Please be aware that this doesn't include electricity and cooling, which is really expensive in Germany. They charge 0.476€/kWh. Running a single 4090 @ 450W 24/7 would add another ~150€/month.
The easiest way to improve your relative ranking is to find a less competitive event :)
I recently won my age class in a 10k (6th overall out of 147 men). In a very competitive race earlier this year, the exact same time barely put me in the upper half (242/498).
But when I was waiting for the MRI I asked the three other people waiting there with me, out of curiosity about this exactly.
Two told me they had public health insurance, one had been given the appointment one day prior, the other three. So at least for Berlin there seems to be no difference.
But I can confirm that for seeing specialists, it does make a difference. My partner has public health insurance. I would say if I have to wait one week to get an appointment, she has to wait two. But it's never months, like you read from people that live in certain other countries.
On a sidenote, my appointment for the MRI was at 8:15pm. It seems the radiology places here all run the machines long into the night to max out workload. I had a CT a few day later at a different clinic at 9pm!
From my experience in DE, it depends on the company size. Larger enterprises probably will go through an agency, probably to (try to) cover themselves against accusations of false self-employment (Scheinselbstständigkeit).
Anecdotally, the two contracts I had through agencies were still the most lucrative financially, despite the middleman taking a hefty cut, simply because large enterprise pay higher rates.
This is from Troy Hunt of Have I Been Pwned fame and I'm almost positive that even in the last year he still gets legal threats from companies that he contacts about embarrassing security risks.
That is a vulnerability in the front panel. The front panel is deciding based on the reply from the 'enter factory code' command that it is ok to send the 'reset user code' command. The front panel should not be making decisions like that. The front panel should not be sending commands at all.
I think you are misunderstanding what old mate is saying.
The vuln is in the back of the panel because it's accepting the reset code command.
The front panel isn't vulnerable because it's not a trusted component here anyway, the bypass actually just talks directly to the back panel.
You are however correct that the front panel probably shouldn't be sending an actual reset code command, but that is really a protocol level problem not specifically a front panel issue. It's possible to make that safe by having the back panel first transition into appropriate state upon being primed with existing code or valid factory code before accepting the reset command but an even better fix is to couple both the validation of the existing code + the desired new code into a single command that is validated in one shot.
It's a vulnerability in the inside panel that was covered up by requiring the front panel to do more than it should. If the front panel were just a dumb I/O device, the inside panel could not have this specific vulnerability.
No, you're misunderstanding. The front panel is validating that the factory code is entered correctly before it allows the lock code to be reset. If the front panel were just dumb I/O, the inside panel would have to validate the factory code before allowing the lock code to be reset.
> "Loud pipes save lives" is nonsense. When a driver is concentrated on visual stimuli, has his windows up and music playing, there are no pipes loud enough to make him notice me.
As a former motoryclist with very loud pipes (and also an open air filter, which is just as bad or worse), I can tell you it‘s not just that. Exhaust noise emitted by a motorcycle is way louder behind the it than in front of it, especially when you and the bike are moving in the same direction. I have no hard numbers to back up this claim, but I once switched bikes with a buddy and while my bike was almost inaudible when I was driving in front of him, I was shocked how loud it was driving 200 m / 1/8 mile behind him.
I recently sold a five letter single word .io domain for 5k, which was the median of the estimated value according to various (free) appraisal services.
The person I sold it to immediately relisted it for 79k. That was a bit irritating.
No, not yet, but you can bet that I check on a regular basis, although I should know better :)
A little backstory: a friend of mine sold a five letter single word .com about a decade ago for a really low price, IIRC $500. The buyer turned out to be Electronic Arts (through a middleman, obviously) and they used the domain for one of their games.
Every time I was contemplating an offer for the domain, I was worried that I was getting EA'd :) When I saw the domain getting relisted, I felt like that's exactly what happened.
So, to answer the original question, my biggest gripe is probably that price finding is really difficult for non-professional players.
as someone with a 4 letter .io domain & twitter name I'm also very curious..
I got all excited thinking it was worth a ton but the transaction history shows it at exactly what you got for it. But it all depends on the word too I suppose.
I had to put the highest possible security for the twitter account and If I make a post I get 1-3 requests a day to login/reset and if I'm willing to sell, maybe even for 6 figures. (Which if you didn't know, responding "yes" is a violation of The Bird Apps terms, and they have repeatedly yanked peoples names for soliciting a sale"
Perhaps the person that bought it from you also owns other domains with the same name, e.g., a .com domain.
That way, if they list one very high, perhaps they'll get an above average offer on the .com, then when they sell that, the same seller will buy the .Io for a cheaper price. Such as 10k.
This might come as a surprise to folks who do not own stocks and are not aware of the difference between income and (unrealized) capital gains. According to this article [1] from 2020, about half of American families owned stocks. But only 14% own stocks directly, the rest is through retirement accounts.
The media does their part with sensationalist headlines like "Jeff Bezos got 100B richer during the pandemic". Without some financial literacy, someone might interpret this that someone handed Jeff Bezos a 100B paycheck.
I think you’re missing the point of the article. Everyone here understands that unrealized capital gains aren’t taxed. That’s what the article is about. It’s saying, “look, this is the result of the tax policy” - staggering gains in wealth with essentially negligible tax burden. It seems unfair, because it is unfair.
So, we all understand it, but maybe some of us think that because it is, it must be. I’ve never understood that point of view.
> Without some financial literacy, someone might interpret this that someone handed Jeff Bezos a 100B paycheck.
Which is exactly the reaction those kinds of headlines are fishing for.
A 100b check is very different than your already massive business booming more and making you richer because you own a huge share of it and that share is now worth more.
They seem to be suggesting it's better the money is earned through ownership. Which is funny as I'd lean the other way and say that beyond a point, allowing such large income through ownership and not actual work is a bad idea.
Note: Bezos and Musk, could ask for a hefty salary so they may work out to similar total income, unless someone else could run it cheaper and better. While hedge funds and inherited wealth that only own and don't contribute would receive less.
And it's worse than just 'assets not cash' - Amazon might not be the best example, but even so there's no way can dump ~1/10th of it without moving the price; even ignoring disclosure requirements and the effects of insider selling, it'd be way down just on that volume (10x 30d average).
I think wealth coffers are past the upper limit of what can be construed as reasonable even in the most anarchic of capitalist societies.
Just like on the monopoly board, one cannot win when all the spaces are already owned - that’s the situation we fundamentally have. A wealth tax is necessary.
> Just like on the monopoly board, one cannot win when all the spaces are already owned - that’s the situation we fundamentally have.
Monopoly has a fixed game board with no possible means of expanding or changing the spaces the player can land on. The real world is constantly at risk of disruption from changes in technology and geopolitics that can substantially change the competitive landscape.
That doesn't work out in practice. "The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest families in Florence" https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14... The headline tells you what you need to know. The disruption thing is just a chimera to fool gullible people into thinking that rich people actually earned what they got and that the system is fair. It absolutely is not.
The richest families in the US are certainly not the richest ones from 1950 let alone 1427. The largest companies by market cap are Apple, MS, Google, Amazon, and FB... None of those businesses existed a generation ago let alone the technology that powers them or even their business models. At least some of the founders of those companies are immigrants. There is no reasonable extrapolation from wealthy families in Florence to "disruption is just a chimera to fool the gullible" in SV.
The three richest families in the US are (according to a simple Google search) the Waltons, Kochs, and the Mars. These three families were already in the 1950 very wealthy. I don't know enough to say whether they were among the richest, but for sure they weren't poor.
True, in monopoly those with nothing aren’t allowed to take back the means of production by force when all changes create further and further wealth inequality.
The same outlets that publish those headlines also publish ones like “Company XYZ made billions in revenue and paid zero in taxes”, completely glossing over payroll tax, deferred losses, and credits for capital investment.
Payroll tax is paid by employers on behalf of their employees. That is, it is the employees money that pays the tax - not the employers. VAT works similarly.
There’s two halves to payroll tax. One paid by the employee that is deducted from their paycheck. The other is paid by the employer and counts as an expense against revenue.
Employees do not get to deduct the second half from their taxes. It’s considered to be paid by their employers.
This one makes me so mad, because it's always some ignoramus comparing taxes with revenue and ignoring the fact that if the company paid zero taxes then most or all of that revenue was ploughed back into the local economy. Jobs, construction, equipment, etc. all mean that cash lands on everyone, and then people swallow the spin and complain about it.
Now, if they were making billions in profit and paying zero taxes then that's different.
> Now, if they were making billions in profit and paying zero taxes then that's different.
Some companies are, and are very clever in hiding that (offshoring profits, etc.).
Other companies (and their boards apparently) are content with "merely" overcompensating their executives, who then have their own teams of accountants and lawyers to avoid paying taxes. The companies themselves aren't running much profit, on the promise of a better stock price and future growth. In some cases this is legitimate because they are indeed investing in their own infrastructure or intellectual property.
It might be worth noting that Hetzner is known to use consumer hardware for some of their lower tier offerings and consumer SSDs usually have a relatively low TBW (Terabyte written) rating.
