I’ve used first@last.name for the last 10 years or so. There have been probably a half dozen web forms where a regex expected 2-3 characters and I input an old gmail account that forwards to this address. Over the phone, the first@last part is easier to communicate since customer rep generally has the name info already. The .name throws them for a moment, but I’ve had one or two even tell me “oh, that’s cool, how did you do that?” which feels nice. It wasn’t my first choice, lastname.com was taken, but I like the precision of .name, arguably the most accurate TLD for a personal email address.
In some jurisdictions, like in Norway, for instance, if you are a craftsman working on your own property, you are (supposed) to pay VAT on the added value your work brings to the property.
I expect very few people to report this to the authorities, unless, of course, you are going to do something which is significant enough to require you to apply for a building permit.
You earn gross income with your labor, on which you pay tax. The net is used to pay Jiffy Lube, which pays employer taxes on the mechanic’s labor, and passes that cost onto you, the customer. If you do your own labor for yourself, pay neither.
I think there’s a common misunderstanding that with IPv6 anyone can connect to anyone else. That’s not true.
My laptop has an IPv6 address, as does the router that routes its traffic. There’s no NAT, that’s true, but there’s still a firewall — only inbound packets from a destination host and port that have been sent to are allowed in. And in enterprise environments, from what I’ve seen, there’s a symmetric NAT on IPv6 anyway — packet comes from a different IPv6 address and randomized port than the one client sent it from, making peer connectivity impossible, as the source port varies by destination host and port.
I suspect one is masking that a call center is in a low wage country, e.g. make customer in U.S. believe they’re talking to someone in U.S. while paying a fraction of the U.S. wage.
Right. I thought of that too, but it doesn’t mask accents, at least not yet
I suppose if you could make agents all sound the same they would be interchangeable, and companies always love that. It’s Anjali or Ligaya or Dolores but now they all sound like “Becky”?
It’s interesting, the grass is perhaps greener on the other side. My wife is planning on staying home with the kids when we have our second, and there’s a part of me that envy’s that freedom from worry on having to provide, being able to spend hours with our daughter while I may get a couple hours a night, our daughter is much closer to her mom already. In twenty years, the software I’ve written will likely have been long replaced — the bond invested in our children will be there forever.
I believe the article is correct to criticise the indoctrination that the LDS church targeted at her. But I also agree with you that grass is greener on the other side. Many of the comments cited in the article could be summarised as: I'm jealous that someone I knew 10 years ago is much more successful now.
I personally also know a few people from university where if I superficially look at their situation now, I'd think "that could have been me". And I'm a guy so in my case it wouldn't highlight a man/woman difference. But then, looking at the details, some of them made sacrifices that I would be unwilling to make. Or their starting position wasn't that similar, after all, e.g. I just didn't know 10 years ago that they were trust fund babies.
It's not too late for you to decide to spend more time with your daughter and less time working. You both could go part-time. If you are afraid that your career won't wait, remember that neither will your children. You might need to discuss with your wife about this, but it is a decision that you should make together, not her or you alone.
My wife and I have taken about equal share in raising our kids and honestly I am prouder to have managed to spend time with my children growing up and to be married to a woman who doesn't have to rely on me to survive than of anything I could have done in a slightly more successful career.
It's what I would be in favour of too. I also wonder, do full time carers not worry? What if tragedy strikes, it's not that uncommon - an accident during commute is enough to render someone unable to work? Also I wouldn't want to put the pressure of being the sole breadwinner on my partner at all. To me it wouldn't feel like an equal relationship somehow.
> What if tragedy strikes, it's not that uncommon - an accident during commute is enough to render someone unable to work?
A very good insurance policy? We pay a lot of extra money on our house loan to ensure it's immediately void should something happen to me (or gets cut in half if one of us becomes seriously ill).
I once knew a couple, the man was a teacher and the woman a scientist. He could work virtually anywhere in the world. In any country. In anything from a tiny isolated town to a megalopolis. Her career would ultimately lead her to one of a handful of places. Teaching is also a career where one can pick-up their roots and reestablish themselves somewhere else at very little cost to their career. Science is usually a career where one must plan their next step carefully, else risk facing major setbacks in their career.
I bring up this story because, in the end, they ended up splitting up since he was unwilling to exploit the flexibility of his professional life to allow their relationship to flourish. I bring it up since I was to raise the question, a question that thinkski's comment triggered even though it is by no means directed their way: how often do we consider the aspirations and potential of our wife when deciding who is going to be the "breadwinner" and who is going to be the "care giver"? I am not saying that it is impossible to be both, but the reality is that compromises to a greater or lesser degree often have to be made for the sake of the family.
how often do we consider the aspirations and potential of our wife
this, for me is the key to any relationship. generalize it to partner, since it is important for both sides. when i met my wife i carefully considered whether i would be able to support her goals as well as tried to figure out whether she was supportive of mine. fortunately, working in IT meant that i had a lot of flexibility and so in our case the chances of a conflict in our goals was small, but i would not have married her otherwise.
I don't agree that it's a case of grass being greener, the difference is that you as a family are able to make that choice, after having had the opportunity and privilege earlier in life.
> the bond invested in our children will be there forever.
It is entirely possible to bond with our children and still maintain a career. These are not mutually exclusive the way you've implied.
I’m a father and can tell you yes, there is stress, but when I look at life without children, I see mostly lives of temporary self indulgence.
Parties, skiing, Hawaii, toys, consoles, cars, motorcycles, vacation homes, etc.
Over time, most people I know grow tired of them. They have more friends yes, but even my friends know their “good time friends” wouldn’t stick around through hardship.
Kids aren’t the only way for sure. There are plenty of causes, but they are one thing that lasts longer than a few product cycles.
I don't think that's generally the case, many women put their career in parentheses in order to care for the family, which is unpaid and sometimes ungrateful work (it IS a real work).
Then if there is a dispute with the family provider, the person not working will be in a position of fragility: if he/she leaves, she has no career, no way to support herself, she has to abide by what the providing partner asks her to do, even if he is sometimes abusive
Yeah but if women go to work, the amount of available workers will more or less double, so if you where to apply the theory of supply and demand you'll find that this will make wages decrease, which is very good for extremely rich people ...
Most people aren’t rockstars. Most of us are cogs in a big wheel meant to grind us all into meat.
Aspiring to be a middle manager at an F500 is the saddest dream imaginable, and yet it’s a lie sold to girls that it’s so much more rewarding than motherhood.
It’s not. Most jobs are pointless. If you don’t have to, don’t waste your life make someone else money.
Company has recurring expenses to keep your cloud-connected device running. They need recurring revenue to cover those costs. Depending on one-time revenue from the sale of new devices to cover the recurring expenses of existing devices is a pyramid scheme, no?
I have an IoT graveyard of devices from companies that did not charge a monthly fee and went under (Edyn garden sensor, Automatic car monitor, etc).
Organized by an employer, capital, and management. The orchestration, decision making, done well, is the difference between a highly valuable well functioning company, and dysfunctional paralysis. There are now multiple examples in history (pre-1989 Poland, Soviet Union, DPRK, etc.) that show the communal ownership of industry by labor does not create a high standard of living, enabled by plentiful goods, services, and innovation.
At what point was labor communally owning industry in the Soviet Union or DPRK? Did Stalin or Kim ever ask a laborer for their opinion on how a factory should be run? Or give them a penny of the work they were doing?
The Soviet block and DPRK was exactly as close to socialism as it was to democracy: 100% in their propaganda, 0% in reality. Or would you say democracy doesn't work because the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a shit show country despite being "democratic"?
The problem with collectivism is less with collectivism as platonic ideal (which has a lot of romantic appeal), and more with the inevitable concentration of power it requires and thereby enables.
The reason there has been no successful implementation of it is that the process of enacting it is inherently fragile. And some bastard is going to exploit that fragility.
Then you're screwed and we end up with the bountiful historical examples that people love to cite & then others refute as "that's not real xyz-ism".
You're absolutely correct that they're not "real" xyz-ism. And that should make you very worried about supporting something that has the same or similar end goals as those initiatives once had.
We have little to no idea if this is indeed inevitable. The same kind of arguments could have been made, and were in fact made, about democracy and capitalism before the American and French revolutions. And some attempts at democratic revolutions have indeed fallen into authoritarian rule - Cromwell's being one of the most well known.
Socialism is nothing more than extending democracy beyond the state to the workplace. It is no more collectivist than democracy is in any other economic system. And like any other form of democracy, it is naturally opposed to authoritarian rule, not conducive to it.
As such, the problem with socialism is not at all that it's easy for it to fall into dictatorship. The problem is that it is hard to convince the rich to allow it to form without aggression, since it necessitates them losing much of their power. The same problem that democracy faced: kings rarely step down, and bloody revolutions are typically worse than the status quo (and you can never be sure what will happen after one).
This concept that there is a well defined polar opposite to western “freedom” capitalism is so far from reality in literally any economic history understanding
Not only that but the USSR was in no sense Marxist Communist. It was well known that the Lenin-Trotskyist Bolshevism was the core, specifically the command economy part.
That regime coopted the philosophy of Marxism well after his death.
That’s what happens when both sides are spinning the same propaganda.
BTW I’m equally not a fan of Marxist material dialectic as I am the trotsy-lenin unholiness or the American oligopolies.
We need a true state-free attempt at anarcho socialism but that’s nearly impossible as such a concept fundamentally threatens the basic structure of the modern state.
While I am sympathetic to the idea that we need to burn e everything down, baby steps, first. If we're talking halfway realistic changes, let's get stuff like this wealth limit in place first, and once those been established for a while, we may have a better picture of the ideal state.
I can understand how you can assume catastrophic intent on my part however, that’s not the case.
In no revolution are the poorest and weakest persons ever benefited it’s only typically been to the benefit of some small group they just recycles hands so in fact, the last thing I want is some kind of hard break.
No, I’m an anarcho syndicalist. Which is a gradual reappropriation of the means to worker collectives slowly and peacefully.
Sorry for the mischaracterization. Your position sounds interesting. When it comes to how the means of production should be structured, I envision a microkernel kind of model: enforce strict protections for worker pay, fairness, and whatever, and let the dice fall where they may. If it's worker collectives that result as the optimum, so be it.
That’s the core conceit of anarcho syndicalism - to own the fruits of your own labor amd it not be intermediated or alienated by anything which reappropriates the capture of value.
So for example, if I own a table saw and my neighbor doesn’t and needed one for his labor, anarcho-syndicalism would suggest that if my saw was not planning to be used for a day, and he uses it for a day of creation, then the neighbor owns 100% of the resulting value. Much like if you rented a tool from Home Depot.
That makes sense and there’s no reason to believe that simply because I own a fallow tool, would benefit even equally from the labor.
Now look at how companies are created they are created in such a way that 100% of the value is retained by the organization and labor does not get to set its own rate. It Hass to simply be responsive to the rate offered by the organization decoupled from an alienated from, the labor that I’m inputting into it.
This isn’t accidental it’s a type of accounting that assumes labor inputs are not valued based on the productivity outcome they are simply, and only based on the relative bargaining power of the respective organizations.
This is why you see corporations, so aggressively fight the concept of collective bargaining because it creates the power dynamic that is actually appropriate for equitable relief, but reduces the amount that the more powerful organization can determine the relationship between the less powerful individual.
So anarcho-syndicalism is really about ensuring the individual worker cannot be put into a position of deprivation or suffering such that they have so little relative bargaining power in labor production that they can only choose between oppressive tyrants.
The key fallacy that people love here is that it’s all about relative deprivation so people have exceptionally varied views on what is considered oppressive or what a lifestyle would look like that is, let’s say inequitable.
Often times and you’ll see in many threads is the argument that “Actually we’re objectively more comfortable and well off that really, you shouldn’t be complaining about anything because you’re not starving to death”
The problem here is that it’s a completely separate argument than the argument for long term concentration of power, and who is actually controlling the economy, and has the ability to be flexible and create a life free of intermediaries that are confiscating your labor.
It all comes back to who has the power to set their own destiny in the economy, and the reality is, it’s always been small groups of exploiters who are able to do whatever they want to do because they’re taking advantage of the relative deprivation around them to not make things actively better for everybody. The people in situations like this, take no responsibility for their surroundings, their community their environment, they simply say how do I take advantage of this environment to my own best ends, and if that is the foundational conceit of a society, then you will not have a society that long and history tells us that society is built on this go through this political cycle, which so far has been basically every society in recorded history, unfortunately.
Anyway, there’s a lot of Intersectionality here with, for example, global finance, how this got really amplified after Bretton Woods two and the kind of fiatization, and then financialation of all possible value so there’s a giant kind of systematic thing here that is encoded in a lot of these as foundational assumptions in western capitalist economics.
East Germany, North Korea, and the USSR are wonderful examples of how this idiotic idea fares in real life.
Unless people there somehow have much lower IQs than their neighbours, who do vastly better, the difference in outcome must lie in the system that co-ordinates their work.
reply