I have an LG V20 with a 6700mAh battery. Goes for DAYS with moderate use, and will easily make it all day with extremely heavy use. I managed to kill it exactly once, with 4 hours of screen-on nav + steaming spotify, another 3 hours of youtube, and probably some misc usage. It's fantastic, and I keep wishing that somebody would release another phone with a user-replaceable (and upgradeable) battery so that I could move on. I actually bought this V20 after the V30 and S9 were out specifically for the removable battery. sigh, I blame apple.
You're right to be shocked about the NYT calling for the breakup of facebook, but I think your a bit off on the 'why'. I say you're right to be shocked because Facebook is run by a person who some on the left were previously calling to make a presidential run, who was previously a shining beacon to the world's left-dominated media (including the NYT) ... so yeah, it's kind of shocking to see how quickly they've turned on Zuckerberg and Facebook.
The real story of 'why' the about face has to do with Cambridge Analytica, though. Many in the media still feel that the election 'should' have gone the other way (regardless of how people actually voted), and now they blame FB/Zuck. The irony is that in 2008 Obama's team did all of the same things that Trump's did. The media was OK with it then (in fact, celebrated it) because it was for their side.
I actually like chain restaurants and hicks (dead serious - I have a tractor, 11 acres, horses, a goat, some cats, and a couple of guns to keep it all safe), so that'd be a selling point for me. I live in Grand Rapids, MI, and I'm afraid that our chain restaurant and redneck culture is being destroyed by an influx of people over the past few years. Hope the same doesn't happen to Charlotte. Downside is that here in GR tech jobs are kind of scarce, which is true of a lot of places that still have somewhat rural communities within commuting distance.
EDIT - 'To keep it all safe' ... really means safe from wild animals. If you keep a hobby farm, you know where I'm coming from :).
Thank you.. I use this feature in exactly the same way. As I read,I was sitting there thinking "I can't possibly be the only one who knows about,uses,and likes this feature". Disabling it at this point would seriously screw up my life. It also prevents people from registering all of those close variations of my gmail address, which I also like.
What's more, I suspect that if this exact same thing had been done by a company working for Obama's or Hillary's campaigns, nobody would have batted an eyelash.
PS - the reason that the regs wont happen during the trump years has nothing to do with the collusion investigation. He's put a mandate in place that for every reg to go into the federal register, two have to come out. His administration is in general very anti-regulation. Therefore, yes, absolutely no way he would ever regulate it ... but not for the reason you hypothesized.
That may be true, but the government still lies about what people will be able to take out, just like Madoff. Social security has a massive unfunded liability. This means that one of three things happen:
* Benefits amounts are reduced for everyone (In my view, this is probably the fairest option)
* Retirement age is increased for everyone (I personally hate this option, but think that it's the most likely)
* Benefits become even more means tested than they already are (and they are, even though people claim they're not -- high income people get far less per dollar in than low income people) (In my view, this is probably the least fair option)
If you're under 50ish and you're counting on Social Security, I think you're making a judgement error. Especially if you're in the upper income quintile. Everyone that's in the top 20-25% needs to be putting the maximum allowed amount into their 401(k) every. single. year. If you can't save around 18% of household income in a 401(k) or 403(b) due to the limits, save after tax (unless, of course, you plan on working until almost age 70).
Personally, because I put a lot into my 401(k) I'll be much better off in retirement than I am now if I actually get Social Security and the pension that I've been promised by my megacorp, but since I'm 36 and all of the boomers are working on retiring, I'm pretty sure that both will be bankrupt.
Read to the end. They're suing people who took their money out, reclaiming it into the bankruptcy trust, and disbursing it (even though these people didn't break any laws). The fund didn't actually have all of the money that they're confiscating for disbursement.
This is what scares me about the current attitude (nationally) towards gun control. The right to bear arms is a basic civil right, unambiguously encoded in the Bill of Rights alongside speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc. Throughout history, taking away weapons has always been an early step down the slippery slope to totalitarianism and stripping the populous of their other rights. Just because it's unlikely to happen here -- that we think it can't happen here -- doesn't mean it will not. That's what everyone in all of history has thought, but in fact by the time anyone realizes what's happening, it's usually too late.
"All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." -- Mao Zedong
I'm absolutely gobsmacked that people are starting from the position that hate speech should be censored at all. The determination of what constitutes 'hate speech' is made by whoever happens to be in power at the time. Winston Churchill would have given a much different answer than Adolf Hitler. From my point of view, it's chilling that the mechanism to do this has been built in the first place.
I don't trust the government to do much of anything, and that includes invest money. Their stewardship of the social security trust fund has proven that I'm right (it's essentially full of IOU's). Anybody who believes that giving the government a few thousand dollars is better for their retirement than putting the same cash in a 401k hasn't taken a hard look at the government's performance to date.
TL;DL: I don't think that argument would fly with informed voters.
I already plan not to receive Social Security or Medicare. If I do, I will have far more money in my retirement years than in my working years - we save at a pretty crippling rate of ~20% into Roths right now. But since I'm 35 and my wife is 30, it's likely that we'll get nothing (or very little).
I know this post is a few days old, but having that cash invested in treasuries, bonds, CDs, etc. is as close to a warehouse as it can possibly get. I strongly suspect that a good chunk of it will be spent on capital investments once it's repatriated.
Also you seem to be under the incorrect assumption that capital will just sit in a warehouse as bricks of $100 bills collecting dust. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, one of a few things will happen:
1) Apple will spend it on capital investments (factories, campuses, data centers, etc.) in its business. Doesn't benefit the government, but benefits the country.
2) Apple will spend it on R&D / employees. Doesn't benefit the government directly, but benefits the country.
3) Apple will dump it into an American bank. That bank has a reserve ratio that is relatively low. It will lend several times the amount that Apple deposits to people or corporations who will do 1) or 2)
4) Apple will spend it on buybacks and dividends, which ultimately ends up in the hands of Apple's owners (you and me through our 401(k)'s, and probably a bunch of rich people as well), who will do 1), 2), or 3)
So, whether or not the government gets a cut, it benefits everyone who actually lives here.
My father, who is quite wise and right about many things, is very fond of stating that corporation's don't pay taxes - they just pass them on to other people. He owned a local redi-mix company until he retired, and they routinely adjusted wages and prices in response to local, state, and federal tax changes. It's a fact of life that the money corporations pay comes from somewhere, whether it's on the 'in' side or the 'out' side of the balance sheet.
I find it odd that you start from a position that assumes that the federal government has a right to Apple's money. It was basically an attitude like that on the part of the British that led to the American revolution in the first place. If you want a health economy with strong labor demand and robust wage growth, we need to start from the opposite position - the federal government must avoid taxation for all but the most essential services and cut out everything else. If individual states wish to have more services, let them tax and spend for their local populations. At least that way if businesses and people don't like it, they can leave without leaving the country.
Also unique because a simple repatriation holiday is a far cry from restructuring our corporate tax code to make us competitive with the rest of the world from a tax perspective.
They timing seems awfully strange for that explanation to work. Remember, corporations do what makes the best sense financially. Even though they could do this before, they didn't, because it didn't make sense.
Speak for yourself. I'm not at the high end of the income curve - not in the 1%, not even in the 10%, and I'm getting almost a $4k tax cut next year. I ran the numbers for my friends who are probably in the bottom half of the income curve (they make just over 40k between the two of them), and they're getting about a $1200 reduction. They were pretty shocked, since they'd been told over and over that it's not really a cut for lower income people. I think the truth is that the cut is smaller in high tax states, and much larger across the board in lower tax states.
Also, it's not double taxation. The SALT money is taxed in the states and spent in the states. Why should those states that choose to have large internal governments get a discount on their federal contribution percentages? They receive the same services and benefits...
Not really. In a competitive market, ISPs couldn't pull the kind of anti-consumer shenanigans that NN is meant to prevent, but wouldn't be hamstrung from reducing costs by forced compliance to regulations. The closest analogy that I can think of was Ma Bell, followed by the breakup of ma bell, followed by open access to long distance lines. The best and cheapest long distance service came after the regulations were lifted and true competition was established.
The problem isn't net neutrality, it's lack of competition among ISPs. Normally, I would agree with them - regulating the internet is not the way to spur innovation. But with an ISP monopoly or duopoly in most markets, either more competition (my preferred solution) or regulation is needed. As we've seen with phone service (if you're old enough to remember), regulation will give us reliable but expensive service, and competition will give us cheap, reliable, and feature-filled service.
As somebody who has bad knees, 11 acres, horses, a goat, a dog, and some cats, I really do love car culture. It might be unpopular to say it, but I personally think big wide streets with lots of parking that make point-to-point personal transport possible are simply awesome. I lived downtown in my area for a while - yes, I could walk to a lot of places and I didn't drive my car as much, but I also absolutely hated it. My next move was to skip right past the suburbs and into the fringe of farmland, and I now commute ~17 minutes and ~16 miles to work every day (80% 80mph freeway), and I love it. I get to have my tractor and my software engineering job. God Bless 'Murica :-D.
If I line up a random group of 100 people at the average company, I can almost guarantee you that there is at least one who isn't doing his part. As someone who has worked with some of these people (and seen them laid off in rounds of performance-based cuts), I can tell you that some people deserve to be sent to unemployment. Yep, some good people will get hit too, but from my experience a good middle management layer can identify the low performers with a great deal of accuracy.
There's a fundamental problem - the medical industry has made all kinds of decisions based on the assumption of high cost - doctors take on $300,000+ student debt, hospitals have built huge new facilities, and pharma has poured billions into R&D on the assumption of high cost. Rolling it back now will be difficult and will surely screw over some group of people, whether it's the elderly, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, or hospital owners (which, due to 401(k)s, is you and me).
Agreed. Many large firms do self-insure at this point, relying on the 'insurance' companies for administration. In fact, my employer does this. However, it's not a popular thing to recognize the actual value that insurance companies and the folks who work for them contribute these days (and no, I don't work for an insurance company).
> Also, government run healthcare is bad because they are going to shoot people (or threaten to) and put them in jail for not paying their medical bills? Come on.. are you serious?
Really their taxes, but yes, dead serious. If you have a decent income, stop paying taxes for a while and see what happens. They'll eventually send the cops to arrest you. Vigorously resist arrest, and you'll end up dead or injured.
> You really do sound like you work for the insurance industry, claiming their functions are necessary (even though every other country manages without them).
That argument can be made for every industry, not just healthcare. If you want to live someplace like that, the best examples in the modern world (since the USSR collapsed) are cuba and venezuela. If you haven't already, I strongly encourage you to research these countries, and I think that you'll find that the downside is much greater than the upside. Corporations are not evil and do perform a valuable function in society -- this coming from someone who works for a corporation that's been having mass layoffs for the better part of a year. The world is a brutal, competitive place. Sticking your head in the sand to ignore it doesn't make it go away, it just makes your entire country poor.
> You sound like someone who's got it made (so screw everyone else right?), and doesn't give 2 shits about anyone but themselves.
Not rich, but solidly middle class. I worked hard for everything that I have, and no, I don't believe people are entitled to confiscate my things just because they've been less fortunate. I believe that people who have been blessed like this should help people who are less fortunate (and I do - through private charities), but I don't believe that the government is the solution to this. If you do believe the government is the solution, I encourage you to voluntarily pay additional taxes, you are allowed to do this but very few people actually do.
I disagree with him, but agree with you, healthcare is not a right. As you stated, the natural rights enumerated by our constitution make no demands on others - in fact, they are the opposite - they guarantee protection from coercion by others. Anyone who believes in healthcare as an entitlement believe, effectively, that they are entitled to demand that others serve them without compensation. While there are cases where this is necessary at the federal level, healthcare is not one of them, and it's why it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Generally things like healthcare are better handled at the state level (and indeed, states were beginning to try before the feds stepped in). Handling these issues at a federal level enables people in the midwest to force people on the coasts to do things they'd rather not do, and vice-versa. Eventually, this leads to the kind of strife we've been seeing lately in the form of protests regarding healthcare.
The insurance company's methods of establishing the pool are far less coercive and destructive than the state's. Additionally, people can opt not to participate with an insurance company (or at least they used to be able to), so they have some motivation to be efficient and provide a basically decent level of service ... this is not true of the state. So establishing that large, mandatory pool has a downside.