But, you have to be careful when you try to couple infrastructure with the act of tax paying. You don't need to pay taxes to use infrastructure; you need to pay taxes against your income. If someone makes no income, and pay not taxes, they're still entitled to use the infrastructure.
At some point you have to be pragmatic: a large company that pays its workers well (think Costco more than Amazon) entering a city means lower unemployment, higher wages, and often less crime. It can also have some seriously negative effects, such as unwanted gentrification and massive increases on housing prices.
Point is: it's all a balance. If offering tax incentives is what it takes to get a wanted business to enter the state/province/city, then it can be justified.
but what I'm against is giving away all this money to one of the richest companies in the world
Not to argue for or against Amazon in NYC, this argument itself is somewhat weak. Tax incentives aren't "giving" a company money, they're just not taking it. And, if that incentive brings the business, then even without any direct taxation, it means more money for the city: higher paid workers pay higher taxes and spend more money.
It's fine to say "we don't want to entice that company to setting up shop" or even "they would come without the incentives, so we shouldn't offer the incentive," but not "we shouldn't be giving away money."
Netflix should make a "contract" or promise to its users to never, ever, under any circumstances, allow anyone to work in upper management who would even suggest the idea of advertisements.
Right at the top of every Netflix page, should be text that says:
We value your business and will never, ever show you advertisements.
While it might not win them many new customers today, it's probably the single most important thing they can do to safeguard their dominance in the future.
The next big fight for many nations will be securing Internet access as a basic/fundamental service not subject to termination for any reason (aside from non-payment, so long as nothing life-critical depends on it).
I get it. You see yourself as an open-minded person, with strong libertarian ideals. You see a group that you would never really consider persecuting, out there making demands. And the only big mistake you're making is assuming that, because you would never consider persecuting someone for something like that, that nobody would - and so their demand for explicit protection comes across as a demand for special attention, which naturally rankles your minimal-government ethos.
Actually it's funny how quickly you get used to it.
My ex and I used to go to a gym that had a mixed sex changeroom, and it was the first one we found. We didn't realize there were others, and just expected there to be separate rooms inside.
There weren't, but there were some dividers you could use. Anyway, it was awesome being able to change together, and within a few weeks it seemed totally normal and uninteresting. *shrug*.
There are only two you fucking retard. The fact that some freaks people are born with a super position of both doesnâ(TM)t change the crack there are only two sexes dumbass.
Holy shit dude (presumably).
I was kinda on the fence before, but these two sentences have crystallized that I need to support fervent push for LGBT rights.
From one random Internet user to another: you.. really should.. relax a little.
Android is kinda like democracy: the worst mobile OS, except for all the rest.
Honestly it's a shame Google is in control; they've proven to be petulant and untrustworthy at every turn. What we really need, badly, is a fork with some serious muscle behind it.
Don't like it? Turn it off. If your battery is old and has trouble providing current, Apple gives you the choice between throttling or unexpected shutdowns. I'm not sure what more people could want them to do on this subject.
Here's an idea: STOP GLUING FUCKING WEAR ITEMS INTO OUR COMPUTING DEVICES.
Aviation aside (and even short-haul flights might make the jump), transportation will be more-or-less fully electrified over the next 25 years. To prepare for that, we must ensure our electrical grid is as close to carbon neutral as possible.
What the honest fuck are you talking about? The fuck does any of this have to do with religion?
Anyway, there's no significant threat to humanity from asteroids or comets at the moment. Runaway global warming due to atmospheric CO2 concentration, causing sealevel rise and food chain disruption is happening now, and getting worse. Again, this is not new information.
If you really do spend 4-5 hours exercising every single day, then kudos to you man.. lol.
Very, very few people are capable of that, and it's not good advice for weight loss. It'll fail for 99.9% of people on the planet. Mild calorie restriction with reduced glycemic load, and mild exercise, sustained over a long period of time consistently yields the best results.
Remember that: the calorie readout on gym machines is fake (and generally includes your BMR). Averages include rest days. People always underestimate how much they eat, and overestimate how much they burn.
I know you're trying to help.. but you're exaggerating.
You did not burn an average of 1,500 calories per day through exercise for any significant period of time. That's two hours - every single day - of hard, olympic level exercise.
Mild calorie restriction, combined with light to moderate exercise is the correct way to lose weight, as medically observed and documented worldwide. There's really no actual debate about this one.
What's mild?
Average healthy person should seek to reduce their intake an average of 250-500 calories below their BMR, and exercise 250-500 calories per day.
Well for that to happen either the Earth has to move about a billion kilometers closer to the Sun or wait a billion years for the Sun to start shifting into it's red giant phase.
Yikes.
Please,.. please stop talking.:(
If you're interested in planetary or environmental science, there are online courses you can take. You can often audit lectures at a nearby college/university.
Please don't say things like the above in public. It is factually incorrect, and completely irresponsible given the tipping point we humans presently find ourselves at.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh?
The latest Netflix app is incompatible with my phone because it doesn't pass Google's "SafetyNet" checks. I'm not really sure what else to tell you.
Hey, I've got no love for megacorps.
But, you have to be careful when you try to couple infrastructure with the act of tax paying. You don't need to pay taxes to use infrastructure; you need to pay taxes against your income. If someone makes no income, and pay not taxes, they're still entitled to use the infrastructure.
At some point you have to be pragmatic: a large company that pays its workers well (think Costco more than Amazon) entering a city means lower unemployment, higher wages, and often less crime. It can also have some seriously negative effects, such as unwanted gentrification and massive increases on housing prices.
Point is: it's all a balance. If offering tax incentives is what it takes to get a wanted business to enter the state/province/city, then it can be justified.
but what I'm against is giving away all this money to one of the richest companies in the world
Not to argue for or against Amazon in NYC, this argument itself is somewhat weak. Tax incentives aren't "giving" a company money, they're just not taking it. And, if that incentive brings the business, then even without any direct taxation, it means more money for the city: higher paid workers pay higher taxes and spend more money.
It's fine to say "we don't want to entice that company to setting up shop" or even "they would come without the incentives, so we shouldn't offer the incentive," but not "we shouldn't be giving away money."
If they remove the "SafetyNet" requirement on Android, perhaps I will rejoin as a customer.
Netflix should make a "contract" or promise to its users to never, ever, under any circumstances, allow anyone to work in upper management who would even suggest the idea of advertisements.
Right at the top of every Netflix page, should be text that says:
We value your business and will never, ever show you advertisements.
While it might not win them many new customers today, it's probably the single most important thing they can do to safeguard their dominance in the future.
The next big fight for many nations will be securing Internet access as a basic/fundamental service not subject to termination for any reason (aside from non-payment, so long as nothing life-critical depends on it).
I get it. You see yourself as an open-minded person, with strong libertarian ideals. You see a group that you would never really consider persecuting, out there making demands. And the only big mistake you're making is assuming that, because you would never consider persecuting someone for something like that, that nobody would - and so their demand for explicit protection comes across as a demand for special attention, which naturally rankles your minimal-government ethos.
Holy shit. Well said.
Actually it's funny how quickly you get used to it.
My ex and I used to go to a gym that had a mixed sex changeroom, and it was the first one we found. We didn't realize there were others, and just expected there to be separate rooms inside.
There weren't, but there were some dividers you could use. Anyway, it was awesome being able to change together, and within a few weeks it seemed totally normal and uninteresting. *shrug*.
You shouldn't have the right to offend others.
The good news is that this is in fact impossible.
"Offense" is taken, not given. You cannot give someone offense. They must take it from you.
There are only two you fucking retard. The fact that some freaks people are born with a super position of both doesnâ(TM)t change the crack there are only two sexes dumbass.
Holy shit dude (presumably).
I was kinda on the fence before, but these two sentences have crystallized that I need to support fervent push for LGBT rights.
From one random Internet user to another: you.. really should.. relax a little.
Android is kinda like democracy: the worst mobile OS, except for all the rest.
Honestly it's a shame Google is in control; they've proven to be petulant and untrustworthy at every turn. What we really need, badly, is a fork with some serious muscle behind it.
Don't like it? Turn it off. If your battery is old and has trouble providing current, Apple gives you the choice between throttling or unexpected shutdowns. I'm not sure what more people could want them to do on this subject.
Here's an idea: STOP GLUING FUCKING WEAR ITEMS INTO OUR COMPUTING DEVICES.
Jesus this shit is making me crazy.
There's no such thing as an "age appropriate" ad.
Elon Musk to the rescue, haha.
Aviation aside (and even short-haul flights might make the jump), transportation will be more-or-less fully electrified over the next 25 years. To prepare for that, we must ensure our electrical grid is as close to carbon neutral as possible.
... who are you, IBM? :p
Why do companies even manufacturer such a panel these days (also said in the late early 00's)?
When I was a kid, I had fully open systems with circuit diagrams. The idea of "DRM" didn't even really exist.
Today, most kids don't even have superuser access to their phone.
That's fucked up, and we're going to be in trouble in another generation.
Batteries. Batteries, batteries, batteries. Batteries.
STOP GLUING WEAR ITEMS INTO OUR DEVICES. IT IS NOT OKAY.
Seriously. It is NOT OKAY that a phone that should last 5-10 years malfunctions in 18 months.
I mean they glued wear items (ie. the battery) into the phone making it difficult to replace, so it was never really an option for me anyway.
Still, what a poor, customer-hostile decision. Hopefully the Pixel 3 fails in the marketplace.
What the honest fuck are you talking about? The fuck does any of this have to do with religion?
Anyway, there's no significant threat to humanity from asteroids or comets at the moment. Runaway global warming due to atmospheric CO2 concentration, causing sealevel rise and food chain disruption is happening now, and getting worse. Again, this is not new information.
If you really do spend 4-5 hours exercising every single day, then kudos to you man.. lol.
Very, very few people are capable of that, and it's not good advice for weight loss. It'll fail for 99.9% of people on the planet. Mild calorie restriction with reduced glycemic load, and mild exercise, sustained over a long period of time consistently yields the best results.
Sorry - that may have sounded too accusatory.
Remember that: the calorie readout on gym machines is fake (and generally includes your BMR). Averages include rest days. People always underestimate how much they eat, and overestimate how much they burn.
I know you're trying to help .. but you're exaggerating.
You did not burn an average of 1,500 calories per day through exercise for any significant period of time. That's two hours - every single day - of hard, olympic level exercise.
Mild calorie restriction, combined with light to moderate exercise is the correct way to lose weight, as medically observed and documented worldwide. There's really no actual debate about this one.
What's mild?
Average healthy person should seek to reduce their intake an average of 250-500 calories below their BMR, and exercise 250-500 calories per day.
Well for that to happen either the Earth has to move about a billion kilometers closer to the Sun or wait a billion years for the Sun to start shifting into it's red giant phase.
Yikes.
Please, .. please stop talking. :(
If you're interested in planetary or environmental science, there are online courses you can take. You can often audit lectures at a nearby college/university.
Please don't say things like the above in public. It is factually incorrect, and completely irresponsible given the tipping point we humans presently find ourselves at.
yet another problematic vector of the CO2 hysteria
.... how are you still not getting this?
There is currently no greater threat to human civilization than atmospheric CO2 concentration.
There is no excuse dude. This isn't new information.
If they're bothering to have serious debates with you they're definitely losers.
That's .. a little harsh.
They did have legitimate points, and I certainly did understand where they were coming from. Just wanting to discuss it doesn't make them losers.