They aren't really, they are just upgrading it to a full set top box and rebranding it.
They aren't really, they are just upgrading it to a full set top box and rebranding it.
Android? Google Photo? Google Pixel? Google Pay? Google Apps? Chrome? Chromebook? Google Drive? Chromecast? Android Auto?
They launched a ton of successful stuff since Maps came out in 2005
No it doesn't. Cheap solar is great but even if it was $0, you'd still need some other tech to provide electricity when the sun is down. So it's either gas, batteries, nuclear, etc. but you can't just use solar alone.
And until batteries get good enough, nuclear is the cleanest option we have.
And then YouTube Premium is just not a good deal in my eyes, £12.99 a month is an awful lot to pay just to not see Ads.
I think this includes YouTube music (at least in my market it does) which makes it fairly good value for money if you already subscribe to a music streaming app.
Intel has also made a similar blunder by trying GPUs and abandoning them (they got there early with the i740, then Larrabee). Saving a few dollars by gutting emerging products line has cost them billions
I think so, but with ads just like the free tier of Spotify.
Nah they are "illegal migrants". There are places you can go and some you can't and that applies to everyone. There's a wide gap between "compassion" and "free for all anything goes".
In my experience laser Brothers are still less fussy and way more reliable and durable than competing brands.
That was only on earned income and with a starting point so high that at some point only one person ever reached it.
The issue with housing is that the supply is limited. If you increase demand and not supply you just increase prices. Giving buyers $25k extra to spend means every home owner is now gonna jack up their selling price by $25k. This is, in the end, a subsidy for existing home-owners. Who already are doing pretty well, thank you very much.
Denying the existence of supply and demand always lead to policy failure. The way to address housing cost is to lower the cost of housing, not make housing more expensive by helping people outbid each others.
I personally love it. Being able to search "Tom at the beach drinking a cocktail" and get all the relevant pictures is magic.
Given the millions of people whose retirement fund is invested in the stock market, yes it will.
But all "successes" are gonna be years old. You don't turn something like Chromebook into an overnight success. It takes years for an ecosystem to grow, users to find use cases, software revisions to polish the product, word of mouth, etc.
For comparison the Apple watch came out in 2015 and Airpods in 2016. What other successes has Apple had in the past 7 years? Maybe their AR thing will take off, but if it does it's probably 5-10 years from becoming a mass market product.
This actually makes houses more expensive, because now buyers have more money to outbid each other.
That is really playing with words... Android (the OS people run on their phone) was originally developed by a company bought by Google, which then funded it, made the overwhelming number of contributions to it for 19 years, does the marketing, certification plus all the non-open source elements that make the experience what 99.99% of users get everyday when they use their phone.
And only the US actually collects on it, because they are so at the heart of the financial world they can strongarm banks to report on their US clients.
It's not. If you accept that :
Then you accept that between those two extremes there's a tax optimum that for a given rate gives the most tax revenue. This is the Laffer curve.
If your wealth is from owning a portfolio of apartment buildings, good luck taking those with you.
Sell it to a holding company incorporated abroad. Own shares of that holding company instead.
“Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue” is already a stupid statement, and is Tautologically contradictory
It's not. If you work 40h per week and can do overtime but that overtime is taxed at 100% (because yes, that's what marginal rate means, it's the rate the extra income will be taxed), virtually nobody will bother doing that overtime. The handful who do will probably not clock-in because anyway, there's no point since it will bring no income after taxation.
Time is running out on the climate, how many decades can we wait for the "perfect" solution to show up when we have a good enough one right now they can help?
Oh please explain to me how marginal rates work... 🙄
If your marginal tax rate is already 30% and you decide to earn an extra $1, that $1 will be taxed at 30% and you get $0.70 in your pocket. That's what "marginal" means.
Exit taxes are "one shot". You pay them when you move out and then enjoy a lower taxation level for the rest of your life. Not much of a deterrent, at best a last ditch attempt at grabbing a few more dollars as your highest tax payers leave.
They could. Someday.
Nuclear can, now.
Germany has tons of solar and winds and yet it is pretty common to have neither (windless nights) at which point the entire grid needs to be powered by non renewables. That's a lot of standby power.
How long will it take for us to get good enough batteries?
Including the time to manufacture and install them at utility scales (we are talking powering an entire nation out of batteries for hours), way more than a decade.
Batteries are already being installed on grids but they can only help so much smooth out power delivery. They are very very far from having the ability to completely take over an entire grid.
You can't because the French Constitution and Human Rights guarantee the right to private property and a fair and proportional taxation. And that's likely similar all over the western world.
The set-point theory is junk science propagated by the HAES movement. Human bodies can't escape the laws of physics, if you eat less energy than you expand you'll lose weight unless your body somehow evolved the ability for photosynthesis or nuclear power.
But worse for those looking for a rental.
Rent control is a bandaid on a real problem that makes things worse long term. What California needs is build more, which means end the NIMBY and unfreeze property taxes so those seating on underutilized land are forced to develop it or sell.
She actively plotted and traveled to get revenge and clearly didn't act in self defense. While it's easy to be sympathetic to her story, her guilt seems difficult to deny.