During the cold war the US and USSR both engaged in covert political actions around the world. After the breakup of the USSR though the US engages in this much less and uses political actions that are open and visible, funding NGOs, promoting democracy, etc. However Putin is still stuck in the USSR way of thinking, and assumes any funding of an NGO is equivalent to interference and thus reason to retaliate.
Putin, and parts of Russia, have something of an inferiority complex at the moment. They've gone from being a major world power to something else. There is a point of pride that they feel they must cling to, which is why the most important cultural touchstone for almost every Russian is that they suffered through WWII and managed to save the world through it. They are more staunchly pro-country here than even the most red faced old fart in America shouting "you'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for me!" They saw their "friends" who were forced to be their friends as part of the Empire decide to go their own way, preferring the West. To Russia this is the greatest of all insults and instead of seeing small regions and countries that want independence they see peoples failing to be grateful to Russia for saving the world. They accuse those people of being fascists and nazis, their go to insult of choice. Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc, all treated like fascist traitors to the greater Russian Empire. And the harder they try to keep ex-friends in their zone of influence the harder those countries try to break free.
The difference between USSR and Russia today is that the USSR was about the spread of global communist ideology, but Russia today is about spreading Russian influence (pre-Soviet style) and regaining their empire and place in the world. That means undermining the west, opposing NATO, control politics of countries nearby, making sure their olympics succeeds no matter the cost or necessary cheating, stifling internal dissent, etc.
It's not really all or nothing, except for president. As long as the rural areas get their own representatives and aren't locked out due to Gerrymandering then they will be represented.
And lay off partisanship, once you come out and accuse one party alone of being the fault of it all then you lose all credibility even if your ideas are good.
Electoral college is only used for presidential election (and vice president). As such it's not as important as election of congress. At least in congress there's a possibility of having representatives cover a range of views reflecting political demographics, which you wont see in any one person as president.
Did you miss it when Trump claimed that if he loses it can only be because of cheating? Stop with the partisanship, both sides are dirty so it's pointless to try to paint one as the devil and the other as and angel.
Lots of presidents should have been in jail, why weren't they? Seriously, she's doing nothing worse or better than any of the presidents in my lifetime. If we're going to jail her then we should jail quite a lot of people. The reason people are focusing on her is partisanship otherwise they'd notice how badly behaved their own heros are.
Then penalize Ireland rather than Apple. If Ireland broke the rules then why punish Apple? Sending the goon squad out to say "Sorry, Vinnie wasn't allowed to sell you our drugs at that price, so we're going to take the balance now."
The payday though is most often disappointing. Unless you've got a relatively simple product that's up and out to the public in a year and the bankers are excited and want to push you to IPO, there's generally a dilution of equity over time. So five or ten years at a startup and your payday is basically the size of a large bonus or a year's salary (which is great but it's not the quick retirement some people think they're going to have). If you take time to build a business instead of hoping for a quicky buy from Google then that time means equity dilutes. Bankers are getting smarter, they are much more likely now to want to see actual recurring revenue before the agree to help with the IPO, so it takes time and you need a real plan.
There's no easy way to make sure those options don't get taken away. Even co-founders can find themselves cut out of the picture with just one vote on the board, so what chance does someone who actually was low class enough to actually have to interview for the job expect?
Most startups I've seen have really awful workers; no real experience in creating a real product that actually makes it to market. I've worked at a few places that had been startups or were pre-IPO but out of the startup phase, and most of the existing code bases were rotten and the hardware was rushed together. So the work generally involves throwing out as much of the startup stuff as you can get away with and starting over with something that actually works, and when you have to keep the original stuff then you always have a new "you won't believe how stupid..." story for your friends.
The thing is, people at startups most often have no actual desire to get to market, some of these companies have a plan to get bought out by someone else. When they do want to make an actual product the primary goal is still to RUSH as fast as you can before funding runs out or the investors get bored; rush to get a mockup, rush to get a demo, rush to add a prospective customer's favorite feature, rush to change the entire focus of the company, and get all that rushing done by Friday or there's no job left on Monday. There is zero incentive to have quality, quality is a hindrance that only slows down the rush. Stopping and thinking can only be done on your own time, and startups insist that you have no time of your own anyway.
There's a LOT of ground in between no-nothing startup and a megacorp though, plenty of places outside of startups where you can make a difference and be important and actually have a product make it to customers.
If you're making 200K less, then you're a manager and not a real worker anyway, or an exec and even less able to do real work.
So having a news story about an unknown startup is about as dumb as interviewing the guy next to you on the bus. Sure, it might turn out to be interesting but chances are it's a waste of time.
I have to agree. I know people who actively want to work at startups, despite having been through all the troubles at previous ones, and I can only conclude that they have brain damage. Now if you get the salary, then that's ok. Get the salary FIRST, get the benefits second, and only then accept the worthless stock options.
I don't want to write bug fixes for software we sold five years ago, but guess what, the boss makes me do it because we keep getting revenue. Any company that goes around flipping the finger at current customers ends up losing customers.
And do they actually need "support" in order to work? Did they change the instruction set finally? Encrypted the whole thing so you need an MS signed cert?
Except this was all legal according to Ireland. Moral or not, no laws were broken. If the law is changed then the change should only apply from the present onwards and not used retroactively to claw back more money. I'm not even saying that changing the law is a good or bad idea. This is more analogous to having the IRS penalize me for not paying enough taxes to California even though my CA tax returns were flawless.
Yes, but the IRS does not come back and say "sorry, you did everything correctly and your math was good, but we decided you should pay 20% instead of the 10% that was in the official tax forms". The US constitution does not allow passing ex post facto laws so the IRS could not try to claw back more money by retroactively changing the tax rates.
But that's what is happening here though. The EU is not dinging Apple because it cheated, if there was an audit then it would likely show that Apple did everything correctly according the all the Irish laws there were in effect at the time. Instead it is retroactively changing the tax rate. If Ireland and the EU have a difference of opinion on this matter then that should be beween those two entities alone. If Ireland is forced to change its tax rate then it should not be retroactive and only apply from the current time forwards.
Of course one could morally argue that Apple should have paid more, but that has no bearing at all about the legality of the situation.
The issue for me is that it's retroactive change in the tax. Never mind having a high tax rate or low tax rate, just don't go and change the tax agreements and rates after the taxes have already been paid. Who's going to want to put a business in Europe when it's uncertain how much the taxes will be; are they supposed to put 10-20% of their income into escrow just in case the tax rates change retroactively?
If EU wants to change Ireland's tax rates then it should do so for future taxes only instead of trying to claw back money that has already passed them by.
Downtown Palo Alto is a horrible place to put a business. No parking, no mass transit, crowded, overpriced. Only suitable for hipster for startups, should they have the immense amount of money necessary to rent there, but startups are bad for the city as 99% of them go bust.
Because Steam lets them buy games without leaving their mother's basement. Everyone can claim to have high ideals until it actually affects them personally.
Slashdot Mirror
During the cold war the US and USSR both engaged in covert political actions around the world. After the breakup of the USSR though the US engages in this much less and uses political actions that are open and visible, funding NGOs, promoting democracy, etc. However Putin is still stuck in the USSR way of thinking, and assumes any funding of an NGO is equivalent to interference and thus reason to retaliate.
Putin, and parts of Russia, have something of an inferiority complex at the moment. They've gone from being a major world power to something else. There is a point of pride that they feel they must cling to, which is why the most important cultural touchstone for almost every Russian is that they suffered through WWII and managed to save the world through it. They are more staunchly pro-country here than even the most red faced old fart in America shouting "you'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for me!" They saw their "friends" who were forced to be their friends as part of the Empire decide to go their own way, preferring the West. To Russia this is the greatest of all insults and instead of seeing small regions and countries that want independence they see peoples failing to be grateful to Russia for saving the world. They accuse those people of being fascists and nazis, their go to insult of choice. Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc, all treated like fascist traitors to the greater Russian Empire. And the harder they try to keep ex-friends in their zone of influence the harder those countries try to break free.
The difference between USSR and Russia today is that the USSR was about the spread of global communist ideology, but Russia today is about spreading Russian influence (pre-Soviet style) and regaining their empire and place in the world. That means undermining the west, opposing NATO, control politics of countries nearby, making sure their olympics succeeds no matter the cost or necessary cheating, stifling internal dissent, etc.
It's not really all or nothing, except for president. As long as the rural areas get their own representatives and aren't locked out due to Gerrymandering then they will be represented.
And lay off partisanship, once you come out and accuse one party alone of being the fault of it all then you lose all credibility even if your ideas are good.
Electoral college is only used for presidential election (and vice president). As such it's not as important as election of congress. At least in congress there's a possibility of having representatives cover a range of views reflecting political demographics, which you wont see in any one person as president.
Did you miss it when Trump claimed that if he loses it can only be because of cheating? Stop with the partisanship, both sides are dirty so it's pointless to try to paint one as the devil and the other as and angel.
Only on a Humvee.
You're saying that presidential candidates don't tell the truth about what they'll do when in office?
If only she had an Ollie North to take the fall...
Lots of presidents should have been in jail, why weren't they? Seriously, she's doing nothing worse or better than any of the presidents in my lifetime. If we're going to jail her then we should jail quite a lot of people. The reason people are focusing on her is partisanship otherwise they'd notice how badly behaved their own heros are.
She's being presidential and repeating what Reagan said, "I don't recall".
Then penalize Ireland rather than Apple. If Ireland broke the rules then why punish Apple? Sending the goon squad out to say "Sorry, Vinnie wasn't allowed to sell you our drugs at that price, so we're going to take the balance now."
The payday though is most often disappointing. Unless you've got a relatively simple product that's up and out to the public in a year and the bankers are excited and want to push you to IPO, there's generally a dilution of equity over time. So five or ten years at a startup and your payday is basically the size of a large bonus or a year's salary (which is great but it's not the quick retirement some people think they're going to have). If you take time to build a business instead of hoping for a quicky buy from Google then that time means equity dilutes. Bankers are getting smarter, they are much more likely now to want to see actual recurring revenue before the agree to help with the IPO, so it takes time and you need a real plan.
There's no easy way to make sure those options don't get taken away. Even co-founders can find themselves cut out of the picture with just one vote on the board, so what chance does someone who actually was low class enough to actually have to interview for the job expect?
Most startups I've seen have really awful workers; no real experience in creating a real product that actually makes it to market. I've worked at a few places that had been startups or were pre-IPO but out of the startup phase, and most of the existing code bases were rotten and the hardware was rushed together. So the work generally involves throwing out as much of the startup stuff as you can get away with and starting over with something that actually works, and when you have to keep the original stuff then you always have a new "you won't believe how stupid..." story for your friends.
The thing is, people at startups most often have no actual desire to get to market, some of these companies have a plan to get bought out by someone else. When they do want to make an actual product the primary goal is still to RUSH as fast as you can before funding runs out or the investors get bored; rush to get a mockup, rush to get a demo, rush to add a prospective customer's favorite feature, rush to change the entire focus of the company, and get all that rushing done by Friday or there's no job left on Monday. There is zero incentive to have quality, quality is a hindrance that only slows down the rush. Stopping and thinking can only be done on your own time, and startups insist that you have no time of your own anyway.
There's a LOT of ground in between no-nothing startup and a megacorp though, plenty of places outside of startups where you can make a difference and be important and actually have a product make it to customers.
If you're making 200K less, then you're a manager and not a real worker anyway, or an exec and even less able to do real work.
Equity is not money. It's practically negative money for most startups. Even lottery tickets are worth more than equity.
So having a news story about an unknown startup is about as dumb as interviewing the guy next to you on the bus. Sure, it might turn out to be interesting but chances are it's a waste of time.
I have to agree. I know people who actively want to work at startups, despite having been through all the troubles at previous ones, and I can only conclude that they have brain damage. Now if you get the salary, then that's ok. Get the salary FIRST, get the benefits second, and only then accept the worthless stock options.
I don't want to write bug fixes for software we sold five years ago, but guess what, the boss makes me do it because we keep getting revenue. Any company that goes around flipping the finger at current customers ends up losing customers.
Sure, so just use a third party utility to do the same.
And do they actually need "support" in order to work? Did they change the instruction set finally? Encrypted the whole thing so you need an MS signed cert?
Except this was all legal according to Ireland. Moral or not, no laws were broken. If the law is changed then the change should only apply from the present onwards and not used retroactively to claw back more money. I'm not even saying that changing the law is a good or bad idea. This is more analogous to having the IRS penalize me for not paying enough taxes to California even though my CA tax returns were flawless.
Yes, but the IRS does not come back and say "sorry, you did everything correctly and your math was good, but we decided you should pay 20% instead of the 10% that was in the official tax forms". The US constitution does not allow passing ex post facto laws so the IRS could not try to claw back more money by retroactively changing the tax rates.
But that's what is happening here though. The EU is not dinging Apple because it cheated, if there was an audit then it would likely show that Apple did everything correctly according the all the Irish laws there were in effect at the time. Instead it is retroactively changing the tax rate. If Ireland and the EU have a difference of opinion on this matter then that should be beween those two entities alone. If Ireland is forced to change its tax rate then it should not be retroactive and only apply from the current time forwards.
Of course one could morally argue that Apple should have paid more, but that has no bearing at all about the legality of the situation.
The issue for me is that it's retroactive change in the tax. Never mind having a high tax rate or low tax rate, just don't go and change the tax agreements and rates after the taxes have already been paid. Who's going to want to put a business in Europe when it's uncertain how much the taxes will be; are they supposed to put 10-20% of their income into escrow just in case the tax rates change retroactively?
If EU wants to change Ireland's tax rates then it should do so for future taxes only instead of trying to claw back money that has already passed them by.
That only works if the person receiving the email knows to check it for authenticity.
Downtown Palo Alto is a horrible place to put a business. No parking, no mass transit, crowded, overpriced. Only suitable for hipster for startups, should they have the immense amount of money necessary to rent there, but startups are bad for the city as 99% of them go bust.
Because Steam lets them buy games without leaving their mother's basement. Everyone can claim to have high ideals until it actually affects them personally.
It's $99 a year! I seriously hope you make those kids gold farm for you to make up for it.