- I think this is a strange and very modern conception of weddings. Weddings are not just about the bride and groom; they're about the bride and groom and the community of their friends and family. That third part is a key component! It's why we invite people to weddings, so they can witness and help the couple in making and keeping the commitment of marriage.
- I think everyone agrees that some rules for guests are fine, and some are silly. "No flash photography or leaning into aisles during the wedding procession" is a reasonable rule, "No taking photos when we're dancing and having fun" seems silly to me.
Just like a dress code for a wedding is fine, but if they said "also you need to wear blue cotton underwear" I'd think that was a bit inappropriate to require.
- Yes, that's an asshole move.
I think it's also pretty weird to ask people not to take photos though.
edit: "no photos during the ceremony" is different than "no photos the entire event", obviously
- Historically at least, it's not that weddings are in public places, but that they're inherently a performance for the community. Like the reason for having a wedding is to make a commitment publicly in front of your friends and family. That doesn't mean it needs to be open to all who want to wander in, but it's strange to think of it as a secret event.
I feel like it's pretty strange (and mildly rude) to insist no one take/post photos of a wedding, and also very rude to take/post photos when asked not to.
- It's not the cost, it's the headache. Do I need to worry about setting up SSO, do I need to work with procurement, do I need to do something in our SOC2 audit, do I need to get it approved as an allowed tool, etc.
Whether it's $100/year or $10k/year it's all the same headache. Yes, this is dumb, but it's how the process works at a lot of companies.
Whereas if it's a free tool that just magically goes away. Yes, this is also dumb.
- SMS 2FA is good enough for most people most of the time. It's very bad at preventing high-skill targeted attacks against individuals, but it's perfectly good at preventing mass brute-force attacks.
It's popular because it solves the problem (not ALL problems, but the one they're trying to solve) and it's easy and low-barrier to implement and use.
- The problem with this is no one can agree about what "at scale" means.
Like yes, everyone knows that if you want to index the whole internet and have tens of thousands of searches a second there are unique challenges and you need some crazy complexity. But if you have a system that has 10 transactions a second...you probably don't. The simple thing will probably work just fine. And the vast majority of systems will never get that busy.
Computers are fast now! One powerful server (with a second powerful server, just in case) can do a lot.
- I think it's perfectly fair for them to say "we're not doing this any more". The sketchy part is deleting the public registry at docker.io/bitnami rather than just no longer updating it. Why can't docker.io/bitnami become the 'legacy' registry, receive no future updates, so at least folks who don't hear this news won't have pulls suddenly fail?
edit: like if I have a package on NPM and I want to stop offering it, I think it's shitty to just delete it. That breaks builds.
- >>>Others didn't even know what was going on at the time and were let into the capital building by police officers and were arrested anyway.
If you're part of a mob and the police get out of your way that's not them "letting you in", that's them falling back as opposed to causing more violence. I think J6 folks were treated extremely gently, all things considered. If the guy in front of you breaks down a door and then you walk in behind him, you're also doing something wrong.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/capitol-police-waving-vide... for a specific fact check to the "police waved them in" claim.
>>>The Democrats in the UK
Those aren't the Democrats. I do think the UK is going too far with their speech controls and their "online safety" laws.
- Wow, people who walked near the capital were thrown in prison. Really? Just walked near the capital. Didn't break in, attack cops, destroy property. Really. Just walked near the capital.
Wow that's crazy.
- From the POV of anti-abortion folks, the idea of "oh just let other people have abortions if they want" is as silly as saying "oh just let other people have slaves / kill their infants". If you think a fetus is worthy of similar moral protection as a 2 year old of course you'd be against all abortion, in the same way you're against all toddler murder.
(I don't think a fetus, especially <20 weeks or whatever, is a full moral person, but I understand those who do)
- They may both be damaging, but currently we have a lot more porn than censorship, so it looks like it's causing more damage. If we flip to having a lot more censorship we'll feel that damage more clearly. Or we won't, depending how successful the censorship is.
- I think the risk here is Taiwan being invaded by China, in which case having some US-based production helps a lot.
- >>>I content that it is simply not possible to evaluate the "unimproved value" of a given parcel.
I think there's a perfectly fine way; you estimate it the way we currently estimate properly values for tax purposes. If they owner doesn't like that value, you allow them to contest it, and we immediately accept any contested claim and value it as the owner desires, with two small caveats: a) they pay tax on the claimed value, to ensure they don't over value and b) they are required to sell to anyone at claimed value + 10%, to ensure they don't under value.
edit: two points to address some responses. First, it can be claimed land value + assessed/claimed improvement value + 10%, that's fine. Second, I'd only require they sell at that value if the owner contests the original appraisal. If they accept it, nobody can buy their stuff out from under them for any price.
- >>Since this wooden rod travels several miles in a 6 second time frame - traveling more than 500M/s on average - don't we have to assume it accumulates?
If we assume it does accumulate, then we also have to assume peasant #2000 couldn't possibly pass it successfully.
- Oh, I didn't realize - I knew 174 made it "must amortize", I didn't realize it could be done either way previously. Very silly indeed how they've done this.
- There are businesses that will build a big custom piece of machinery. Think a factory or a mine. That may last for 20 years, but require workers to operate, maintain, etc.
This is handled in existing tax law; building or improving a capital asset is amortized, repairing or maintaining it is expensed. It can be a pain in the butt, this is why accounting is not a trivial profession.
We could (and I think should) treat software the same. Some software engineer work is absolutely creating a capital asset. Some is absolutely high-priced janitor work. It makes sense to allow for both with your tax code.
- Honestly it'd depend a ton of the particular industry/company/programmer. Some are definitely creating capital assets and should be amortized, others are "repairs and maintenance" which can be expenses. I'd probably defer to treating them as expenses, but allow for amortization if the company desires, and maybe have some audit possibility on that if it looks like the big players are gaming that somehow.
Part of the complication here is companies generally really like amortizing stuff. It lets you smooth your profit across years which is usually better both for tax purposes and for your financial reporting for the market. So this kind of change is fine or even good for a company like Google, but can really suck for a small bootstrapped SAAS. This is why I'd allow companies to pick, with some degree of latitude.
- Yes, I think there are two similar but subtly different flaws in that always.
1) Accounting rules are to match revenue with the expenses responsible for them, which I think is a good principle. If your workers make something now that provides revenue for 5 years, it makes sense to spread that expense over 5 years too. In many cases, you would want to do that as a business, makes it more clear how your business is profitable vs not.
2) Decisions whether to "build vs buy" a capital asset should not have massive tax implications. If I buy CoolSoftwareProduct from someone and resell it for the next 5 years, I'd have to amortize that. Should be similar if I hire a coder to write CoolSoftwareProduct instead.
(This doesn't mean that "salaries should always be amortized" is the right answer, of course, I think it's a very silly law)
A few months before I left they switched to a "modern" GUI. It was shockingly bad. The speed of every transaction lowered. Even with optimal use it just took longer. So much time wasted.