I don't understand why they divide the appraised value by three, then compute 1.5% property tax from it and say they can't raise it any higher. Where I live, our property tax rate is higher even with a homestead exemption AND we don't divide by three. Simply removing the division would fix the revenue problem according to the article's math.
More specifically, right now I just checked and I pay 1.6% of my home's appraised market value each year as property tax. Galesburg pays 0.5%. So there's an easy fix.
What's frustrating about these academia threads, is that Ph.D. experiences are so diverse and different, depending on the discipline, subfield, university, advisor. Yet so many commenters oversimplify their one experience or what they think it's like from knowing a couple of grad students.
I know Ph.D. students who made almost six figures by doing highly paid research internships. Some advisors only care about demos, while others care about startups, and yet others care about how the work is presented to funding agencies. I know Ph.D. students who did most of their Ph.D. in a completely different city than their degree-granting institution. I know Ph.D. students who were highly pressured to publish, and Ph.D. students who had no pressure to publish. I know Ph.D. students who basically had no advisor, and Ph.D. students with 3 world-expert advisors. Some Ph.D. students are funded by the university, others are funded by large collaborative grants, or by their own fellowships, and yet others are funded by small industry grants their advisor got.
It's like if threads about being a software developer had comments like "at tech companies, you only get rewarded for closing tickets."
That last sentence, do you mean internal employees are paid less than new hires due to rising starting salaries? Or that new hires are paid little compared to long time employees?
Absolutely, the point of listing a university is to show status and expertise. No one is going to listen to a bunch of people whose main accomplishment is getting accepted into Cornell and San Diego State. The prestige of those institutions come from the professors, doctors, scientists, researchers, who are pushing the state of the art, not the students doing homework.
Wow, basically this Ian guy asked thousands of musicians to be their publisher through his wife's secret llc in exchange for massive promotion, acting like it was a small project with a lot of corporate interest. He and his wife took almost all the money those musicians made, and did no promotion.
This is honestly one of the first time I'm convinced in a technical sense to consider Firefox over Chrome. uBlock Origin feels as core to me to web browsing as Saved Passwords and Incognito Mode. That uBlock Origin can work better is like the browser itself being better.
I think it's not a useful exercise to come up with a better phrasing of the advice, as that's not really the point here. When you're in the moment reacting to peoples' questions and giving advice on the spot, you don't have time to wordcraft your speech like this. You'd still mess up once in a while.
Look at how often people tweak, clarify, and edit their comments even here on hacker news. So you'll probably just end up with "stifled" advice (using the terminology from the article), as you can see with all these suggestions in this thread.
If the situation was reversed, where poorer employees were living with their parents, people would be upset with the inequality too. Even more so if the ones who were not living with their parents got stabilized rent after 5 years, or bought property and saw their equity rise in value.
Ah fair enough. It's been a little while. I'm surprised the Office buildings (16-18) turned hybrid, since weren't the buildings themselves architected to basically only have window offices? It was shaped like a snake to optimize for that.
Don't nearly all Microsoft employees have offices? Every building I've been to (I can probably name off about 30 of them) had employees with offices. Can you name the buildings where employees don't have offices?
Exactly, the main complaint with using the wrong cable is the charging is only at regular usb speeds, or the data transfers at usb 2.0 rates. That's way better than nothing, and usually doesn't matter too much.
Just to clarify, are you talking about a usb-c to usb-a cable, or a usb-c to usb-c cable? I think the usb-c to usb-a cables are just temporary while we get to usb-c everything, and so are not implemented that well. With usb-c to usb-c cables, I've never had a problem with power or charging.
This article misses the biggest issue with usb-c cables, which a lot of people don't even realize. A lot of cheaper devices can only be charged with a usb-c to usb-a cable, and not a regular usb-c to usb-c cable (C2C). Basically, they don't support C2C but people don't test or check this until they travel and realize the cable they brought doesn't work on these devices.
The cause is that the devices themselves are incorrectly implemented. This ranges from toothbrushes, to flashlights (where 99% of usb-c flashlights can't do C2C), to shavers, and small electronics/appliances. The problem is there isn't a standard way to know about this (or a name for this problem), so it's hard to tell what supports it or not. Generally, devices made by well known brands support C2C, but not cheaper Chinese-made devices, but there are exceptions in both cases.
That's strange, I've never encountered a usb-c cable that did not support data at all. My understanding (and the article suggests) that charging and data are fine in general, but just not as fast as the device can support. Basically they will charge or transfer data at regular usb or micro-usb speeds.
That's the current system. The rich people pay the MRSP (about 70K/year), and the poor pays half as much on average due to various scholarships / grants / aid.
Your way is just that in terms of outcome, except it's more antagonizing to the rich.
Just to be clear, do you believe that affirmative action is only or mostly used in situations where a hiring/admissions committee has determined that a set of candidates are equal? Applicants having varying backgrounds, experiences, skills, academic records are applying to a competitive position, and in the end the committee agrees that "yes, this set of candidates is truly most equal so now we will do the tie-breaker based on race"?
Once I started thinking of vision insurance as more like a bad coupon, where you get some small amount off if you buy a certain overpriced brand, it lost its appeal.
I'm completely confused. Why would those three people, who have supervoting rights, vote to take away their own supervoting rights and side with Benchmark the people who tried to remove Travis in the first place? It seems like the sender and recipients of the letter are on the same side.
That's funny, because I was just thinking how Academia.edu has become a joke site, while everyone in my field uses Google Scholar daily. It's almost impossible to find references, put together a bib list, or navigate through related work without Google Scholar.
Academia is less so than the others. The main thresholds of ability is determined by publications and grants. Both of those are peer-reviewed in a fair way (either blind reviewed, or where the conflict of interests have to leave the room). You can be amazingly successful being a no name who publishes and gets funding.
Do you have evidence of this? I'm just curious because I see all sorts of university events open to the public. Both in public and private universities. There's musical performances, special events (like physics students hosting solar eclipse day and providing hundreds of glasses to the public), theater performances, sporting events (for a low cost), donations to local charities and events, etc.
This is actually untrue. People just think that because they don't understand how the overhead % works. 100% overhead would mean the university taking 50%. But all overheads are <= 65%, so no university takes more than half. It's about 1/3 in the top tier universities.
Appreciate you trying to share some insight. But from the hype, I was expecting some kind of world changing revelation. But basically you're just explaining the basics of bayesian statistics?
A lot of people already know this stuff. It's part of an intro course in probability/stats that you'd take while doing a CS degree, or a course about experiments for other science degrees.
You mean after being educated at research universities for years, learning from the academic literature and textbooks, and meeting collaborators in classes? Like Google, right? Or Facebook? Or do you mean Wall Street? Or Boeing?
Or did some self-taught teenager "generate knowledge" in his spare time from scratch?