No, if you (as a contractor or employee) make more than $600 from the same person/business, you'd be obligated to report it, which would in turn make them obligated to report it, even if they didn't realize you had done more than a single contract for them. For this to work, you'd have to have independent shell corps make each chunk of work as well, which .. is probably also illegal.
What could work is a middle man (ala upwork), but then you'd have to accept the middle man knowing you.
> if you continue to allege fraud, some people will stop voting
Could you explain the thought with this? If the people saying "there is fraud" are Republicans, and the people believing "this is fraud" are Republicans, and subsequently they are less likely to vote, wouldn't that lead to them losing more elections, and by a larger margin?
You have commented this on a handful of subthreads, but I feel like you're missing the goal of the argument. If you want "instant recharge," gas wins. I understand that charging overnight will work in most cases, I understand you have a window of perhaps as much as two weeks to find a single night to do it, etc. Similarly, for the sake of argument, I could keep a gas pump in my garage to fill up at night, which would mean I had "0 minutes of downtime" as well.
In most cases having a battery will get you from A to B without issue - same on a tank of gas. When it won't, you will spend more time waiting on the battery to charge, which is a tradeoff that is probably still worthwhile for the vast majority of people.
Seems highly contextual. If I can charge at the grocery store - great. If I forgot to plug in last night and can't quite make the trip into work, 15-30 min is going to be a problem.
This and the sibling comments seem to prove the (grand)parent's point though; you can "charge fast" (apparently to 60-80%) in 15-30 min, which leaves you with a less-than-full-distance capacity in a longer time compared with an ICE which is "5 min and full capacity." That doesn't mean that electric cars aren't good, but it means they are slower (less distance, more down time) - this is good enough for most local traffic situations, though.
Sorry, I guess I should have expounded a bit more - I think the example was chosen because of both cultural relevance [0] and because it is something that is a "core" element - I didn't necessarily mean to comment on whether it was an accurate representation of the state of things.
I would tend to agree that one "industry's" quality and policy related failings are not a sign of wider economic failure, although I think another commenter had it right with "covid hangover." There's a lingering supply/demand mismatch in seemingly all consumer markets that seems in large part due to problems that were started or brought to a head during covid.
I believe the example was likely chosen due to the recent controversial bill in congress [0]. However, I think the choice of baby formula shows that some "core" needs in the economy are missing as well, and that the tech bubble struggling.
This is an interesting idea, but it feels like it would be just about impossible to enforce. It would would also mean violations of terms that were added to take care of bad actors later wouldn't apply to earlier offenders, which would leave the "reason for the rule" still able to engage with the platform in the same manner. It seems like a bit more than a headache, from what I can tell.
How much weight do you think it would realistically take to alter flight in a plane of this size? For instance, if both the pilot and passenger weighed e.g. 200lbs and sat toward the left of the plane, would that considerably (or perhaps even just perceptibly) impact flight? Same for some of the other variables, is there an appreciable different for things like magnetic variation? Wind, of course, seems reasonable - the others I've heard less about. I don't fly, and have never been in a small engine craft.
> code in my own biases to the program to make it work properly
Isn't this, in theory, what the "algorithms" are trying to do for you? They see what you interact with and try to optimize for "similar" content to surface these gems for you automatically, since it will keep you in their platform longer.
I can't speak to this particular practice, but as a kid, whenever we would go to the parades, people would organize grids in the street to bet where the horses would poop. And then inevitably try to convince the people on the horses to stop over their square and force their horse to go.
For you and other comments that mention "you can do it but it's not ideal," you're probably right. There is definitely a "happy path" and a lot of paths that lead to huge debts w/o upside. I do see some value in the experience for people of that age, I think it's a good transition / stepping stone for a lot of people into adulthood, but it would probably be good if we made a point of better explaining what debt is before people get into it.
I agree that there is a large value difference in an (engineering) degree compared to an (arts) degree. I'm not sure how many people with the latter come out ahead value wise. I also don't think I would argue any value for higher level degrees or multiple degrees in most cases. For what it's worth, my parents were mostly broke at that point - I'm the oldest of five and my dad is a carpenter, this was during the 2009-2012 timeframe. I also was (co-)raising a newborn.
Similar to the sibling, I graduated in 2012. I took some federal loans, and paid something like 4-5k per semester + books, I believe (University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee).
I'll offer one anecdote of counter-college hate. I went to a local state school, graduated in three years with winter and summer classes, commuted for the second and third, worked the whole time, and came out with a very small amount of debt (maybe 5-10k, been a while now and I don't remember). I made friends in college, I was able to get into a great job via an internship that I got from the school job fair, and got a great understanding of some of the fundamentals of computer science that I wouldn't have otherwise learned (though my practical learning was really done on the job). I also had a child my first year. I don't regret college, and it was certainly a worthwhile investment for me.
You and the sibling commenter are definitely correct, this construction method definitely appears to be preferable to just killing the road for a year. My qualm specifically is that the title doesn't really tell the full story (clickbait). I, at least, clicked it because I wondered how they could possibly have done all the prep and work in that sort of a window and the answer was they couldn't, but they still got my click.
I'm not sure what you mean about time on site, could you explain? They've been building this section of bridge "on site" by my understanding of the phrase, and have had the road way under the bridge diverted by construction for the past year. It appears to have been permanently redirected now. I assume during some of the work to the existing bridge, they've had traffic slowed, diverted, barreled, etc. Actual moving of old section out and new section into place in three days seems to pretend this was a speedy project with only minor disruption to local traffic, which doesn't seem quite right to me. I guess if the thought is just that that highway connected to the bridge is only (fully) closed for three days, that's certainly worth something over having it closed for the year it took to do the project.
It feels like this should be titled something more to the effect of, "watch a bridge section be constructed on site and then installed over the span of a year." Noting it as "replaced in three days" feels wildly inaccurate.
Funny timing on that, I just spent some time last week doing a very basic "sentiment analysis" (basically emoji analysis) on the iMessage db. I was a bit surprised by the database layout, but it's pretty easy to get into and could make for some more interesting analysis and visualization like this.
Cargo trains are usually quite long, slow to accelerate, and stop infrequently (comparatively, at least). Adding "two or three cars" would mean adding a very small amount of human capacity while forcing the cargo portion of the train to make many slow starts, and transporting people very slowly. While it is possible, it's a lose-lose for both cargo movers and potential passengers.
Hmm, I get what you're saying, but it sounds like an "attention tax" at that point, which seems like an unsustainable approach -- assuming voters even realized that these additional fines existed and were coming out of their taxes, the gist of this seems to be, if you want to stop people who aren't doing their job correctly, fine another group (citizens), who will then contact a third group (legislators) to do something about the first group. This same could be expanded to seemingly any part of the government moving to slowly, but at what point do citizens say "hey we're tired of paying for you all not doing your job, and why are we only finding out about it by being fined?"
Who would have the power to force them out? I guess potentially the elected officials perhaps, which I was mentioning with the appointments bit. It's something for sure, but it's a step removed from the people footing the bill being able to do something about it
The problem with "pay for delay" for government agencies is that it is passed on to the taxpayers. The FAA won't go out of business or face any "bailouts" as such, it will simply result in a higher cost to taxpayers.
ETA: Additionally, I don't believe any members of the FAA are elected, although possibly some are appointed by elected officials? Point being - taxpayers pay more, taxpayers get angry, taxpayers can't vote people causing them out of office for their inaction, FAA continues to do nothing
I think there's some history rewriting going on here, as a different version of the code (9.2.2) which apparently contained the malicious code was linked to from another GitHub issues, but that version no longer exists in the git history.
Don't see it in your post history, or any related profiles; care to mention or link to what you did, here or offthread? (I'm @shortstuffsushi everywhere) I also own a 2020 Ford and would be potentially interested in this.
The perhaps obvious additional downside of this is, with each iteration of "no really, trust us that you want our view," your setting is also cleared / changed / moved. Yet more friction to prevent you getting your desired view (which, to your point, will then not stick anyway).
You've mentioned it a couple times - their analytics may support that fewer users are using the chronological sort. I wonder if it's because they are frustrated and moving off to alternative viewing portals to get the feed experience they like.