspect is niet de aanval zelf, maar de manier waarop deze tot stand kwam. Trump kondigde de operatie aan via een video op Truth Social, midden in de nacht, zonder het Congres te raadplegen. De Amerikaanse grondwet kent uitsluitend het Congres de bevoegdheid toe om oorlog te verklaren. Zowel Republikeinse als Democratische parlementsleden uitten scherpe kritiek: Thomas Massie (Republikein) noemde de aanvallen "oorlogsdaden zonder goedkeuring van het Congres". Zelfs Tucker Carlson, doorgaans een Trump-bondgenoot, noemde de militaire actie "Disgusting and Evil"
Twijfelachtige rechtvaardiging
Trump voerde als belangrijkste argument aan dat Iran "directe dreigingen" vormde en bezig was met de ontwikkeling van kernwapens. Maar hij had eerder beweerd dat het Iraanse nucleaire programma al in juni was "vernietigd" – een claim die door de eigen inlichtingendiensten werd tegengesproken. Die tegenstrijdigheid ondermijnt het vertrouwen in zijn rechtvaardiging en roept de vraag op: als het programma al was uitgeschakeld, waarom dan opnieuw aanvallen?
Nederland reageert verdeeld
De reacties in Den Haag weerspiegelen de complexiteit van de situatie. Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Berendsen riep op tot "terughoudendheid en het voorkomen van verdere escalatie". D66 waarschuwde dat "met een luchtoorlog een regime omverwerpen zelden lukt" zonder langetermijnplan. GroenLinks-PvdA stelde dat er "geen basis" is in het internationaal recht voor de aanval. Op het Malieveld in Den Haag sloeg een demonstratie tegen het Iraanse regime om in een feest nadat het nieuws over de mogelijke dood van Khamenei rondging.
De vraag die blijft hangen
De New York Times stelde het treffend: een verantwoordelijke president had een plausibel argument kúnnen maken voor actie tegen Iran, maar dan met een heldere strategie, steun van het Congres en samenwerking met bondgenoten. Trump kiest voor geen van drieën. Hij vraagt blind vertrouwen – terwijl hij dat vertrouwen niet heeft verdiend. De geschiedenis van Irak en Afghanistan leert wat er gebeurt wanneer een president een oorlog begint zonder plan voor wat erna komt.
De dood van Ayatollah Khamenei na een Amerikaans-Israëlische luchtaanval verandert het Midden-Oosten ingrijpend. Wat zijn de gevolgen? Drie scenario's op een rij.
Op de staatstelevisie moest de omroeper heftig wenen. Op straat werd gedanst. Het onvoorstelbare is werkelijkheid geworden. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 37 jaar lang de onbetwiste Opperste Leider van Iran, is dood. Op zaterdagochtend 28 februari troffen Amerikaanse en Israëlische luchtaanvallen zijn compound in Teheran, precies op het moment dat hij vergaderde met zijn binnenste kring. Na uren van speculatie bevestigden Iraanse staatsmedia op 1 maart officieel zijn dood.
Een ongekende militaire operatie
De aanval was zorgvuldig gecoördineerd. De VS richtten zich op commandocentra, luchtafweersystemen en raketlanceerinstallaties, terwijl Israël met circa 200 gevechtsvliegtuigen de leiding van het regime uitschakelde – de grootste luchtoperatie in de Israëlische geschiedenis. Naast Khamenei kwamen ook Ali Shamkhani en IRGC-commandant Mohammad Pakpour om het leven. President Trump schreef op Truth Social dat Khamenei „een van de meest kwaadaardige mensen in de geschiedenis" was. Dat is misschien overdreven, maar het was een slecht mens.
Iran slaat terug
De reactie volgde snel. Iran vuurde ballistische raketten en drones af op Israël, Saoedi-Arabië, de Emiraten en Bahrein. In Dubai raakte een drone het Burj Al Arab-complex. De boodschap vanuit Teheran was helder: een aanval blijft niet onbeantwoord.[
Drie scenario's
Veiligheidsexpert Peter Neumann (King's College London) schetst drie mogelijke uitkomsten:
- Korte oorlog: Trump voert vier tot zeven dagen strijd, trekt zich terug en claimt de voorwaarden voor regimeverandering te hebben geschapen.
- Interne coup: Een factie binnen de Revolutionaire Garde grijpt de macht in het ontstane vacuüm. Volgens CIA-inschattingen zou een hardliner uit de IRGC Khamenei opvolgen.
- Escalatie: Iran slaagt erin Amerikaanse soldaten te doden op een van de acht bases in de regio, waardoor Trump gedwongen wordt zich dieper in het conflict te storten.
Wat nu?
De wereld houdt de adem in. Voor miljoenen Iraniërs die decennialang onder het regime leden, biedt de dood van Khamenei een sprankje hoop op verandering. Maar zonder duidelijke opvolging dreigt ook chaos. De komende dagen zullen bepalen welk scenario werkelijkheid wordt – en of het Midden-Oosten dichter bij vrede komt, of juist verder afdrijft.
DEN HAAG (ANP) - Ruim 9,6 miljoen mensen hebben de afgelopen weken van de Belastingdienst een blauwe envelop ontvangen met de oproep aangifte inkomstenbelasting over 2025 te doen. Vanaf 1 maart moeten 7,1 miljoen particulieren en 2,5 miljoen ondernemers belastingaangifte doen. Dat kan tot 1 mei.
Dat is opnieuw meer dan een jaar eerder. Vorig jaar kregen 9,4 miljoen mensen een brief van de Belastingdienst, 6,9 miljoen particulieren en 2,5 miljoen ondernemers. De dienst kan niet één reden aanwijzen waarom het aantal uitnodigingen om aangifte te doen toeneemt.
Mensen die geen uitnodiging hebben ontvangen, moeten misschien wel belastingaangifte doen. "Dit kan bijvoorbeeld als iemand inkomsten heeft die nog niet bij de Belastingdienst bekend zijn", legt een woordvoerster uit. Aangifte doen is verplicht voor mensen die meer dan 57 euro belasting moeten betalen.
Hulp bij aangifte
De Belastingdienst weet dat het aan het begin van de aangifteperiode erg druk kan zijn. "Het kan gebeuren dat het maximum aantal gebruikers is ingelogd", laat een woordvoerster weten. Mensen die willen inloggen wordt aangeraden het op een later moment nogmaals te proberen. Vorig jaar werden er ruim 706.000 aangiften gedaan op de eerste dag.
Wie voor 1 april aangifte doet, krijgt uiterlijk 1 juli te horen of er geld terugkomt of moet worden betaald. Vlak voor 1 april en voor 1 mei verwacht de Belastingdienst ook extra drukte.
Ook dit jaar helpt de Belastingdienst bij het doen van aangifte, dat gebeurt zowel fysiek als online. Vorig jaar werden ruim 51.000 afspraken gemaakt voor het krijgen van hulp bij de aangifte, zo'n 6800 meer dan een jaar eerder. Het merendeel van de hulp werd fysiek verleend, onder andere in de rondrijdende Belastingdienst-bus.
Als je hulp nodig hebt, is het misschien beter om je bescheiden vrienden of kennissen te bellen. Bescheiden mensen zijn namelijk eerder geneigd om anderen te helpen dan de meer arrogante types. Dat blijkt uit een onderzoek waarbij voor het eerst gekeken werd naar de invloed van persoonlijkheidskenmerken op de bereidheid om te helpen. Voorheen keek men vooral naar de situatie, bv. zijn er anderen in de buurt die kunnen helpen?
De onderzoekers ontwierpen een studie om het verband tussen persoonlijkheidskenmerken en hulpvaardigheid te onderzoeken. Eerst werden vragenlijsten gebruikt om persoonlijkheidskenmerken en hulpvaardigheid te meten. Mensen die zichzelf bescheiden noemden, gaven ook aan dat ze eerder zouden helpen.
Maar zelfrapportage is niet altijd betrouwbaar. Daarom werden in het tweede deel van de studie de persoonlijkheidskenmerken beoordeeld door een observator die de proefpersonen vragen stelde. Daarna hoorden de deelnemers een opname over een (fictieve) student die een blessure had opgelopen en niet naar het college kon komen. Studenten die hoger scoorden op bescheidenheid waren meer geneigd om tijd en geld te besteden aan het helpen van de gedupeerde student.
Het derde deel van de studie was vergelijkbaar met het tweede, behalve dat de onderzoekers ook de reactietijden van de deelnemers maten. Ook hier bleef het verband tussen bescheidenheid en hulpvaardigheid bestaan.
Bron(nen): The Atlantic
Damien Douxchamps has added a photo to the pool:
DanÅke Carlsson has added a photo to the pool:
Na de eerste, fatale klap voor ayatollah Khamenei, blijft onduidelijk wat Trump wil met de aanval op Iran. Regime change lijkt het doel, maar de Amerikaanse president kan het land ook zomaar laten vallen en de volgende nucleaire opbouw afwachten.
/s3/static.nrc.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/01053636/eebe233e-53f0-4a50-afc3-9369b66ffe95.jpg)
NRC-redacteur Guus Valk keerde terug naar het Israëlische ‘vredesdorp’ Wahat as-Salam/Neve Shalom waar hij als correspondent een jaar had gewoond.
:format(jpeg):fill(f8f8f8,true)/s3/static.nrc.nl/podcasts/wp-content/blogs.dir/131/files/2020/11/nrcpodcastfeatured-image1280x768v01vandaag.png)
bpanneman has added a photo to the pool:
