If you're moving to the U.S. to grow your young, early-stage startup for the next 5+ years, wouldn't it be easier if you moved your banking to a Silicon Valley / equivalent bank, who tends to be more startup-friendly and gives easier filing rules?
That's unless if you have more than 5 years of a banking relationship, but then you wouldn't qualify for this rule anyway.
That's true for simple saving and checking, but not true for just about anything else. Most importantly, retirement/pension accounts, which get preferential treatment (in the US they are IRAs and 401k) in one country but not another -- and the US PFIC rules make them much worse than "just" not getting the tax benefits.
Don't you think you're making too much assumption here? If a large firm lobbied to create an "artificial ... wall," they would write a pre-defined amount, such as "firms who have $100MM AUM," rather than making it vague.
"Successful investments" can be validated with a reasonable argument, so it actually opens door for younger VCs.
Or maybe by making it vague they will get even more protection, especially if they have ins with the regulators who will interpret it. Seems more likely for established players than for upstarts.
As many people mentioned below, including etf-to-mark, this really feels like a PR piece for HackerRank, which is a cough YC Company.
As a former Wall Street tech person, I know that JP's story here is overly exaggerated (they're really rigid and still require 3.0 GPA from schools for the two-year tech program they mentioned).
In addition, there are many other companies like HackerRank, and the article fails to mention any of the complaints large corporations and candidates have expressed so far (like you see in the comment section).
Or it usually relies on an inflated (and slightly cultish) sense of self importance to have a job candidate do a "dog and pony show" for a job opening.
The recent deregulation worldwide has sparked a huge increase in the # of low-cost airlines, resulting in a spreading out of passenger load across airlines. Therefore, there aren't as many passengers to carry per airline as before, and A380s and even B747s are no longer needed. In fact, all of the U.S. airlines (Delta, United, American, and smaller ones) are either phasing out or parked all of their jumbos.
Side effect:
Because of the # of increase, air traffic has worsened (e.g. delays at airports) and pollution has increased very rapidly.
> In fact, all of the U.S. airlines (Delta, United, American, and smaller ones) either sold or parked all of their jumbos.
This is not true quite yet, although it will be true in a couple years. United and Delta still operate a handful of 747s on their densest routes, but they're in the process of being phased out. Here are a couple flights:
Citation? Lots of comments in this thread seem to imply the opposite. Two engine planes more efficient than four engine. Fewer empty seats. More direct paths between cities; less routing through hubs.
I fly in the US transcontinental fairly regularly and have never been on a wide-body aircraft for it. The largest plane I've been on was the longer version of the 757. Usually it's more like a 737 or A320 variant.
I find it rather odd because for my most common flight leg (LAX<->IAD) There are a minimum of 7 flights per day on United. I would have thought they would save money by combining some of those.
Actually, it's the opposite, and there's more than the lazy "Government planning fails yet another time."
I'm not sure whether you know much about the commercial airlines industry, but recent deregulation has sparked a huge increase in the # of low-cost airlines, resulting in a spreading out of passenger load across airlines. Therefore, there aren't as many passengers to carry per airline as before, and A380s and B747s are no longer needed. In fact, all U.S. airlines (Delta, United, American, and smaller ones) either sold or parked all of their jumbos.
Downside: Because of the # of increase, air traffic has worsened (e.g. delays at airports) and pollution has increased very rapidly.
Unfortunately that's incorrect. VW is the only automobile manufacturer which deliberately (and delicately) cheated the diesel emissions test. For example, BMW's diesel engines emit lower emissions than what they specify (which is awesome!).
If not now, I'd expect we can state it with certainty after a few months. Every car model on the market will probably be getting a test similar to the one that caught VW shortly.
We don't have the whole conversation. How do we know that the author didn't selectively show us his conversation with Google? Let's not jump to a conclusion.
The author did selectively show us his conversation with Google. The author mentions this:
> Here’s a subset of our conversation with Google Support:
(emphasis mine) My reading of it was that the author appears to further denote where the conversation is snipped with ellipses:
> Google Support: Unfortunately I don’t have control over that right now but I can look into it for you
> ….
> Google Support: I looked through this, and it seemed that one of the issues was a lack of an End User Agreement (EULA)
Regardless, the blog author is trying to make a point. Removing irrelevant content is something the author should do (in my opinion), to keep the post to the point. Besides,
> How do we know that the author didn't selectively show us his conversation with Google?
…we of course have no way to verify that this is the actual conversation that took place. We assume, on good faith, that it is.
The phrase "could care less" has a logic error. It makes more sense for someone to say, "I couldn't care less" when the person wants to express that he doesn't care.
Both "could care less" and "could not care less" work well in conveying the semantics "I care little".
One says, "although I care very little, there is some wiggle room to care even less". The other says, "I care so little, I couldn't care less than I do now".
Either way, I care little is the main message.
However, "couldn't care less" is more sensible, because what is the point of expressing that you care little, but still have room to care less? That sort of expression would only serve as a retort against an accusation that you do not care. ("A: You don't care at all! B: That is not true, I could care less.") B admits that he or she cares little, but objects to being characterized as entirely uncaring.
We should choose the expression based on its logical sensibility, rather than regional dialect.
I don't know about "could care less" conveying the semantics - I genuinely paused when I first read it to work out which meaning it had.
Let's saying "caring" goes 0 to 10. "Could care less" includes everything from 1 to 10, assuming integer granularity - it's very much the right hand side of the scale, anyway.
Only "couldn't care less" covers that 0 rating.
So - perhaps it's terrible in conveying semantics and only context/tone imply the disinterest being communicated?
Don't get me started on "could care less", my eyes sting when I read that. My other pet hate is "so fun", as in "that was so fun"...I blame those US kids channels for that one.
Fun also functions as an adjective. "That was a fun movie. It was fun. How fun? So fun."
I agree, there's definitely two conflicting usages here: and activity can be the noun "fun", in the same way that doing something can be can be "bliss" or "hell" or "a complete waste of everyone's time". And so while I can say "My drive in to work was hell", I can't say "My drive in to work was so hell" (because not an adjective). But if I can say "My drive in to work was enjoyable", and even "My drive in to work was so enjoyable", then what's wrong with saying "My drive in to work was so fun"?
I assume the issue is with the construct "so fun", not the word "fun". And in that construct, the word "so" is an intensifier. It emphasizes the nature of the next word. You'll hear it in constructs like "that was so cool", or "that was so awesome", or other such phrases that kids like to say when they're excited about something.
Good point. My comment left the impression that it was something only kids say, but it's absolutely not. "So" is a perfectly good adverb that's used elsewhere as well. It just happened that the immediate phrases that popped into my head were things kids were likely to say (probably because the grandparent comment referenced "kids channels").
I think it's because some people and style guides (e.g. Strunk & White) reject this use of "so" as being a generic, overly vague intensifier. Often these people suggest pairing it with a "that" clause, which allegedly makes it more acceptable.
So, instead of "so fun", some people would prefer that you write e.g. "so fun that I squealed with glee", or even just "it was incredibly fun".
At least that's the argument I've come across. To the extent I even think about such things, I couldn't really care less if people use "so" like this; the meaning seems perfectly clear.
Who cares if it has a "logical error", whatever that even means, if you understand. And I know you understand it.
Millions of people use this idiom completely intuitively, following their instincts of language that I, as someone who doesn't have English as their native language, can only be jealous of.
"I could care less" is either meant to be taken sarcastically, or it came to be because the "dn't c" consonant cluster is hard to pronounce, the same reason you don't pronounce the 'l' in could, the 'k' in knee, knight or knave, the 'p' in psychologist or pneumonia, or half the letters in Wednesday.
- Product planning: generating ideas; getting buy-ins
- Product execution: help engineers with developing the right things; testing products
- Product iteration: easier analytics tools; autogenerate insights