The German language demands a more precise and sober style, whereas English tolerates more sloppy expressions. One common technique to work around that is to just use English terms when there is no catchy German one. In German marketing, this is done all the time. So in your case, you are fine sticking to speed bump.
Btw: my favorite word for speed bump is the Dutch "drempel". It is quite onomatopoetic. My favorite term for speed bumps in German comes from Comedian Helge Schneider. He calls them "Teerwülste" (tar bulges). I don't think you find it being used, but it fits the German style very well as it is precise and sober.
It is the bane of my existence that in German you cannot just put things in places. The word you would use for "put" depends on the physical relation of the objects involved.
Is it lying down ultimately? Hanging on? Standing upright?
And things don't sit on other things unless they literally have a chair.
Maybe it's not my children but the constant dealing with the German language that perpetually makes me feel exhausted.
No, the fundamental issue with carbon credits is its economics. It would be much healthier to set a fixed price for carbon emissions. This price should be based on the externalities caused by the emissions. In the worst case, the price is the cost of extracting the CO2 from the atmosphere again. Such a fixed price, a carbon tax, would help the industry because it would make production costs more predictable, and it would be much more fair than carbon credits assigned to those firms that hire the best lobbyists. When fixing the emission quantity instead of its price, the price of carbon credits tend to either go to 0 (if there are too many) or infinity (if there are not enough) at the end of a credit period, which is total nonsense. However, for politicians, carbon credits are much more attractive because being able to distribute them gives them power.
In Australia we had (for a brief moment) a carbon tax. It was mercilessly vilified by the Murdoch press who aided and abetted one of the darkest periods of Australian political life in decades, and resulted in the downfall of a government.
"The ill-fated Australian carbon tax lasted just two years. ... Emissions dropped almost immediately after it was introduced as businesses moved to technologies that emitted less. That price signal had an impact. When it was dumped in 2014, carbon emissions began to rise again almost immediately."
> price is the cost of extracting the CO2 from the atmosphere again
It's actually interesting not only because it encourages people not to emit carbon, it also encourage research for CO2 scrubber. If the price is attached to the current cheapest mass CO2 extractor then those people will be incentivized to have it even cheaper.
Like another comment said this would only serve to limit demand and incentivize a more rapid shift to get off of oil's teet. The industry probably would fight hard against this and win.
More and more countries are implementing an "exit tax" when wealthy people try to give up their citizenship. Also, the US authorities make it increasingly hard to do so. I wouldn't recommend anyone to become a US citizen. Once you are in, it is very costly to get out again.
Even Germany which is an EU member has an exit tax when moving to another EU country. This is theoretically against the EU's principle of free movement of capital. According to EU law, any restrictions on the movement of capital or payments—either within the EU or between EU and non-EU countries—are generally prohibited. However, somehow Germany gets away with it.
It's not only Germany but also Austria and France (until 2004?). The Germany Wegzugsbesteuerung is meant to prevent cases where Germans leave the country for more than seven (or twelve upon request) years, e.g. to Switzerland, sell their Germany company stock and profit from paying a much lower tax or none like in Switzerland. Steuerflucht, tax evasion is prevented with this and there are certainly many who'd other move abroad, sell without taxation and move back again. There a plenty of exceptions though with countries Germany has a Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen (double taxation treaty) with to prevent cases where the individual would have to pay taxes in both countries.
Personally I never heard of this tax before, despite being a German living in Austria, but then: The tax targets wealthy individuals with company holdings trying to evade taxation.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegzugsbesteuerung
It is a bit different though, because the German exit tax applies to companies and people holding more than a 1% share in a company. So no exit tax if you hold bitcoins as part of your private assets...
Agreed that there is some tension with EU principles, but it is difficult to get it right. Building a company in country A for 20 years, then moving to country B for 184 days to sell it completely without paying taxes also does not seem like a fair system.
This applied to a friend of mine who held copyright on music. Apparently this is non transferable in Germany and it was worth quite a lot. He had to pay a significant amount to move to another EU country.
Social services in the US include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. (Note the capital letters. Those are the names of the agencies.) And yes, they all cover citizens living in and outside the United States.
The US government makes employers (corporations) pay a large amount of money into the private health insurance system (Required by law per employee. That sounds socialized, doesn't it?). They do that to reduce the tax burden on the poor, and to maintain healthy competition in the insurance market, for better or for worse.
In my opinion, that means doctors make more money because insurance companies put the burden of paying them on big corporations that can afford to do so.
Essentially, it means the poor get healthcare, the rich pay for it, and small business owners can expense it as a reduction in tax liability.
What do you suppose you'd do if you were an employer (a corporation) with global media reach who didn't want the government to force you to pay for your workers' health care?
Well, I think you'd invest a lot into propaganda teaching people that rich corporations shouldn't pay it, the government (aka poor taxpayers) should pay for it.
And that's why so many people are under the same impression that you have (or had).
This is not accurate. If you move out of the Netherlands as a Dutch citizen you definitely still have to file your IRS for at least a couple of years (until "computer says no"). Even with no assets or income from Netherlands.
Source: I did it.
And of course if you have assets in The Netherlands of any kind you'll have to keep filing IRS as long as you have anything going on there.
US is likely the only jurisdiction that can actually enforce it. Other countries can't just call US government to send them back if they suspect they owe some tax.
Some foreign banks simply don't _want_ to deal with American citizens, precisely because of the reporting requirements strong-armed in agreements with the US -- because they have to report those bank accounts back to the states every year (or quarter).
It's not like the US is funding that foreign work to be done on their behalf, either. So the reticence to even bother with creating bank accounts for American citizens makes sense.
Many billionaires who move to USA, UK, Canada and Australia are corrupt/oligarchs/tax Dodgers. They are ok even to loose 50% of their wealth to get protection
There are various valid use cases for companies without business. Examples include:
- International holding companies: if there is Coca Cola France and Coca Cola Germany that economically belong together, you might not be able to just merge them into one entity for legal reasons (both countries might require you to have a locally incorporated presence). So to ensure that both always have the same owners, you create an international holding company that owns both of them.
- Investment funds: investment funds (especially passive ones) are companies whose only business is to own shares in other companies. There is no "real" operating business.
- Feeder funds: sometimes, the law requires foreign investment funds to create a local shell company to be allowed to accept investments from local retail investors. In this case, the only purpose of the shell company is to fulfill local regulatory requirements with regards to the legal form if the investment vehicle and to provide investors with someone local that they can hold liable in case things go wrong. There is no real business in such companies.
In fact, it is often regulation that requires you to create shell companies. If you want to get rid of shell companies, you should start by removing regulation that requires the creation of shell companies with no real business except to satisfy the regulators.
Technically, the state does not have the monopoly on money. The majority of the money supply is created by commercial banks through credit. But the commercial banks are so strictly regulated through capital requirements that the de facto decision about what purposes the banks are allowed to print money for is under centralized control. The ECB even thinks about using capital requirement rules to nudge banks towards green investments, which would be a departure from their mandate of monetary stability.
> I disagree -- this is the correct thing to do if you believe it is not possible for the checked exception to occur.
If it is not possible to occur, then it should not be part of the API.
The only time I rethrow a checked exception as an unchecked exception is when the code is still under construction. The default of the eclipse code generator is to log and ignore caught transaction. I think wrapping into an unchecked one is the better default behavior for incomplete code under a "fail fast" policy.
> If it is not possible to occur, then it should not be part of the API.
Ah, but what if it can occur, just never with what you pass in? Suppose a function is documented to throw some checked exception if some parameter is a negative number, but you pass in a positive literal/constant? In such a situation, the checked exception will never occur! With Rust, for example, this is easily done with an `unwrap()` (and, possibly, a comment) to assert said belief, but with checked exceptions, there's no way to force the compiler to squash the required check.
Example: validation of serialized data followed by deserialization. Deserialization properly should throw a checked exception, since invalid serialized data is very much a thing. But in this case the serialized data is known to be correct (because it passed validation). The checked exception will never occur, and were it to, there's nothing we could do about it, because it reflects a logic error, same as out of bounds array access.
The algebraic data type equivalent of this shows up all the time in functional code -- unwrapping a result type you know can't be Error/None/etc. because of logic. You don't rewrap it and force the caller to deal with a case which logically cannot occur; instead you throw an unchecked exception.
Depends on your position and motivation. I myself am always reachable and read my emails day and night. I enjoy being involved with my company just as others enjoy checking their personal emails every hour.
And you're probably subconsciously aware that it's a dopamine trap[1]. Probably the greatest fallacy of our time is that just because you enjoy something equates with it's good for you (or "if it feels good do it").
I super enjoy a taco bell run at 11PM even after I've hit my TDEE. Notice how that sentence is almost identical in structure, underlying point, and absurdity, to the sentence "I enjoy checking my email at 11PM even after I've logged 8 hours that day".
You are welcome to do as you please. As a collective, we need to acknowledge the burnout epidemic. People need to have the honest freedom to be offline, without any social or business pressure. There's more to life than emails and a corporation that is free to fire you at any point.
Personally, I wouldn't even go that far. Some choosing to give up their personal life in exchange for always-on work life push the needle into normalization for the rest of us that DON'T choose that.
Kind of like how social mores and corporate policies against supervisors having romantic relationships with their underlings protect not only employees who do not want to be pressured to date their managers, but also the colleagues of an employee who otherwise would try to get an edge by sleeping with the boss.
Not necessarily, but I think the crux of your question w/r/t my statement is the distinction between "workaholic" type behavior and "working harder".
Would I suggest that a company shouldn't ALLOW it's FT/exempt employees to work over, say, 45hrs/week? Hell yes! Mandated work-life balance sounds great.
Not to mention that, this can translate into neglect of one's duties, such as one's duties toward family, duties that, broadly, have higher priority than the wants or even needs of an employer.
So why do even the official website of the European commission and the European parliament have a cookie consent button? One would assume that they are not "capitalist services".
Unfortunately big tech surveillance capitalists (which is different than "capitalist services", mind you) are court suppliers of IT services that EU institutions depend upon.
Edit: And as the sibling said, in many cases it may be restricted to analytics and simple 'reject' suffices, which is at least better than some of the intricate dialog designs.
I mean, you could literally read what their banner says. E.g. Eu Paarliament
"We use analytics cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. You have the choice to refuse or accept them. Reject. Accept".
Those analytic cookies are not required for the functioning of the website, and those web sites are required to ask for your consent to gather any additional data.
Btw: my favorite word for speed bump is the Dutch "drempel". It is quite onomatopoetic. My favorite term for speed bumps in German comes from Comedian Helge Schneider. He calls them "Teerwülste" (tar bulges). I don't think you find it being used, but it fits the German style very well as it is precise and sober.