Isn't that considered a "technical" default since you basically burned every debt holder by inflating your way out of debt? Almost like a TKO vs KO in boxing?
I believe he meant that people make jokes to cover/approach things they actually feel or fear. I recall when I first heard this that all of a sudden my friends were struggling with more things than they let on. She’s always joking about money. He’s always joking about his sexuality… uh oh.
I am too. Although it appears computer and computer machinery, like chips amongst others, are the 2nd largest export[1]. I'm guessing these types of companies are very important to economic stability within the country and economic posturing in outside the company in global trade.
We really would like to keep these companies alive. Geely buying Volvo is a nice example of a proper acquisition and Geely has - as far as I know - always played by the rules. What happened here would not fly under any management and China should take note, ownership does not give a pass to 'do as you please', we have many stakeholders including employees and customers, not just owners and managers.
Interesting, I've heard otherwise but it was anecdotes. Do you have any data on that?
> to track non-fraudulent users
You listed a large number of ways to fake the phone number which is why you believe it doesn't prevent fraud. What is to stop a non-fraudulent user from doing the same thing to prevent the tracking by the company?
The original stated intention of the practice was that "it" [mandatory phone number registration] "prevents fraud" (though this stance was being critiqued by the person who raised it, not defended).
I'll concede that it probably has stymied some of the most trivial, incompetent fraud attempts made, and possibly reduced a negligible amount of actual fraud, but the idea that it can "prevent" fraud (implying true deterministic blocking, rather than delaying or frustrating) is refutable by the very reasonable assumption that there is almost certainly no company that implements mandatory phone number registration that has or will experience ZERO losses to fraud.
That said, in fairness, this is an unfalsifiable and unverifiable claim, as to my knowledge, there is nothing resembling a public directory of fraud losses experienced by businesses, and there is no incentive for businesses to admit to fraud losses publicly (they may have tax incentives to report it to the IRS, legal incentives to report it to law enforcement, and publicly traded companies may have regulatory incentives to at least indirectly acknowledge operating losses incurred due to fraud in financial reporting), but that doesn't make the claim itself unreasonable or improbable.
>What is to stop a non-fraudulent user from doing the same thing to prevent the tracking by the company?
The argument isn't that mandatory phone registration unavoidably forces privacy infringement upon all users, just that it does infringe upon the privacy of some (I'd suggest a vast majority) of users in practice.
I still remember that Frontpage exploit in which a simple google search would return websites that still had the default Frontpage password and thus you could login and modify the webpage.
But does this mean I need to keep receipts around for decades? What if a claim gets denied and dr. is dead or no longer practicing?
Has anyone tested this HSA claim approval amd reimbursement of 30/40/50 year old medical work before? Is there a chance the rules could change and the medical care has to be recent?
The HSA is like a bank or investment account, not an insurance program; there's no claim process; you just withdraw the money whenever you want at your say-so. There is only an IRS audit process if they think you acted against the rules of the HSA.
For keeping receipts, we have a process where we dump our eligible receipts into a folder on the NAS and have the scanner/printer setup with a one-button "medical scan" that also dumps paper bills into that folder. You only need receipts to substantiate your position during an audit if they decide to do one, so a big pile of receipts and a spreadsheet with the annual amounts is enough for my taste.
For a reduction of taxes at our full federal tax bracket plus our state income rate, it's worth keeping a folder on the NAS and pushing a button on the scanner a couple handful of times per year.
> Is there a chance the rules could change and the medical care has to be recent?
There's always a theoretical chance, but any prior (or likely then-current year) medical bills would almost surely still remain eligible for reimbursement. The worst case that I can see as being likely is a rule change to require that a 2026 expense would have to be claimed by April 15, 2027. But I wouldn't expect that and think there's precedent that they couldn't change the reimbursement eligibility for expenses incurred prior to the law change. US v Carlton is one where specifically a one-year period of retroactive change was found to be "supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means" which suggests to me (IANAL) that longer periods of retroactive change would likely be found to violate due process.
So? The point of h1-b isn't to hire new grads. It's to find the already educated, industry proven, experienced top talent that exists in the world. How would a new grad fit that description?
H1-Bs are overwhelmingly new grads, and have been since the inception of the visa. The purpose of a system is what it does- H1-Bs are issued to new grads, hence the point of the visa is to hire new grads. You may want a different system, but that's not how it works now.
Experienced career professionals don't generally move to the US as adults, and anyways if your company really needed one you could just hire them remotely
Isn't that considered a "technical" default since you basically burned every debt holder by inflating your way out of debt? Almost like a TKO vs KO in boxing?
reply