As a recent father I can assure you, those ultrasound pictures were neither a fetus nor a submarine. It's a bit more like the x-ray glasses you could order out of a comic book once upon a time.
You are assuming the highly advanced deep learning systems we've already developed aren't conscious. Rocks could host consciousness for all we know, the relative time scale on which their rate of change becomes fluid enough for such a thing is so out of sync with our own that we wouldn't even begin to know. We don't exactly spend much time considering the possibility of thousand year frequency and million year pulse widths on wave forms.
The property which is volume in one relative dimension is time, mass, energy, motion, etc in relation to the perception of the frame of reference of a tangentially entangled observer. There is always a point of tangent neutrality, there must always be a point of tangent neutrality. People often say something like cold doesn't exist, or darkness doesn't exist, it merely the absence of light, logically you can model it either way but neither can exist without a tangent logical neutrality. 2 - 2 equals 0 but zero isn't nothing, zero represents the logical neutrality that provides the limited frame of reference for your logical operation. We've never found absolute void or two of anything because anything is some logical definition or pattern and a logical definition or pattern has to be defined by neutralities.
If you turned on the water in the sink of the bathroom and got third degree burns when you tested the temperature with your fingertip would you consider that an issue of personal responsibility?
"It's.. coffee. Coffee is meant to be made with water around 91is degrees"
Similarly, along with closing the throat you can push air up against the nasal passages just like you would when holding your breath or swimming to create pressure which prevents air/water from entering your nose.
Side effects include almost never sneezing (there is a limit but I suppose that functions as a pressure release valve to keep you from damaging your throat), anecdotally the same probability of a second sneeze attempt as going through with the sneeze, and people saying "you can't hold that in like that."
There is more than a social stigma there is a health hazard. A handkerchief is a bacteria haven.
The vast majority of the time you are sneezing because of nothing more than a foreign particle, in my experience a sneeze rarely resolves the issue and the issue would have never been an issue if you'd inhaled through the other perfectly acceptable portal of air intake, the mouth. The entire nose filtration mechanism is highly overrated.
Because a binary is really nothing but a less human readable copy of the code and linking is really no different than copy and pasting the original code into your code. When you distribute that binary (aka copy of the code) you have the same obligation you'd have if you shipped code with gpl code copy and pasted into it.
That said, you have to draw the line somewhere. You generally link code as a coder and not as end-user function (dynamic linking is a grey aside) but pipelining is common daily if not sub-hourly end usage scenario especially in the *nix environment and among the utilities this license was originally designed for. The most common scenario for using pipes in code is in house scripts and those don't involve distribution (an employee of company y hasn't "distributed" if the distribution is internal to other employees of the same organization).
Especially with the LGPL which exists specifically for authors who are writing a library with the intention of programmers being the end-users this is almost entirely something being run into by someone trying to avoid sharing back. GPL software isn't free as in beer, regardless of what price tag you might have paid for distribution or support the contributors of GPL software DO want something in return, they want the bug fixes, new features, and expansions built on the functionality they built. If you are keeping those things to yourself so be it but if ANYONE else is getting any of those things, they get the benefit of those changes so that they too can expand on them getting the same benefits you did and the most popular will make their way back into the ecosystem eventually becoming available to the original author. The GPL is extremely simple, if you save time and money by using someone elses GPL'd work output, you must share along the result. If it makes sense, the courteous thing is to share back the result as well.
Don't be that guy who makes his job secure by making sure nobody else can figure out your implementation, be that guy whose job is secure because he has produced amazing things and will continue to do so. Everyone is always trying to get rid of the former and nobody wants to see the later go in the GPL world even his competitors don't want to see the later go.
"Am I free to compile, without modification, a copy of the code that I receive and give it to a less-technical friend? (GPLv2: Only if I give him either a copy of the source code or a written offer good for 3 [I think] years to provide him with the source code on demand. GPLv3: yes, if I also give him a link to where he can download the source)."
Until the first instance of a friend snitching to an author AND the author caring and suing the gifter the answer is a solid yes. Technically the terms require it, technically you probably broke 15 laws before breakfast especially if you assume officers won't give the benefit of the doubt in cases where they have discretion. Either way, given that you have access to the source how difficult is it to toss it in?
Your other cases are all about trying to find loophole conditions under which you can steal the code without sharing code back under the same terms. Yes, if you start trying to find ways to dodge sharing back code you'll start running into the legal clauses designed to make this difficult since it is the entire point of the license.
Derivative is actually a legal concept that was created in law which is the reason it is so difficult to clearly define. Try to get through a single day of your life without violating an interpretation of some law. You'll never manage it.
In practice, people don't sue over good faith efforts to respect the spirit of their licensing terms and everyone doesn't get arrested for every technical violation of the law they commit each day. This is really something that is only a problem for people trying to find loopholes and technicalities to circumvent the share-alike nature of the license.
Making assertions with enough content to be possible to contradict later rather than vague statements that people can give meaning like horoscopes. Having somewhat different opinions about certain issues when approached another way or considered in a different mood or in light of new information. Nope, you are right, he'd never make it as a politician in US politics.
'"Pointing out that the Kremlin is interfering in its own election is not interference," adds schwit1.'
I'd generally agree but then for the most part the "Russian interference" mostly amounted to highlighting that one of the US major political parties was interfering in the US Election by stacking the deck against the popular candidate (Sanders) in favor the establishment leader (H. Clinton).
Clinton claims she wasn't complicit in that but if it's revealed that you've been winning the poker tournament with a stacked deck you become complicit if you take the pot rather than folding and withdrawing immediately. Clinton took the pot in a very public decision when she still could have withdrawn. Her friends at CNN and the major media spent no time even mentioning this politically suicidal ethical breach, instead they suggested that the protests at the DNC and throughout the city were "sore losers" of some sort.
During the primary CNN repeatedly spun Bernie Sanders, a Jewish man who was literally arrested fighting for civil rights as the candidate of old white men. Does that sound like unbiased reporting to you?
After the primary you repeatedly saw shrugging off the D leadership primary cheating, it being no surprise they wanted the "real democrat" to win. Regardless of what letter he has beside his name at any point; is there really anyone who can claim with a straight face that Sanders hasn't been constantly and consistently more blue than Jimmy Carter since college with no evidence of flip flopping positions for political expediency? It's a preposterous position and it isn't credible that multiple well educated major media figures don't know that.
You can talk about Russian interference and debate fake news all day. It's all intended to distract us from the fact that we openly teach and preach we have two party system and free media but the ruling major party was caught trying to rig that system in favor of someone who lacked the moral integrity to stand aside in favor of the other democrat.
And if that free media is truly free, it was and is still most definitely spinning the news hard in favor not merely of a political lean but in favor of certain specific individuals. You can't tell me that better ratings couldn't have been had by highlighting Clinton's dirty move and the outrage rather than shrugging it off.
I don't live in Russia. I don't care about their elections, we fought a revolutionary war to oust a crazy monarch and they are welcome to do the same if they don't approve of their internal structure. If Trump had some deal with Putin, great, that would open the door to finally start building a relationship with Russia with huge economic and political advantages for both nations and I don't give a damn about the entrenched military powers running our intelligence and military-industrial complex who want us officially in a new cold war.
"That's handy advice if you're a CEO, perhaps not so much otherwise."
True, but it is possible to negotiate more around these benefits at many companies than people typically realize. Converting from contract to FTE, they will initially say no but often it is possible to negotiate having your time on contract counted toward your time with the company. Often most things around vacation can be negotiated, starting with more time, haggling over how things work in the first year, etc.
Others, including myself have pointed out that such a policy isn't legal in most US states. In some states they have to pay out one or more of accumulated and/or unused sick/personal/holiday/other paid time off that you are due as well. Most large companies I've encountered just pay out accumulated personal, holiday, and vacation time everywhere rather than try to have a bunch of state specific policies, especially since it might be ambiguous in some states and that only leaves them a couple states with special exceptions. For the most part companies usually err on the side of caution when it comes to labor practices related to pay except where rampant violation is common industry practice (tech workers being classified exempt when they definitely aren't, on call hours not being paid time despite negative perception and disciplinary action when you fail to answer, meaning you can't go about normal off-work activity).
That said there is absolutely nothing forcing a company to have policies consistent with labor law other than that it potentially weakens their defense in court. It isn't illegal for a company to have a stated policy that if enforced would be illegal. A company might feel that is the more profitable approach. Even if challenged court is always a crapshoot and they can probably afford more dice than you and there are thousands of strong precedents stacking any legal case between employee and employer in the employers favor.
The reality is, that any action you take will be gossip around the office, even if you are gone. The same magical force of networking that gets you jobs will make you unemployable even if you are right. It's even worse if you are actually honest with any future employer about it. Yes, there are state and federal labor agencies you could go through to fight for you. In many cases even if they find the company is doing something wrong, they will charge a fine and you won't recover a dime. If you sue yourself the most you'll likely see is treble damages which probably isn't worth it for most of us. And there is always the fact that you'd have to pursue all this after they actually followed through with enforcing the policy, for this kind of policy you'll be gone and far less inclined to bother with the fight rather than just moving on. By all means hop on a class action to see them punished but the most you'll actually get is maybe $15 out of it.
The employer has all the leverage down the fight path. Just take away their ability to fight and use the paid time before they know there is a fight and be careful not to use borrowed time not yet accrued they could nick from a final check.
Overvalued relative to what? Bitcoin has already recovered from the drop. Just some simple profit taking. Bitcoin bubbles regularly, it never fully pops back to a lower value and it always "bubbles" to new heights later. Eventually there won't be enough completely new investment to fuel those big swings and they'll settle into mini-swings, either way it is deflationary and over the course of time the progression is an upward trend.
For the most part they are legally required to pay out unused vacation no matter what their policy says. Of course, the best strategy is to simply use the remaining vacation for your last days.
No, it's still possible to stay at a place for 5yrs so if your "retirement" is within the next five years you could pull it off. If you are too much younger than that you are probably screwed.
Yes, this. Even two weeks is meaningless. First you are retiring so you don't need to look good for the next employer, second employers don't know or care about whether you gave notice at the last place anymore.
"We've already belittled and ridiculed people who mortgaged theirs to buy BCs..."
And as it turns out the people who did so are the ones who deserve the ridicule. The people who mortgaged their house to buy BTC have paid off their mortgage and upgraded to a beachside mansion at this point.
"small transactions because the fees are prohibitively high, and using it on large transactions"
Let's keep some perspective of the scale we are talking about. The fee is to speed up your transaction and there are different levels but basically we are talking about an optional $17 at the moment. On a $1000 transaction that is 1.7% which is lower than a credit card with a delay of 20min before there is little to no risk of chargeback which is about 90 days - 19 minutes faster than a credit card, give it another ten minutes and it is objectively safer than valid certified funds or a postal money order. That isn't buying a car or buying a house like some are talking about, nowhere near it, that is a car rental or hotel stay. On a $500 transaction that is 3.4% which is about the same as Paypal and the same timeframe relation as the credit card chargeback/certified funds/etc.
A fork always lives in parallel with the old fork. Consensus causes us to converge on one or the other. There is nothing about the block size update in Bitcoin Cash to suggest any reason to stay with the outdated version of Bitcoin.
Yes, if I can't buy Rubles with my currency then by definition I can't buy anything with my currency. Since I can do so readily with either Bitcoin or Dollars and will continue to be able to do so for the foreseeable future whether the rates change on the speculative market or not that is a hypothetical without much attachment to reality.
No, it isn't, that is an implementation limitation put in place initially to prevent spamming and DDOS not a limitation of Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is not a new coin, it is just an update, the same as past updates, that raises this implementation limit the result of doing so isn't something else it is still just Bitcoin.
"Blocks don't come when they're 'full' but instead when they're mined"
Yes, the guessing of the hash and verification by other miners is the process that causes the delay.
"For some further education... miners don't 'process transactions' much less do it in parallel."
Your education seems to be lacking. Miners do in fact process transactions. Finding the next hash requires doing so, you can't do one without doing the other.
"Normally speculation is actually done on real life things, not imaginary 'stuff'."
Wrong, speculation is done on some sort of virtual/logical thing we pretend is connected to a real life thing and in some cases like certain commodities you refer to there is some level of connection. For the most part though the biggest connection is the pretending, so that when something happens to the underlying thing we perceive is as being negative we sell and when something good happens we buy and we could all do that with the communally agreed upon AT&T banana just as easily as a stock certificate issued by AT&T. The actual numbers are pretty much entirely imaginary stuff, like you said, the guy who has the biggest impact on the price of a tulip bulb (if we traded commodities on tulip bulbs) and potentially gets stuck with it in the end doesn't actually want any tulip bulbs just to legally rip off people who are trading them legitimately.
But speculation is done on corporations, mortgages, bonds, currencies... all of these are purely logical and intangible things that are no more "real" than a Bitcoin. They've just existed longer than any of us and started on pen and paper so we think of them as real life things... go ahead, bronze me up a mortgage and set it on my shelf and I'll admit I'm mistaken... not some document signed by parties describing and defining a mortgage, the actual real life tangible thing that document describes that is a mortgage.
"who make below 40k/year but have more than 40% deductions (who is that anyway? Curious who that would be)"
The most wealthy of people who have most of their money tied to a for profit corporation. They simply leave most of their wealth in the corporation, whatever they take out they can offset with things like charitable donations of stock. They only have income if they pay themselves a dividend or sell some stock.
Slashdot Mirror
As a recent father I can assure you, those ultrasound pictures were neither a fetus nor a submarine. It's a bit more like the x-ray glasses you could order out of a comic book once upon a time.
You are assuming the highly advanced deep learning systems we've already developed aren't conscious. Rocks could host consciousness for all we know, the relative time scale on which their rate of change becomes fluid enough for such a thing is so out of sync with our own that we wouldn't even begin to know. We don't exactly spend much time considering the possibility of thousand year frequency and million year pulse widths on wave forms.
Just keep making scary announcements then buy low!
The property which is volume in one relative dimension is time, mass, energy, motion, etc in relation to the perception of the frame of reference of a tangentially entangled observer. There is always a point of tangent neutrality, there must always be a point of tangent neutrality. People often say something like cold doesn't exist, or darkness doesn't exist, it merely the absence of light, logically you can model it either way but neither can exist without a tangent logical neutrality. 2 - 2 equals 0 but zero isn't nothing, zero represents the logical neutrality that provides the limited frame of reference for your logical operation. We've never found absolute void or two of anything because anything is some logical definition or pattern and a logical definition or pattern has to be defined by neutralities.
If you turned on the water in the sink of the bathroom and got third degree burns when you tested the temperature with your fingertip would you consider that an issue of personal responsibility?
"It's.. coffee. Coffee is meant to be made with water around 91is degrees"
91 degree liquid doesn't cause burns.
Similarly, along with closing the throat you can push air up against the nasal passages just like you would when holding your breath or swimming to create pressure which prevents air/water from entering your nose.
Side effects include almost never sneezing (there is a limit but I suppose that functions as a pressure release valve to keep you from damaging your throat), anecdotally the same probability of a second sneeze attempt as going through with the sneeze, and people saying "you can't hold that in like that."
There is more than a social stigma there is a health hazard. A handkerchief is a bacteria haven.
The vast majority of the time you are sneezing because of nothing more than a foreign particle, in my experience a sneeze rarely resolves the issue and the issue would have never been an issue if you'd inhaled through the other perfectly acceptable portal of air intake, the mouth. The entire nose filtration mechanism is highly overrated.
Because a binary is really nothing but a less human readable copy of the code and linking is really no different than copy and pasting the original code into your code. When you distribute that binary (aka copy of the code) you have the same obligation you'd have if you shipped code with gpl code copy and pasted into it.
That said, you have to draw the line somewhere. You generally link code as a coder and not as end-user function (dynamic linking is a grey aside) but pipelining is common daily if not sub-hourly end usage scenario especially in the *nix environment and among the utilities this license was originally designed for. The most common scenario for using pipes in code is in house scripts and those don't involve distribution (an employee of company y hasn't "distributed" if the distribution is internal to other employees of the same organization).
Especially with the LGPL which exists specifically for authors who are writing a library with the intention of programmers being the end-users this is almost entirely something being run into by someone trying to avoid sharing back. GPL software isn't free as in beer, regardless of what price tag you might have paid for distribution or support the contributors of GPL software DO want something in return, they want the bug fixes, new features, and expansions built on the functionality they built. If you are keeping those things to yourself so be it but if ANYONE else is getting any of those things, they get the benefit of those changes so that they too can expand on them getting the same benefits you did and the most popular will make their way back into the ecosystem eventually becoming available to the original author. The GPL is extremely simple, if you save time and money by using someone elses GPL'd work output, you must share along the result. If it makes sense, the courteous thing is to share back the result as well.
Don't be that guy who makes his job secure by making sure nobody else can figure out your implementation, be that guy whose job is secure because he has produced amazing things and will continue to do so. Everyone is always trying to get rid of the former and nobody wants to see the later go in the GPL world even his competitors don't want to see the later go.
"Am I free to compile, without modification, a copy of the code that I receive and give it to a less-technical friend? (GPLv2: Only if I give him either a copy of the source code or a written offer good for 3 [I think] years to provide him with the source code on demand. GPLv3: yes, if I also give him a link to where he can download the source)."
Until the first instance of a friend snitching to an author AND the author caring and suing the gifter the answer is a solid yes. Technically the terms require it, technically you probably broke 15 laws before breakfast especially if you assume officers won't give the benefit of the doubt in cases where they have discretion. Either way, given that you have access to the source how difficult is it to toss it in?
Your other cases are all about trying to find loophole conditions under which you can steal the code without sharing code back under the same terms. Yes, if you start trying to find ways to dodge sharing back code you'll start running into the legal clauses designed to make this difficult since it is the entire point of the license.
Derivative is actually a legal concept that was created in law which is the reason it is so difficult to clearly define. Try to get through a single day of your life without violating an interpretation of some law. You'll never manage it.
In practice, people don't sue over good faith efforts to respect the spirit of their licensing terms and everyone doesn't get arrested for every technical violation of the law they commit each day. This is really something that is only a problem for people trying to find loopholes and technicalities to circumvent the share-alike nature of the license.
Making assertions with enough content to be possible to contradict later rather than vague statements that people can give meaning like horoscopes. Having somewhat different opinions about certain issues when approached another way or considered in a different mood or in light of new information. Nope, you are right, he'd never make it as a politician in US politics.
'"Pointing out that the Kremlin is interfering in its own election is not interference," adds schwit1.'
I'd generally agree but then for the most part the "Russian interference" mostly amounted to highlighting that one of the US major political parties was interfering in the US Election by stacking the deck against the popular candidate (Sanders) in favor the establishment leader (H. Clinton).
Clinton claims she wasn't complicit in that but if it's revealed that you've been winning the poker tournament with a stacked deck you become complicit if you take the pot rather than folding and withdrawing immediately. Clinton took the pot in a very public decision when she still could have withdrawn. Her friends at CNN and the major media spent no time even mentioning this politically suicidal ethical breach, instead they suggested that the protests at the DNC and throughout the city were "sore losers" of some sort.
During the primary CNN repeatedly spun Bernie Sanders, a Jewish man who was literally arrested fighting for civil rights as the candidate of old white men. Does that sound like unbiased reporting to you?
After the primary you repeatedly saw shrugging off the D leadership primary cheating, it being no surprise they wanted the "real democrat" to win. Regardless of what letter he has beside his name at any point; is there really anyone who can claim with a straight face that Sanders hasn't been constantly and consistently more blue than Jimmy Carter since college with no evidence of flip flopping positions for political expediency? It's a preposterous position and it isn't credible that multiple well educated major media figures don't know that.
You can talk about Russian interference and debate fake news all day. It's all intended to distract us from the fact that we openly teach and preach we have two party system and free media but the ruling major party was caught trying to rig that system in favor of someone who lacked the moral integrity to stand aside in favor of the other democrat.
And if that free media is truly free, it was and is still most definitely spinning the news hard in favor not merely of a political lean but in favor of certain specific individuals. You can't tell me that better ratings couldn't have been had by highlighting Clinton's dirty move and the outrage rather than shrugging it off.
I don't live in Russia. I don't care about their elections, we fought a revolutionary war to oust a crazy monarch and they are welcome to do the same if they don't approve of their internal structure. If Trump had some deal with Putin, great, that would open the door to finally start building a relationship with Russia with huge economic and political advantages for both nations and I don't give a damn about the entrenched military powers running our intelligence and military-industrial complex who want us officially in a new cold war.
"That's handy advice if you're a CEO, perhaps not so much otherwise."
True, but it is possible to negotiate more around these benefits at many companies than people typically realize. Converting from contract to FTE, they will initially say no but often it is possible to negotiate having your time on contract counted toward your time with the company. Often most things around vacation can be negotiated, starting with more time, haggling over how things work in the first year, etc.
Bingo
Others, including myself have pointed out that such a policy isn't legal in most US states. In some states they have to pay out one or more of accumulated and/or unused sick/personal/holiday/other paid time off that you are due as well. Most large companies I've encountered just pay out accumulated personal, holiday, and vacation time everywhere rather than try to have a bunch of state specific policies, especially since it might be ambiguous in some states and that only leaves them a couple states with special exceptions. For the most part companies usually err on the side of caution when it comes to labor practices related to pay except where rampant violation is common industry practice (tech workers being classified exempt when they definitely aren't, on call hours not being paid time despite negative perception and disciplinary action when you fail to answer, meaning you can't go about normal off-work activity).
That said there is absolutely nothing forcing a company to have policies consistent with labor law other than that it potentially weakens their defense in court. It isn't illegal for a company to have a stated policy that if enforced would be illegal. A company might feel that is the more profitable approach. Even if challenged court is always a crapshoot and they can probably afford more dice than you and there are thousands of strong precedents stacking any legal case between employee and employer in the employers favor.
The reality is, that any action you take will be gossip around the office, even if you are gone. The same magical force of networking that gets you jobs will make you unemployable even if you are right. It's even worse if you are actually honest with any future employer about it. Yes, there are state and federal labor agencies you could go through to fight for you. In many cases even if they find the company is doing something wrong, they will charge a fine and you won't recover a dime. If you sue yourself the most you'll likely see is treble damages which probably isn't worth it for most of us. And there is always the fact that you'd have to pursue all this after they actually followed through with enforcing the policy, for this kind of policy you'll be gone and far less inclined to bother with the fight rather than just moving on. By all means hop on a class action to see them punished but the most you'll actually get is maybe $15 out of it.
The employer has all the leverage down the fight path. Just take away their ability to fight and use the paid time before they know there is a fight and be careful not to use borrowed time not yet accrued they could nick from a final check.
Overvalued relative to what? Bitcoin has already recovered from the drop. Just some simple profit taking. Bitcoin bubbles regularly, it never fully pops back to a lower value and it always "bubbles" to new heights later. Eventually there won't be enough completely new investment to fuel those big swings and they'll settle into mini-swings, either way it is deflationary and over the course of time the progression is an upward trend.
That remains to be seen.
For the most part they are legally required to pay out unused vacation no matter what their policy says. Of course, the best strategy is to simply use the remaining vacation for your last days.
No, it's still possible to stay at a place for 5yrs so if your "retirement" is within the next five years you could pull it off. If you are too much younger than that you are probably screwed.
Yes, this. Even two weeks is meaningless. First you are retiring so you don't need to look good for the next employer, second employers don't know or care about whether you gave notice at the last place anymore.
"We've already belittled and ridiculed people who mortgaged theirs to buy BCs..."
And as it turns out the people who did so are the ones who deserve the ridicule. The people who mortgaged their house to buy BTC have paid off their mortgage and upgraded to a beachside mansion at this point.
"small transactions because the fees are prohibitively high, and using it on large transactions"
Let's keep some perspective of the scale we are talking about. The fee is to speed up your transaction and there are different levels but basically we are talking about an optional $17 at the moment. On a $1000 transaction that is 1.7% which is lower than a credit card with a delay of 20min before there is little to no risk of chargeback which is about 90 days - 19 minutes faster than a credit card, give it another ten minutes and it is objectively safer than valid certified funds or a postal money order. That isn't buying a car or buying a house like some are talking about, nowhere near it, that is a car rental or hotel stay. On a $500 transaction that is 3.4% which is about the same as Paypal and the same timeframe relation as the credit card chargeback/certified funds/etc.
A fork always lives in parallel with the old fork. Consensus causes us to converge on one or the other. There is nothing about the block size update in Bitcoin Cash to suggest any reason to stay with the outdated version of Bitcoin.
Yes, if I can't buy Rubles with my currency then by definition I can't buy anything with my currency. Since I can do so readily with either Bitcoin or Dollars and will continue to be able to do so for the foreseeable future whether the rates change on the speculative market or not that is a hypothetical without much attachment to reality.
"First, each block is limited in size..."
... miners don't 'process transactions' much less do it in parallel."
No, it isn't, that is an implementation limitation put in place initially to prevent spamming and DDOS not a limitation of Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is not a new coin, it is just an update, the same as past updates, that raises this implementation limit the result of doing so isn't something else it is still just Bitcoin.
"Blocks don't come when they're 'full' but instead when they're mined"
Yes, the guessing of the hash and verification by other miners is the process that causes the delay.
"For some further education
Your education seems to be lacking. Miners do in fact process transactions. Finding the next hash requires doing so, you can't do one without doing the other.
"Normally speculation is actually done on real life things, not imaginary 'stuff'."
Wrong, speculation is done on some sort of virtual/logical thing we pretend is connected to a real life thing and in some cases like certain commodities you refer to there is some level of connection. For the most part though the biggest connection is the pretending, so that when something happens to the underlying thing we perceive is as being negative we sell and when something good happens we buy and we could all do that with the communally agreed upon AT&T banana just as easily as a stock certificate issued by AT&T. The actual numbers are pretty much entirely imaginary stuff, like you said, the guy who has the biggest impact on the price of a tulip bulb (if we traded commodities on tulip bulbs) and potentially gets stuck with it in the end doesn't actually want any tulip bulbs just to legally rip off people who are trading them legitimately.
But speculation is done on corporations, mortgages, bonds, currencies... all of these are purely logical and intangible things that are no more "real" than a Bitcoin. They've just existed longer than any of us and started on pen and paper so we think of them as real life things... go ahead, bronze me up a mortgage and set it on my shelf and I'll admit I'm mistaken... not some document signed by parties describing and defining a mortgage, the actual real life tangible thing that document describes that is a mortgage.
"who make below 40k/year but have more than 40% deductions (who is that anyway? Curious who that would be)"
The most wealthy of people who have most of their money tied to a for profit corporation. They simply leave most of their wealth in the corporation, whatever they take out they can offset with things like charitable donations of stock. They only have income if they pay themselves a dividend or sell some stock.