fwiw Chrome on Linux has no WebGPU support or hardware acceleration, so I often use Firefox for e.g. playing Ruffle content. The story is different on different platforms, and will slowly improve.
I live in Tokyo which arguably is one of the most transit friendly cities, and still bus to the nearby Costco to load up every month or two. Sometimes you just need a suitcase full of mozzarella sticks, no questions asked.
I think something like datalog queries would be perfect for refactoring and searching tags. Would also let you declare relationships between tags, like "tagged(x, calculus) -> tagged(x, math)"
Driving without insurance is illegal in virtually every state, and the supreme court has ruled that driving is a "virtual necessity" [1] to American life. I am normally very r/fuckcars but this sort of thing affects everyone and as surveillance becomes cheaper and cheaper we may not have a choice.
(if cars are dangerous, which they of course are, the way to fix it is to build walkable cities, not to charge higher rates for the graveyard shift workers who have no say in the matter)
>Driving without insurance is illegal in virtually every state,
Legally speaking, insurance, registration, and licensing is only required of drivers/transport engaging in commercial activity (taxi, cargo, etc).
This is not commonly known but there are court precedents that establish driving in a non-commercial capacity on publicly owned roadways is a constitutionally protected right under common law that cannot be infringed by state and local laws.
This is a fictitious legal theory advanced by sovereign citizen movements. You can find many hours of entertainment watching sovcit courtroom insanity videos on youtube, and many of them try this legal theory with entirely predictable results.
>This is a fictitious legal theory advanced by sovereign citizen movements.
I've seen videos of non-sovereign citizens that follow this legal theory being vindicated and in some cases being awarded damages by courts for rights violations.
I don't believe its validity has sufficiently been proven false to make such a claim.
If you think it is true, try it. You will quickly discover the 'find out' part of 'fuck around and find out'.
In all states, driving is a privilege and not a right. In all states as well as anywhere in the United States you are required by law to pay taxes.
In nearly all states, you are required to carry insurance for any vehicle you drive, even if for non-commercial activity.
Rather than argue otherwise, look up your state and look up driving laws. HINT: Laws are all spelled out in English for every state in the United States.
As a simple example: I wouldn't want to work with ten copies of myself. It would magnify my strengths but also my weaknesses. It's much better if a team is comprised by people with different backgrounds, different strengths, different weaknesses. Of course, it is helpful if everyone has some common ground, to facilitate better communication. Diversity in college admissions is one way to create an environment where these sorts of teams can form organically.
Of course, the devil is in the details. I tend not to agree with how most diversity programs are implemented, despite agreeing with the mission.
This always assumes that the primary way people are different is race. A liberal white and a black business major from Princeton who both grew up upper class in the north going to private school probably have much more in common than a poor conservative white guy from a Alabama and a rich liberal one from New York.
That’s one of the reasons why in some circles the “1620 project” and similar interpretations of history are so threatening to some people.
The biggest fear of reactionary types who control resources is that rural poor that trends white and urban poor that trends minority will figure out that they share more common interests and challenges.
The whole schtick is to keep people angry at their neighbor so they don’t notice what they don’t have.
For me it's the ability to type math in LaTeX notation on the slides. Google slides doesn't support this and neither did PowerPoint last time I used it many years ago.
When I was a TA I used a plugin to let me display Jupyter notebooks as a slideshow, that was really handy. Much better editing experience than ppt plus you have readable diffs with git.
One side effect of this inane policy is that it is becomes very difficult for US citizens living abroad to invest their money, due to the tax consequences of holding foreign stocks, as well as the fact that very few US exchanges are willing to open accounts for expats.
I live in Japan, and holding Japanese stocks will get me in trouble with the US government, while holding US stocks can dramatically complicate my Japanese taxes. Because I reside outside the US, I cannot have a 401k or Roth IRA, but it is also impractical for me to take advantage of the Japanese equivalent (NISA) due to the prohibitive cost of correctly reporting my holdings to the US. In some cases there is also double taxation.
Post-tax US retirement accounts (e.g., Roth-IRA/401K, etc.) are generally seen as normal investment accounts by the tax authorities in the US expat's country of residence. Therefore they offer no retirement tax benefits.
1) In a traditional (vs a roth), you save taxes at your marginal rate today.
2) In a traditional (vs a roth), you save on state taxes today.
3) you can take those tax savings and invest them in a taxable account (or spend them on things you need to spend them on)
4) In retirement, if your income is lower than your income today, your tax rate will be lower, so the savings of not paying on disbursments from the Roth will be lower.
5) In retirement, you have more ability to choose where you live, i.e. can live in a tax free state (or move overseas) and hence just have federal tax liability on the disbursements (at a lower overall rate if income is lower).
6) A roth is a promise of a benefit in the future vs a traditional giving you a benefit today. It's hard to take away a benefit already given, while I don't expect the roth rules to adversely change, there's still risk.
Now, a big benefit of the Roth is for people who can't save and are bad financial planners. "prepaying" the tax, even if its worse decision overall, is better than blowing the immediate tax savings of a traditional on "hookers and blow".
Another big benefit of a roth is if one expects tax rates to severely rise, prepaying tax at a much lower rate vs a future possibly higher rate is a benefit (but one has to factor in the ability to get out of state taxes in future as well, so if your state tax rate is nearin 10%, does one expect federal future tax rate to really be 10% higher than today).
Over a long period of time if one has high income in retirement, a Roth probably is better (even if the traditional tax savings are invested). However, at those income levels, I don't think it actually matters much as the difference wont be huge (in terms of savings/income). If one expects retirement income to be reduced relative to one's current income, traditionals become much more attractive.
its not a huge problem to hold stocks. it's a problem to hold funds as I understand due to PFIC issues. But one could buy individual stocks without a problem (heck, while living in the USA I owned foreign stocks as my company's stock was a canadian company and I took advantage of their ESPP and it wasn't a real problem)
Yes, non-US pooled funds (e.g., ETFs, mutual funds, etc.) as well as most non-US pensions fall afoul of PFIC rules and their complex & expensive reporting requirements. This usually bites people with mandatory contributions, such as Australia's Superannuation.
They should be legal, but expensive. If it is so valuable to companies that their workers not leave to work for competitors, they should be required to pay 100% salary for the non-compete period.
> they should be required to pay 100% salary for the non-compete period.
I'd argue that falls way short of being useful and still screws over employees.
People switch jobs because they get better offers, and being forced to not only forego better offers but also get stuck with the same income while your offers get taken away from you hardly seems something that's in the worker's interests. In fact, it looks an awful lot like plain old unemployment benefits.
If you get a written offer from company B while working for company A under a non-compete, A must either:
- Allow you to leave unopposed
- Keep you in your current role by negotiating a more attractive offer
- Pay the value of offer B to put you on gardening leave for the non-compete period or 12 months, whichever is longer, and also compensate B for their recruitment costs
Would never happen, but it would be amusing to watch CEOs pitch a fit about it on Twitter.
There are a lot of requirements that need to be met to make non-competes enforceable in MD, eg must meet salary bar, geographic location and duration must be specified, etc.
But I don't think it requires paying the employee during the non-compete time.
