run4yourlives2

I hope NYC has done their research... Cable stayed bridges like this have a nasty habit of allowing snow and ice to freeze on those cables. The melt results in literal "ice bombs" onto the traffic below, with some rather disastrous consequences.

Vancouver has been dealing with this for a little while now, and NYC gets a heck of a lot more snow...

http://globalnews.ca/news/3108176/windshields-shattered-afte...

I fail to see how this is an issue, but even if I concede the point, she still brought the stock up and created an exit for shareholders.

The goal of a resurgent Yahoo seems to only have been one shared by outside observers.

And? Was Meyer not the CEO when this happened? I'm pretty sure she was.

Just because she resorted to something other than organically growing the business to increase the value to her shareholders doesn't mean she's a failure. We're all assuming that her job was to "save" Yahoo. I don't think that was ever really on the table.

She increased Yahoo's value 200%. How is everyone missing this?

She's the CEO. You can explain it away but she is as subject to good fortune as much as she is bad.

EDIT: Haters out in force I see. The share price was $16 when she started. It's now $48. It's irrelevant what she did or didn't do to get that. That's the fact, and that's what matters to her employers, the shareholders.

Why shouldn't she be compensated for a 200% increase? The company's long term survival is a goal that may have never been shared by the actual owners.

She took the stock price from the mid teens to close to $50 today.

I know we all expect a "Great" CEO to lead the company to world domination, but Yahoo was a sinking ship before she got there, and she was was able to turn that around enough to create an acquisition. By every measure that her employers where using to judge her performance, she was a tremendous success.

Call me when you create a 200% increase in value over 5 or so years.

There's a second part to a Deja Vu phenomenom that often gets overlooked... the feeling that you've had this experience before is coupled with the ability to predict what will happen next based on the 'memory'.

Next time you get deja vu, try to "remember" what happens next. It's scarily accurate after you willingly try it once or twice.

My overall hypothesis is somewhat inline with yours (although I don't have nearly the expertise to properly examine these things) - that somehow the brain 'skips' filing the memory properly, and the experience being recalled milliseconds later as "now" is being mis-remembered as "past".

Very cool machine our brain.

I don't connect the two really. The account is clearly a throwaway, but that doesn't really bare on whether the story is accurate or not. It very well might be.

Eh? If she was deceived (intentional or not) she is in fact telling the truth, since to her it is real.

There aren't more than three option present, but you're more correct that you may not have enough information to deduct which option is a proper representation of the true fact.

There's no real issue with the logic, outside of arguing that making a conclusive decision here is perhaps premature. That's situational though.

It's likely that Apple is just forgoing the input tax credit in this case. They remit the GST on their sale and because they aren't charged any GST by the app creator, they don't look to offset.

Now, the major issue here is that if the app creator is making $30K+, it is THEIR responsibility to charge GST, which means that if there is no mechanism to charge in addition to the price, it's automatically inclusive. The CRA doesn't care how you collect the tax you owe, they just care that you pay it.

For a vast majority of app creators, $30K probably is a target they are on the lower side of, but I'd imagine people making a living on the apple store, the GST is coming out of their revenue directly. At least, that's how CRA would look at it.

Now that being said, CRA might be treating this entire industry as an undefined gray area for the time being, particularly since they are getting the GST on the final sale by apple, but I don't think that will last long.

>Taking someone somewhere against their will is already illegal, which of these extra laws (and taxes) prevent that?

For the same reason that regulations help in all sorts of areas; you pre-vet the people authorized to do the service to reduce the likelihood of this occurring. It's exactly the same as regulating doctors, lawyers, financial planners, truck drivers, teachers, daycare workers etc, etc, etc.

Are uber drivers allowed to be Lyft Drivers or regular Taxi drivers? If so, you have a good argument that they are not employees. If not, they will be seen by the CRA as employees, regardless of anything else in place.

If they are not employees, drivers are obliged to collect GST from Uber for their services if they earn more than $30K. If Uber re-sells that service, they are also obliged to collect GST from the end user. They can claim an input tax credit on the contractor's GST to offset. This is normal business operation in Canada, and one of the main reasons the HST was so popular - it moved all the multiple people charging and remitting taxes to one spot - the end sale.

If Uber's contractors are determined to be employees, that's a major issue for them, because at that point they have a ton of CPP and EI to pay that they have not been doing.

Really, they don't have much of an argument here either way. There is no real reason they should be tax exempt.

I don't think you understand how this works. I can charge you $10 for a candy bar with GST included and make $.95, or I can charge $10 + 5 cents gst and make $10.

It's not at all the same thing as you previously suggested.

The entire point of this conversation here is that $10 + 5 cents gst is a price increase if you weren't bothering to charge a tax at all.

Irrelevant.

If you say you'll build me a website for $100, and I in turn contract that out to some guy in India, I'm still required to charge you $100 + $5 GST. The fact that I didn't use an employee to provide the service is of no issue.

It's right to close the loophole that really should never have existed in the first place, if not for industry lobbyists.

Except for the fact that the GST gets remitted to the government, instead of to Uber. Your suggesting is an 5-17% reduction in margin, dependent on province.

Either way, collecting GST on a sale is the norm in Canada, regardless of what happens on the back end.

The consumer pays Uber. That is the point of sale. That is where the sales tax is collected. This isn't rocket science.

To your - bad - analogy: If MS was selling templates created in word by you to a marketplace, you can bet that GST would be paid on them by the consumer to MS.

>Driving someone around shouldn't be so complicated.

Until someone gets driven 60 miles out of town on the way to the airport and left there unless they have a "special" fee...

It's almost as if these regulations were put in place for a reason.

Nothing wrong with KW, but compared to Vancouver?

Blackcomb is open until late may, and then also has a summer season. (glacier)

Vancouver does get a lot of concentrated rain, but summers are sunnier than most cities in North America. 90% of that 1900 hours is between June and September.

In Philippines and Columbia, kidnapping for ransom is still a thing in certain areas, particularly of "rich" westerners.

There are very good reasons people DON'T live in those countries though. Most have to do with things westerners take for granted, like stable electricity, not needing to bribe cops, and being able to easily purchase goods when you need to.

YMMV as always. Places aren't easy to move to unless they are trying to create a place that is hard to move to.

Latest, completely relevant Hardcore History just released yesterday.

http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-o...

Certainly worth a listen.

Your wife (and you) are wrong. Cleopatra was a Pharaoh.

Yes, she was a Greek decent of Alexander, and the Ptolemaic Dynasty was of his blood, not Egyptian, but it's founder Ptolemy declared himself Pharaoh, and therefore she had the title as well.

It's similar as to how Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada, even though she is English. To say she isn't the Queen of Canada is simply incorrect.

This level of hubris is a perfect example of why mixed education is a good thing. Nobody is so gifted to be above the human frailty of being wrong.

Devil's advocate here:

>The danger is that having this focus in school means that kids get neglected once they pass that threshold.

Is this a bad thing? Does it even qualify as neglect?

If a child is so far ahead of his peers, what benefit is it to have them increase that gap? At some point, they will need to interact with the group they left behind, how does that become an easier task when the distance is even greater?

I find it hard to believe that a gifted child is so spectacular that she is miles ahead of her peers in every possible area. It's certainly true that they can be ahead in the small subset of skills we consider 'essential' in school, but there are likely other areas where they are not. There's a reason depression is correlated in a curious way with increased intelligence.

It's certainly true that they could benefit from classes with older kids; but then, the issue is really the age based segregation of school, isn't it?. It seems like the entire "gifted" idea would vanish in a sense if we removed the erroneous idea that intelligence is correlated with age, at least in how it informs the idea of "grades" being "all kids born in x year".

> students who are gifted have specific learning needs that require: tailored learning strategies, education supported by a challenging curriculum, teachers trained in gifted education, more exposure to students of similar ability, opportunities for acceleration

So, gifted students are like every other student and excel with educational approaches tailored to their style of learning. Okay. You could say this exact same thing about kids with ADD, kids with Autism, boys, girls, kids with brown hair, etc, etc.

The arguments for this type of segregation and any other type of segregation are exactly the same. Do boys excel when removed from girls? Some of them do, others to a negligible degree.

The issue is that the government isn't trying to educate "your kid", it's trying to educate "every kid". Why? Because having a baseline education in your society - particularly in a democracy - is a very beneficial thing, for far too many reasons to get into here.

So the purpose of public schooling is not to bring you up to your full potential, it's to provide you with a base level starting point. Equality not of outcome, but of opportunity in life.

There is a fine balance between the good of the individual and the good of the overall society. The latter often supporting the former. It does us no good to further isolate ourselves from each other in ways that simply aren't compatible with maintaining a sustainable and just society overall. Western democracy has historically been able to walk the line between self-determination and individual freedom and collective control and deference to the state, but I fear we're starting to see shifts away from the centre into more extremes. Clamoring for segregation is just another form of destructive identity politics at the end of the day.

All that being said, I'll have to just come out and say that of course individual kids will be better off in tailored environments than they would be in the general populace. That isn't the question. The question really should be, are they better off growing up in an environment so removed from the reality of the world they are going to help run in the future? I'm not so sure.

It depends on the cockpit seating layout, really.

If you are siting side-by-side in aircraft, most - not all - will have the throttle and related components in the center console, so they aren't duplicated and can be used from both seats. By necessity a pilot in command, seated on the left, will fly with his/her stick in the left hand and right on throttle/everything else. It just happens to be that most civil aircraft cockpits have this configuration. A yoke or side stick can stand in for a center mounted control stick in this configuration and is simply a design factor.

If you are sitting in an aircraft with a single seat operation (i.e., no center console) the throttle will usually be placed somewhere to the left of the pilot, so the controls change - right on the stick and left for the throttle. You'd almost never see anything other than a center stick in this configuration, but there are aircraft with side sticks, like the F-16 and F-22.

There are some exceptions, particularly where side-by-side seating is more specialized and not duplicated. See:

Siai Marchetti SF 260 (notice duplicated throttle on left) : http://tagazous.free.fr/affichage2.php?img=8451

A6 Intruder (Right seat is not a capable of flying aircraft) : https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a1/32/a8/a132a868a...

For the amount of money he's spending on auctioned domains, wouldn't it make more sense to find a 'related' (eg. backyardziplines.com vs ziplines.com) name and do exactly the same thing (set up a site, contact a partner, etc) and spend the thousands of dollars on advertising?

Maybe it's just me, but google doesn't really put that much stock in the url itself, does it? A non-scammy site and some good lead ins will put you high in the search results regardless, no?

I have a cat. I know how it works. Part of having a pet is dealing with the fact that you have to take care of it. Many people have pets and go on vacations.

>even if the final result is 'over' engineered.

This is a major issue though. It's why a lot of engineers can't translate ideas and solutions into elegant businesses...

Of course there is nothing wrong with this project, so long as you understand it completely misses solving the actual problem at hand.

neglect as in "not doing" not neglect as in "not caring". I'm not suggesting he doesn't care for the cat, I'm suggesting he's solving a symptom instead of the core problem.

This seems like a classic case of over-engineering the wrong problem.

The problem isn't that the cat is getting into the machine, the problem is that the human is neglecting to feed the cat.

Solve the right problem.