11,104 karma · joined December 12, 2016
Also, you should separate finances as a sole proprietor too.
No it doesn't. Sole proprietors get EINs just fine. It's literally the first option on the first page of the application. https://sa.www4.irs.gov/applyein/legalStructure
> "and DUNS number"
No it doesn't. Sole proprietors can get DUNS numbers just fine. It's literally the first option when you tell them how your business is structured right after telling them your name and email address.
> "Yes it absolutely helps with accepting payments"
A billion people accepting payments in every possible form without being incorporated say that you're wrong. No method of payment processing, from credit cards to memecoins, cares whether you're incorporated.
> "having an EIN is necessary in many cases"
Again, getting an EIN and forming an LLC are completely unrelated.
No it won't.
> "it’ll help you accept payments"
No it won't.
> "or sign up for a bank account"
No it won't.
An LLC doesn't make those things any easier than they already are (very easy) as a sole proprietor.
An LLC only does the liability thing. And that's fine. Just don't make other things up. You don't need to.
Income for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?
Capital gains for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?
Property for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?
Inheritance for what though? Personal spending? Building a factory to great jobs?
What a strange question.
Can't is a strong word. https://archive.ph/IY18i
> "that line about the medical debt. His parents don’t have any, nor are they ill."
Area man who builds oppression machinery and who is a liar is sad that other people are turned off by both of those things.
Also, lying to someone to convince them to have sex with you means you don't care about consent. There isn't a bigger turn-off in the world than that.
This is vague and doesn't explain anything. Can you share any references that communicate what you're thinking about?
Because the law doesn't force them not to?
It's very wild to me that you're like "This organization is lying to me, so what we need less of is people telling them what to do."
What do you think would force hospitals to give you real prices if not the law?
You think the government tells hospitals to lie to you? The hospitals lie because the government doesn't force them not to. Laissez-faire capitalism causes that. Regulation is needed to fix it.
Injecting PE into healthcare is what made it vastly worse for everyone in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
IME intelligent people don't have difficulty understanding that different people want different things and that your computing preferences are not objectively more correct than someone else's.
Also, the ICD ontology specifically exists for billing purposes and isn't the same as patient diagnostic classification, though there is overlap and people do mistakenly use it as such sometimes. But there's a difference between "emergency visit for X" (treat X) and "emergency visit because of X" (treat Y proximal to X). (I also edited my original comment to include this last part, since it seems likely to create confusion)
Huh?
> "More than 70 per cent of gambling disorder emergency department visits involved another mental health condition or heavy substance use and almost one-third of the visits led to hospital admission."
Ok, so I assume they mean that these emergency visits were for things like drug overdoses and psychotic episodes in people led to by their gambling disorders, not for the gambling disorders themselves. What a strange way of writing this up. A gambling disorder is a chronic problem, not an acute one.
There's a difference between "emergency visit for X" where you treat X and "emergency visit (for Y) because of X" where you treat Y proximal to X, and people could learn to be more discerning in their use and interpretation of language.
> "potential release date in 2029, but it could be canceled before then."
It seems unreasonable to care about this so soon.
> increasing the difficulty of producing a forgery
The problem with this thinking is twofold:
1) Whether it actually meaningfully increases the difficulty of a forgery remains to be seen. Despite their initial language about discerning real events, we see no details here about what scene information is used.
2) It increases the potential value of a forgery because now your forgery is attested by Apple.
So it either makes it easier to defraud people or more worthwhile to put in the effort to defraud people or both. None of those outcomes are great.
The problem with this thinking is twofold:
1) Whether it actually meaningfully increases the difficulty of a forgery remains to be seen. Despite their initial language about discerning real events, we see no details here about what scene information is used.
2) It increases the potential value of a forgery because now your forgery is attested by Apple.
So it either makes it easier to defraud people or more worthwhile to put in the effort to defraud people or both. None of those outcomes are great.