s0rin

It also falls on consumers to choose not to support such companies if they fail to abide by our moral code of ethics.

Plugging for duckduckgo - making the switch is easy, free, and without ethical mishaps.

Is your project based around financial/accounting technology?

You should take it out. As a native english speaker, I've never heard an idiomatic expression involving popcorn that didn't imply "happily awaiting entertainment."

What are some of the "other sources of revenue" that you're planning on rolling out in 2018?

As a CPA, double-entry accounting is sort of considered the founding of modern accounting. Everything else is a question of accurate recognition. Luca Pacioli was an Italian dude who was the first person to publish something widespread on double-entry accounting, although the same methods existed in other regions without any formal documentation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Pacioli

Here lies my concern with any sort of government-sponsored program in the US: once it becomes policy, any discussion that involves cutting, limiting, or removing expenditures becomes an ethical argument against the group benefiting from the programs. Here's another spin on this: subsidies to graduate students are bankrupting the United States. This article isolates a single decision, politicizes it, and demonizes anyone who isn't in favor of keeping the program as-is. But here's the kicker - they don't offer a solution or an alternative. The US has an unsustainable level of deficit spending, and we can either increase taxes, cut spending, or some combination of both. The article doesn't even offer an alternative, or explore the underlying justifications for why they opted to cut these benefits, which further emphasizes the point. We don't live in a world of limitless resources - every dollar we spend on X is one fewer dollar we can spend on Y. This type of narrowly-focused journalism isn't productive, and has made me more cautious of politicians who want to implement policies that cost money, but don't talk about how they're going to get the funds.

Just as a full disclosure, I'm actually in favor of the deductions/exemptions, and I'd rather see reductions in government administrative staff, entitlements, and military contractors. But I'm not naive - cuts need to be made, and as recent news has shown, increasing taxes isn't always as cut-and-dry as it needs to be due to the various loopholes. The most egalitarian solution would be a flat percentage-based cut across all programs, and some form of flat percentage-based increase in taxes, but instead of gaining bi-partisan support, it would probably just piss off everyone. This is probably why I'm a better accountant than politician - because people want to do what they feel like doing, irrespective of whether or not it's the right thing to do.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the waivers in question are aimed at students who receive tuition discounts due to working in a full-time capacity. Like a professor gets a tuition discount for their daughter who attends the school, or the admissions accountant gets a discount to attend the MBA program. [1] This means most students unaffiliated with the school would be protected from any tax on graduate school tuition aid.

Regardless, this is an interesting scenario (I say this as a tax accountant), since the university is a non-profit entity, and therefore doesn't receive any tax benefit for incurring this cost (whereas a for-profit company would deduct this as some sort of employee expense).

But instead of passing a tax onto the employee, it seems like the IRS waived the tax entirely since it could be interpreted as a contribution made by the university, to the university: the Uni pays the employee tuition, and the employee pays tuition back to the university. Since the tuition benefits can't be applied to other schools, it seems like a reasonable waiver.

On the other hand, we have a hefty amount of debt on our hands, and in order to dig ourselves out of it, the funds will have to come from _somewhere_. In an effort to "see randomness", this is what I'm hoping is the reason for the change.[2]

[1] the "145,000" student hyperlink in the article: acenet.edu/Pages/Higher-Education-and-Tax-Reform.aspx#tabContent-6 [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/randomness.html

Separate your life into things that give you energy, and things that take energy. For introverts, going out to a bar or party may take away energy, for extroverts, it may give them energy. It doesn't really matter whether something gives or takes energy, but it's important that you're realistic with yourself about it. Socializing with friends may be good, but it may be an energy-taker.

Once you know what gives/takes energy, create a mock schedule that provides balance between the two. Then, play with the numbers to create an ideal balance.

For me, work is an energy-taker, but it's essential so I can do things that give me energy, like play games, volunteer, work out, etc. I've found that when I work 50-60 hours per week, I really just need about a solid day where I can just do things that give me energy, so Saturdays I keep free to play, hang out, and only do things that give me energy. Sundays I balance my time with things that give me energy (like watching football) and things that take energy (like chores).

That's sort of the high-level planning I do. On the micro-level, whenever I do something that gives me energy, I devote as much time to it at once, in bulk. This allows me enough time to become bored with it (if it's video games or working out), and make me _want_ to spend my energy that I've accumulated.

When doing something that takes energy, I do the pomodoro technique, where I spend 25 minutes working, 5 minutes off. I do email, get some water, stretch during that 5 minutes, and then immediately get back to work. That essentially gives me 16-20 "buckets" of time to work on my projects (8-10 hours), so I break my work out into those buckets, and plan accordingly.

I'm an accountant, so this may be different. I know some people love their work and work gives them energy, so they could have a totally different style. But I'm happy :)