actually no we didn't fight a war over eugenics. If you think that, you know scant little about far more recent American History than WWII. We didn't even rally the troops against genocide. We rallied troops because we were attacked, plain and simple.
I assume you live no where near where your grandfather did. Because everything you are talking about can be easily done in rural parts of the US with a lot left over on 180k a year. But for a 1200 sqf house to blow up your budget, you must be in a damn expensive part of the US.
30 grand wasn't 50 years ago. average wage for oil field welders in 1972 was 4.47 an hour. I guess if you get lucky and include pension valuation and other benefits you might get to 13k/ year? maybe? assuming a 2000 hour year. I doubt any other welder made anywhere near 30k in something outside this particular specialty (the only one I can find solid data for).
the bigger issue is probably people assuming a random tidbit you hear was at the beginning vs the middle or end of a career. It's more likely it was 30k circa 1985, which is close to 70k today. Which is slightly under what a mid-career welder can expect to make today.
It also doesn't explicitly require that the help be cash. We could have done it similar to how we do many other forms of aid with the money having to be spent with US based companies,and we could via interesting tax incentives induce private companies to foot most of the explicit bill. You could comfortably get to a reasonable number of "assistance" and that assistance can come in so many ways.
I don't get these kinds of comments. Why do you think investment and significant expansion of the nuclear industry is not inline with the Paris accords? There is nothing in them (that I've seen, maybe I am misinterpreting legalese) that says solar or wind are the ways and CCS or nuclear are "not counted". It's just about reduced emissions, every country can get there however it pleases.
There also doesn't seem to be any requirement in the transfer rules for developed countries to developing countries that this transfer be cash. We could transfer anything, including giving limited tax breaks to companies that pool IP and "give" it to certain poor countries at a licensing cost (that companies set but we don't collect) that gets us there. You could even be even more creative and make that license a right to buy the goods from US manufacturers only. There are so many ways to transfer with it only costing the US a fraction of what it has signed up for (which is already a pretty small number, it's 100 bio a year spread across every developed country in the group). We already do things like this when it comes to medical assistance to poor countries, and all that window dressing is just for PR.
These were all options we had yesterday and Trump could have put forward such a multipronged approach if his closest advisers were people who had expertise in things like energy generation and economic policy. It could basically have been a revival of GWB policy on energy in so many ways. Instead the entire opportunity to show thoughtful leadership was squandered.
big banks have had internships that pay the same as a starting analyst for years (and starting analysts at banks make more than the average american for most of that time).
frankly, when you are getting paid 5-6k a month, if you cant' find monthly accommodations that are sufficient for your needs and well within your budget, you have some pretty severe financial management problems. Our London based internships brought in folks from all across the EU and no one had an issue finding a room to rent, similar in Tokyo, New York,and Sydney.
The harder part of a paid internship is you limit yourself to people allowed to legally work. That is not always the case with students who are doing university abroad depending on the country, and most companies now won't just ignore the employment rules.
hm..... I'm millenial (at the cut off) and every company I've worked for offered a pension. it's quite the hassle actually, given that I have partial pension gains across 4 distinct companies. the US resident employer offered me 401k and a pension, which just made it all a bit weird (major US bank).
it's not legal for a previous employer to say what they were paying you in many countries (though not all). If they do, it is grounds for a privacy violation suit. Most companies to avoid suits for having said "too much" will usually only confirm employment history, not anything else.
If it isn't, usually there are non-disclosure accords in your work contract (you cannot disclose your salary to anyone outside family and legal consultation), and it is trivial to say you want that to flow both ways (I've worked in areas where it was legally grey on that issue and adding that one line was trivial).
funny... I've only worked for very large companies that would be on top employer lists and every single time I've been able to negotiate salaries, both changing shops and internal transfers to new companies I negotiated salary. And it's not like I was senior in any of these roles.
granted, if you aren't willing to say no to a company (or at least look like you are willing to say no), then you won't have any negotiating power.
UC Berkeley was never sued. They never went to court. They seem to have broadly agreed with the USDOJ and decided to just remove the content. The case hinges on the public accommodation part of the ADA. It has not been decided in any court whether or not the public accommodation clause pertains to freely distributed content by a University with no economic incentives.
Things like netflix have been ruled to be public accommodation (as you might expect, it is a company offering a service to the public). And two universities are fighting this right now (harvard and MIT) in court. You can look it up. The latest I have seen is it was ruled the case could go forward because MIT and Harvard did not give good reason to dismiss the case (it seems that ruling hinged on the fact that you can't dismiss a complaint because the defendant has a great defense, only because the plaintiff has no standing). I'm not sure where those cases sit now as that last ruling was a year ago.
It could easily be ruled that freely distributed content by a university in an unstructured way (here are all the videos, the best we have done is organize them by course) does NOT need to be ADA compliant but things like MOOCs where a person can get some sort of certificate does.
To answer your question, the photo can't be banned. A disabled person can bring a lawsuit against a museum or display hall for not including some kind of access (I think).
the 4th amendment doesn't apply at the physical border or areas that act as a border (think international airports). OR to be precise, they have shifted the 4th amendment to mean the hurdle of suspicion is 0. It's the border search exception.
you may not remember, but I recall there was a time in the 80s when leaving and returning to the US, and going through airport security was fast, painless, and non-invasive. We actually expected the bad treatment in places like India, but never a western country. And you basically had the exact same rate of "problems". Security efficiency has not markedly improved in any way since then, but the amount of time we spend and the invasiveness has gone up incredibly. When the US is now a much bigger hassle than India, the UAE, or Singapore, maybe we have a more fundamental problem with imagined threats? In fact of all the countries I regularly find myself traveling to, the one that is the most painful is easily the US (the UK is worse, but I don't have any business that takes me there).
this is the key to it. I have a friend who started a business. A little play area for kids. He was just stunned that the number 1 money maker ended up being upper class (think not 15% of the area he did it) showing up for birthday parties that were way overboard. People who have money want to spend it. And there will always be goods and services they like. It just may not be obvious till someone hits you on the head with the stack of money they made.
Most folks I know with money spend it, and in fact spend way more than prudent saving says they "should". But then all that means is more opportunity to start businesses. I've seen a lot of interest in personally planned vacations, bringing back travel agents after they all but disappeared a decade ago. I know folks who will pay 10 grand to just have a tour guide fill a 1 week vacation for a family with activities. If you have done the ground work, and can even just fill 12 weeks a year, you are making pretty comfortable money since the family foots all the costs as well.
you may not actually care about the facts of the case, but Enron paid a dividend, that was a reasonably GOOD dividend compared to most other companies, throughout its time aggressively manipulating its books. The tax on dividends did not matter.
Where did you get these numbers? About 80% of stocks and mutual funds are held by the top 10% of the United States. The vast majority are not even close to "working class". Certainly people in the middle class may hold a very small amount of stock, but by and large, it is an irrelevant amount.
Given that 90% of all non-primary residence wealth is held by the top 10%, it's ridiculous to imagine much of the financial wealth (stocks and mutual funds specifically) would be held outside the top 10%. Of course, a significant amount of money ends up in trusts by these same wealthy families, and maybe those trusts are classified as retirement accounts in your metrics?
Well chess is giant in India, Europe, NA, and generally more popular in SA.
And at least in Japan, while Go is popular, in all my years living there I've only ever met shogi players (and the Chinese I have interacted with quite regularly don't play at all).
But oddly every Chinese person I know has played chess.
Without a doubt, both in absolute and computer professional relative terms, chess is more popular.
Really it's more likely brute force is easy to program compared to neural networks and in general, the advancement in chess was from position evaluation which is markedly easier than Go (because you can simulate chess to a deep enough level to see if a sacrifice of piece or position is worth it as long as you prune your tree even marginally intelligently). As a player, I find both games awesome (though I am terrible at Go), but I think it is pretty obvious position evaluation is easier in chess.
the film is already north of 1 billion and there are people who want to see it who haven't?
I went because it was star wars but JJ Abrams let me down, in all the ways I expected. This is the second movie where he has directed it incredibly poorly, just expecting the audience to relate to characters he spends no effort developing (except while beating you over the head with amateur characterization). But it was filled with great CGI and action scenes. He is turning into michael bay.
Lucas was right. with the prequels he tried to do something incredibly different than the original trilogy. It failed on many levels, but at least the entire plot wasn't predictable 30 minutes into the movie. worse, because so little time was spent developing characters and so much time dedicated to CGI, Abrams created a completely unbelievable ending battle, where a sith who in the beginning shows strength in the force unheard of in the previous 6 movies loses in a light saber duel to a complete novice simply because he says "let me teach you to use the force". completely unbelievable story telling, unless in the next movie we will actually see her use the force to destroy entire star systems after shaking Luke's hand.
your tax brackets already generally creep with inflation across the board (except the AMT traditionally, I'm not sure if that is completely fixed). If you will creep down income brackets already if inflation is high, why also allow a reduction in the amount declared. Do you want to go back to a time when tax brackets didn't shift at all (you know, when 50k of income put you in the top bracket vs paying almost 0 in federal income tax?)
anyways, I think complaints about double taxation are a lot of complaining. You pay the second line of taxes because you get limited liability through the corporation. If you don't want double taxation, take on the full liability of the company. Else realize it isn't in society's interest to give you a free get out of jail card. You have to pay for it somewhere.
or maybe he actually did the grunt work of digging through the data and running the numbers?
who knows, but lots of undergrads and even grad students get their first publication by basically doing really pedestrian grunt work for fully independent scientists. Even famous scientists usually start out that way. Why should it be any different for this kid?
it does not, not without invoking very significant taxes. you can't just pass money tax free on at that level. an LLC cannot sell shares and say, buy an election, without paying tax. And the LLC cannot just hire a family member and give them teh money tax free. Nor can you set up the LLC with 0 assets, give it to your child when it is worthless, and then give it shares (those shares are then taxed as a gift). The only way to possibly avoid the taxes (and it only barely works in states with no income tax) is to have that LLC hire your child and give a very large income. You'll still be swept up in federal taxes of 40% but in a state with no income tax and the amounts at this level, you could conceivably save a fraction of your money from government.
An LLC just provides the flexibility to say, lobby congress directly without using a shady 501c (like many groups do now) though it will have to pay taxes on the shares it sells to do that. It can also give the shares away to charity (something he could have already done tax free using the same loophole that exists for both) that do work he believes in. He can also use it to set up a school like what his wife wants to do without having to go through numerous complex tax and legal issues.
This isn't software. These are the actual shares (supposedly, none of us actually know as it is a private LLC and the documents are not public) that he could have given to his daughter, or really anyone. Unlike what microsoft did, these shares he cannot now sell and use to say, buy a 200 foot yacht and somehow avoid taxes. All it really does is allow him full flexibility on use of the money in the future.
actually, anyone in a regular car generally pays for their fair share of road maintenance. It is all large trucks that do not, as road damage goes as the 4th power of axle weight but fuel consumption does not. So most light weight mid sized sedans pay way beyond what they should, while tractor trailers pay well under what they should.
really depends on use case. Our spreadsheets (finance, derivatives) can get damn big, but there are 3 reasons they persist: ease of modification, speed of the interface, and easy integration with powerful analytics libraries we use.
Now I have functioned in a python based environment before, and that had some huge benefits (especially when working on tick level data, or data that was just a pain to manage in VBA until I got output down to a reasonably visualizable size) , and I regularly push for trade level data and details to be put off into a SQL database as it is pretty easy to write flexible queries to get what I want out. But visualizing data, interacting with historic data (user forms for display), generally integrating with many other financial libraries (bloomberg and reuters for realtime, internal quant libraries for complex calculations), and having a fast interface out of the box is amazing.
I've been at places that have tried to replace excel as the interaction layer. The problem is, for all its problems, most coders cannot hack together, on their own, a better GUI that is as performant or easily interacted with. Sometimes it isn't the data analysis layer (which if at all possible, we like to farm off somewhere else for perofrmance), but everything else that makes the spreadsheet far superior. And of course, I can modify and adapt someone else's work far faster than anyone using code. On a regular basis I can build up a complete tool in excel 10-20x faster than any coder can write me something outside of it. And most of the time a 95% correct answer in 1 hour is far more useful than a 100% correct answer in 3 days.
Now saying that, once the office ribbon started, that was the beginning of the end. Slowly the interface is getting too clunky to waste my time with when it was the simplest things I required. Now I try to do a lot of my work in a proper coding language and write out files I can parse quickly in vba and display in excel.
then you don't advertise unlimited without a clear explanation of those reasonable limits.
In every other country I have been in, that is what they do. Buffets set a time limit on the table (usually 90 minutes or so, else people actually come in there and can sit all day).
When I get a cell phone plan, they say unlimited data usage but if your data usage goes over X in any rolling window (was 3 days on my last one) your speed will be throttled from whatever the network can handle to Y. Once that period of high use rolls out of the window, you are restored.
Only in the US do they advertise unlimited, promise you a certain speed as long as the network isn't congested, and then refuse to admit they are actually throttling you or tell you under what auspices they have throttled you. It's a real pain in the ass actually that they are allowed to have unwritten rules that you are supposed to just acquiesce to and that are not stated explicitly in your contract.
Slashdot Mirror
actually no we didn't fight a war over eugenics. If you think that, you know scant little about far more recent American History than WWII. We didn't even rally the troops against genocide. We rallied troops because we were attacked, plain and simple.
I assume you live no where near where your grandfather did. Because everything you are talking about can be easily done in rural parts of the US with a lot left over on 180k a year. But for a 1200 sqf house to blow up your budget, you must be in a damn expensive part of the US.
30 grand wasn't 50 years ago. average wage for oil field welders in 1972 was 4.47 an hour. I guess if you get lucky and include pension valuation and other benefits you might get to 13k/ year? maybe? assuming a 2000 hour year. I doubt any other welder made anywhere near 30k in something outside this particular specialty (the only one I can find solid data for).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/...
the bigger issue is probably people assuming a random tidbit you hear was at the beginning vs the middle or end of a career. It's more likely it was 30k circa 1985, which is close to 70k today. Which is slightly under what a mid-career welder can expect to make today.
It also doesn't explicitly require that the help be cash. We could have done it similar to how we do many other forms of aid with the money having to be spent with US based companies,and we could via interesting tax incentives induce private companies to foot most of the explicit bill. You could comfortably get to a reasonable number of "assistance" and that assistance can come in so many ways.
I don't get these kinds of comments. Why do you think investment and significant expansion of the nuclear industry is not inline with the Paris accords? There is nothing in them (that I've seen, maybe I am misinterpreting legalese) that says solar or wind are the ways and CCS or nuclear are "not counted". It's just about reduced emissions, every country can get there however it pleases.
There also doesn't seem to be any requirement in the transfer rules for developed countries to developing countries that this transfer be cash. We could transfer anything, including giving limited tax breaks to companies that pool IP and "give" it to certain poor countries at a licensing cost (that companies set but we don't collect) that gets us there. You could even be even more creative and make that license a right to buy the goods from US manufacturers only. There are so many ways to transfer with it only costing the US a fraction of what it has signed up for (which is already a pretty small number, it's 100 bio a year spread across every developed country in the group). We already do things like this when it comes to medical assistance to poor countries, and all that window dressing is just for PR.
These were all options we had yesterday and Trump could have put forward such a multipronged approach if his closest advisers were people who had expertise in things like energy generation and economic policy. It could basically have been a revival of GWB policy on energy in so many ways. Instead the entire opportunity to show thoughtful leadership was squandered.
big banks have had internships that pay the same as a starting analyst for years (and starting analysts at banks make more than the average american for most of that time).
frankly, when you are getting paid 5-6k a month, if you cant' find monthly accommodations that are sufficient for your needs and well within your budget, you have some pretty severe financial management problems. Our London based internships brought in folks from all across the EU and no one had an issue finding a room to rent, similar in Tokyo, New York,and Sydney.
The harder part of a paid internship is you limit yourself to people allowed to legally work. That is not always the case with students who are doing university abroad depending on the country, and most companies now won't just ignore the employment rules.
hm..... I'm millenial (at the cut off) and every company I've worked for offered a pension. it's quite the hassle actually, given that I have partial pension gains across 4 distinct companies. the US resident employer offered me 401k and a pension, which just made it all a bit weird (major US bank).
it's not legal for a previous employer to say what they were paying you in many countries (though not all). If they do, it is grounds for a privacy violation suit. Most companies to avoid suits for having said "too much" will usually only confirm employment history, not anything else.
If it isn't, usually there are non-disclosure accords in your work contract (you cannot disclose your salary to anyone outside family and legal consultation), and it is trivial to say you want that to flow both ways (I've worked in areas where it was legally grey on that issue and adding that one line was trivial).
funny... I've only worked for very large companies that would be on top employer lists and every single time I've been able to negotiate salaries, both changing shops and internal transfers to new companies I negotiated salary. And it's not like I was senior in any of these roles.
granted, if you aren't willing to say no to a company (or at least look like you are willing to say no), then you won't have any negotiating power.
there are no movies better than Armageddon.
UC Berkeley was never sued. They never went to court. They seem to have broadly agreed with the USDOJ and decided to just remove the content. The case hinges on the public accommodation part of the ADA. It has not been decided in any court whether or not the public accommodation clause pertains to freely distributed content by a University with no economic incentives.
Things like netflix have been ruled to be public accommodation (as you might expect, it is a company offering a service to the public). And two universities are fighting this right now (harvard and MIT) in court. You can look it up. The latest I have seen is it was ruled the case could go forward because MIT and Harvard did not give good reason to dismiss the case (it seems that ruling hinged on the fact that you can't dismiss a complaint because the defendant has a great defense, only because the plaintiff has no standing). I'm not sure where those cases sit now as that last ruling was a year ago.
It could easily be ruled that freely distributed content by a university in an unstructured way (here are all the videos, the best we have done is organize them by course) does NOT need to be ADA compliant but things like MOOCs where a person can get some sort of certificate does.
To answer your question, the photo can't be banned. A disabled person can bring a lawsuit against a museum or display hall for not including some kind of access (I think).
the 4th amendment doesn't apply at the physical border or areas that act as a border (think international airports). OR to be precise, they have shifted the 4th amendment to mean the hurdle of suspicion is 0. It's the border search exception.
you may not remember, but I recall there was a time in the 80s when leaving and returning to the US, and going through airport security was fast, painless, and non-invasive. We actually expected the bad treatment in places like India, but never a western country. And you basically had the exact same rate of "problems". Security efficiency has not markedly improved in any way since then, but the amount of time we spend and the invasiveness has gone up incredibly. When the US is now a much bigger hassle than India, the UAE, or Singapore, maybe we have a more fundamental problem with imagined threats? In fact of all the countries I regularly find myself traveling to, the one that is the most painful is easily the US (the UK is worse, but I don't have any business that takes me there).
you mean switch to the system they use in most of the world?
this is the key to it. I have a friend who started a business. A little play area for kids. He was just stunned that the number 1 money maker ended up being upper class (think not 15% of the area he did it) showing up for birthday parties that were way overboard. People who have money want to spend it. And there will always be goods and services they like. It just may not be obvious till someone hits you on the head with the stack of money they made.
Most folks I know with money spend it, and in fact spend way more than prudent saving says they "should". But then all that means is more opportunity to start businesses. I've seen a lot of interest in personally planned vacations, bringing back travel agents after they all but disappeared a decade ago. I know folks who will pay 10 grand to just have a tour guide fill a 1 week vacation for a family with activities. If you have done the ground work, and can even just fill 12 weeks a year, you are making pretty comfortable money since the family foots all the costs as well.
you may not actually care about the facts of the case, but Enron paid a dividend, that was a reasonably GOOD dividend compared to most other companies, throughout its time aggressively manipulating its books. The tax on dividends did not matter.
Where did you get these numbers? About 80% of stocks and mutual funds are held by the top 10% of the United States. The vast majority are not even close to "working class". Certainly people in the middle class may hold a very small amount of stock, but by and large, it is an irrelevant amount.
Given that 90% of all non-primary residence wealth is held by the top 10%, it's ridiculous to imagine much of the financial wealth (stocks and mutual funds specifically) would be held outside the top 10%. Of course, a significant amount of money ends up in trusts by these same wealthy families, and maybe those trusts are classified as retirement accounts in your metrics?
Well chess is giant in India, Europe, NA, and generally more popular in SA.
And at least in Japan, while Go is popular, in all my years living there I've only ever met shogi players (and the Chinese I have interacted with quite regularly don't play at all).
But oddly every Chinese person I know has played chess.
Without a doubt, both in absolute and computer professional relative terms, chess is more popular.
Really it's more likely brute force is easy to program compared to neural networks and in general, the advancement in chess was from position evaluation which is markedly easier than Go (because you can simulate chess to a deep enough level to see if a sacrifice of piece or position is worth it as long as you prune your tree even marginally intelligently). As a player, I find both games awesome (though I am terrible at Go), but I think it is pretty obvious position evaluation is easier in chess.
the film is already north of 1 billion and there are people who want to see it who haven't?
I went because it was star wars but JJ Abrams let me down, in all the ways I expected. This is the second movie where he has directed it incredibly poorly, just expecting the audience to relate to characters he spends no effort developing (except while beating you over the head with amateur characterization). But it was filled with great CGI and action scenes. He is turning into michael bay.
Lucas was right. with the prequels he tried to do something incredibly different than the original trilogy. It failed on many levels, but at least the entire plot wasn't predictable 30 minutes into the movie. worse, because so little time was spent developing characters and so much time dedicated to CGI, Abrams created a completely unbelievable ending battle, where a sith who in the beginning shows strength in the force unheard of in the previous 6 movies loses in a light saber duel to a complete novice simply because he says "let me teach you to use the force". completely unbelievable story telling, unless in the next movie we will actually see her use the force to destroy entire star systems after shaking Luke's hand.
your tax brackets already generally creep with inflation across the board (except the AMT traditionally, I'm not sure if that is completely fixed). If you will creep down income brackets already if inflation is high, why also allow a reduction in the amount declared. Do you want to go back to a time when tax brackets didn't shift at all (you know, when 50k of income put you in the top bracket vs paying almost 0 in federal income tax?)
anyways, I think complaints about double taxation are a lot of complaining. You pay the second line of taxes because you get limited liability through the corporation. If you don't want double taxation, take on the full liability of the company. Else realize it isn't in society's interest to give you a free get out of jail card. You have to pay for it somewhere.
or maybe he actually did the grunt work of digging through the data and running the numbers?
who knows, but lots of undergrads and even grad students get their first publication by basically doing really pedestrian grunt work for fully independent scientists. Even famous scientists usually start out that way. Why should it be any different for this kid?
it does not, not without invoking very significant taxes. you can't just pass money tax free on at that level. an LLC cannot sell shares and say, buy an election, without paying tax. And the LLC cannot just hire a family member and give them teh money tax free. Nor can you set up the LLC with 0 assets, give it to your child when it is worthless, and then give it shares (those shares are then taxed as a gift). The only way to possibly avoid the taxes (and it only barely works in states with no income tax) is to have that LLC hire your child and give a very large income. You'll still be swept up in federal taxes of 40% but in a state with no income tax and the amounts at this level, you could conceivably save a fraction of your money from government.
An LLC just provides the flexibility to say, lobby congress directly without using a shady 501c (like many groups do now) though it will have to pay taxes on the shares it sells to do that. It can also give the shares away to charity (something he could have already done tax free using the same loophole that exists for both) that do work he believes in. He can also use it to set up a school like what his wife wants to do without having to go through numerous complex tax and legal issues.
This isn't software. These are the actual shares (supposedly, none of us actually know as it is a private LLC and the documents are not public) that he could have given to his daughter, or really anyone. Unlike what microsoft did, these shares he cannot now sell and use to say, buy a 200 foot yacht and somehow avoid taxes. All it really does is allow him full flexibility on use of the money in the future.
actually, anyone in a regular car generally pays for their fair share of road maintenance. It is all large trucks that do not, as road damage goes as the 4th power of axle weight but fuel consumption does not. So most light weight mid sized sedans pay way beyond what they should, while tractor trailers pay well under what they should.
really depends on use case. Our spreadsheets (finance, derivatives) can get damn big, but there are 3 reasons they persist: ease of modification, speed of the interface, and easy integration with powerful analytics libraries we use.
Now I have functioned in a python based environment before, and that had some huge benefits (especially when working on tick level data, or data that was just a pain to manage in VBA until I got output down to a reasonably visualizable size) , and I regularly push for trade level data and details to be put off into a SQL database as it is pretty easy to write flexible queries to get what I want out. But visualizing data, interacting with historic data (user forms for display), generally integrating with many other financial libraries (bloomberg and reuters for realtime, internal quant libraries for complex calculations), and having a fast interface out of the box is amazing.
I've been at places that have tried to replace excel as the interaction layer. The problem is, for all its problems, most coders cannot hack together, on their own, a better GUI that is as performant or easily interacted with. Sometimes it isn't the data analysis layer (which if at all possible, we like to farm off somewhere else for perofrmance), but everything else that makes the spreadsheet far superior. And of course, I can modify and adapt someone else's work far faster than anyone using code. On a regular basis I can build up a complete tool in excel 10-20x faster than any coder can write me something outside of it. And most of the time a 95% correct answer in 1 hour is far more useful than a 100% correct answer in 3 days.
Now saying that, once the office ribbon started, that was the beginning of the end. Slowly the interface is getting too clunky to waste my time with when it was the simplest things I required. Now I try to do a lot of my work in a proper coding language and write out files I can parse quickly in vba and display in excel.
then you don't advertise unlimited without a clear explanation of those reasonable limits.
In every other country I have been in, that is what they do. Buffets set a time limit on the table (usually 90 minutes or so, else people actually come in there and can sit all day).
When I get a cell phone plan, they say unlimited data usage but if your data usage goes over X in any rolling window (was 3 days on my last one) your speed will be throttled from whatever the network can handle to Y. Once that period of high use rolls out of the window, you are restored.
Only in the US do they advertise unlimited, promise you a certain speed as long as the network isn't congested, and then refuse to admit they are actually throttling you or tell you under what auspices they have throttled you. It's a real pain in the ass actually that they are allowed to have unwritten rules that you are supposed to just acquiesce to and that are not stated explicitly in your contract.