LiNeXT

> Because yes, it does sound pretty ridiculous that an LLC needs to maintain a $0 balance or else it will penalize the owners of said LLC. That doesn't sound right.

It's definitely not correct at all. Neither is issuing phantom invoices to yourself to put money into the account.

A bank account is just a vehicle to store business cash, it really has nothing directly to do with the way you should be maintaining your LLC's books. You should be recording things like that as "capital contributions" which increase your "capital account."

Similarly, profits and losses should be booked to your capital account. I would strongly recommend doing some reading on capital account bookkeeping.

> the worlwide [sic] terrorists

Who are you talking about?

> Freedom of speech is about legality

It can often be about legality but it is absolutely not limited to that.

> Just like now with police brutality in the US: so much violence from them that expressing/inciting hate toward them becomes acceptable in my book.

So it is you, personally, that is the arbiter of what is and isn't OK? Does your own repeated expression of intolerance for the fundamentals of free speech in this thread similarly allow me to mark "expressing/inciting hate" toward you as "acceptable" as well? Where does this kind of reasoning end?

Free speech issues aren't the exclusive domain of government.

This essay is filled with unsubstantiated suppositions.

> Only someone like Apple could have pulled it off and forced all of their customers to change the way they use their devices but now we are better off because if it.

They didn't force "all" of their customers to change. Some of us left their ecosystem entirely. My ThinkPad now suits me quite nicely using my devices the way I want to.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

These are enumerations, not distinctions. One person's right to protest is not of any more importance than another's right to associate freely at a motorcycle rally.

> How is that relevant?

The relevance is obvious.

> There is a fundamental difference in the urgency of attending a protest versus attending the Sturgis rally.

The constitution deliberately makes no such distinction.

> Handover, Continuity

I never got any of that stuff to work reliably before I moved off the Mac completely. It would sometimes work and often not work. Often enough that I wrote both of those features off as simple keynote gimmicks.

> Is this really all that bad? In the era of everything living in the cloud, it generally takes me only a couple hours to setup a system again from scratch.

In the 90s I used to laugh at my Windows friends who had to "reformat the C drive and re-install Windows" every month or so when it became unusable. Their excuses sounded much like yours: a lot of hand waving about how it's "not so bad" and not a big deal.

This is actually why I completely left the Apple ecosystem. I ditched the iPhone for a LineageOS device and, since I think the Mac will eventually end up fully locked down as well, decided to get ahead of that race and migrate to Linux.

Actually, Trump calling it "Chinese Virus" seems to track exactly with the CCP planting those silly stories about the virus being created by the U.S. military. Now that they seem to be toning that rhetoric down, he has also stopped calling it "Chinese Virus."

No.

What relevance does his personal opinion on homosexuality, expressed on his personal blog, have to his participation in an OSI mailing list about open source licensing?

His personal blog isn't relevant.

Are "in-house" listeners supposed to be an improvement?

Illegal entry doesn't suddenly become legal just because you file an asylum claim.

Hyperbole isn't a citation.

They didn't rationalize that because that's not what those cases were about. See my other reply to OP.

This is completely wrong. The court determined no such thing in either one of those cases. Both of these are cases in which the Ninth Circuit disagreed with findings made by the Board of Immigration Appeals in denying asylum relief and reversed said decisions. Insofar as passports/documents are referenced, it is in relation to testimonial credibility. Those decisions do not endorse or in any way legalize the use of false documents or the commission of illegal entry.

(Also, ninth circuit court holdings are only applicable in the ninth circuit.)

> I might be wrong about plenty; which is why I asked for some more information (which I’ll note you did not provide).

As to the original request for information, while not unreasonable at all, it would take some time to competently source and present. But I will note that to me it seems obvious that the rhetoric surrounding ICE really only started in earnest after Donald Trump took office. I never observed this level of frothing criticism of that agency under the Obama administration, even though Obama's ICE, by and large, operated exactly the same way.

Do you disagree with this assessment?

> Thus it is not accurate to say that “ICE doesn’t conduct border operations” - they themselves say they do.

OK, I'll bite. You originally stated: "...in that they are engaging in inhumane actions against people at the border. To me, from what I have read, it seems well-documented and supported with a lot of testimony, first-hand accounts, video, and images. Satellite photos, even."

What, exactly, are you referring to? What ICE operations have occurred at the border involving any of the above claims?

> I think what you’re trying to do is set up then knock down a straw man: I never said anything about patrolling borders, and I’m well aware that CBP is the agency literally patrolling the border.

No, I assumed that your reference to "satellite photos" at the border involving ICE is probably wrong considering the border itself isn't really their domain. Whatever the ERO directorate "upholding U.S. immigration law at" the border may mean, it probably doesn't involve any spectacular incidents captured on satellite photos or video. But maybe I'm wrong and you have a source to show me otherwise.

> You picked a specific interpretation of a broad statement in a blatant attempt to make me look dumb, which goes against what HN ostensibly stands for.

Not knowing the exact specificity of what government agency performs what functions in a particular area doesn't imply stupidity; so no, I wasn't attempting to make you look dumb. I was, however, attempting to get you to consider that you could be wrong. [Edit: reading my original comment again, I will concede it was a bit of a smug snipe. Clearly too smug, considering what you found on the ICE about page.]

> in that they are engaging in inhumane actions against people at the border

ICE doesn't conduct border operations, that's the domain of Border Patrol. Considering you don't even know this basic fact, what else might you be completely wrong about?

It doesn't really matter what context the letter was written in. It very clearly only takes issue with a particularized sentence fragment used in the museum's initial statement. Nowhere does the letter endorse or promote the idea that U.S. immigration detention facilities should be compared to "concentration camps."

You are claiming that this letter says something that it, quite literally, does not.

That letter says nothing of the sort.

> As I understand it, if the people being held at ICE are asylum seekers, then entry into the US is not illegal (even if they are not granted asylum).

This is not true.

> but if you do something that has a real effect on the world, some component of that effect is by nature political

No.

This is simply not true.