Sorry but I am a bit naive here but when Apple asks a company to manufacture a part , do they also enlist the steps in the machining process that goes in to manufacture that part
Or
Do they just give a finished sample to the factory and ask them to figure it out on how to manufacture this part.
If it is former, then is this Indian company skipping some steps in the manufacturing process?
I'm not sure how Apple does it, but when I was working in manufacturing we were not told what steps to use or given finished samples by the customer.
In general, there is a quote phase before the contract being awarded. In this phase, you're given a blueprint / shop drawing with tolerances, 3D model, and any other specifications that need to be satisfied (e.g., material type, surface finish). If anything is missing, you can submit a request to get the engineering team to update the documents. If you give someone a finished part, it misses so much of the information that's necessary to check the parts. There is a saying, "build to print" because the print contains the key info and is including in the contracts.
It's up to you to determine how to produce the widget. You put forth your quote based on your costs, the material costs you can get, and you factor in your production yield.
The article and the Financial Times article they are citing are light on details. It's not clear if this is an issue with production, inspection, or what exactly is going on.
Usually there are some ramp up issues with launching a new process or production line, so challenges are expected. But 50% rejection is huge. I assume the "casings" being referred to are the back housing / surface of the phone, which is highly cosmetic. If that's the case, the rejection could be for cosmetic issues. It could be related to not hitting the correct tolerances. There are lots of reasons, but the article doesn't really give these details. It's also not clear if every second part is being rejected or if the first half of the batch is rejected or if there are other patterns to the rejections. Could be issues with setup, operation, inspection, or material handling.
For starters, open a brokerage account at a broker that provides an API. There are many currently available including Ally, Tradier, Alpaca, Think or Swim, Interactive Brokers etc.
Although, I think Think or Swim is currently not providing new keys due to their merger with Schwab.
Once you got that part setup, try to write a simple program that buys or sells an equity from the command line .
From their own you can start exploring trading algorithms. Some are pretty basic, like when the price crosses above a 200 DMA, then buy a stock as that usually signifies an upward run, while selling if the price falls below the 200DMA as that is bearish.
Then you can read some books on price action, fundamental or technical analysis and build your own algos.
TLDR - by using tax loss harvesting . At the end of the year, sell your stocks which are down and then buy them back. Then you can use the losses to offset the gains. Although this is also available to masses .
Not in any meaningful sense. Only the ultra-wealthy can wipe out the lion's share of their tax bill through this loophole. From the article:
> Someone like Ballmer can easily deploy $100 million in losses to cancel out a $100 million gain from selling some of his vast Microsoft holdings. It’s a very different story when it comes to wages and other forms of income, of which only $3,000 can be offset. On average, only the top 0.001% of taxpayers made a majority of their income through investment gains in 2018, according to public IRS data.
If he's eating $100 million in losses in one investment and gaining $100 million in another, he's not any richer at the end of the year. I'm not sure what the outrage is.
But like you say you can only deduct $3000 of capital losses per year. Completely and entirely immaterial to a billionaire like Ballmer, but very valuable to someone in the middle class or lower.
The whole point of wash sales is that he's not eating $100M in losses. He's moving money between two nearly-identical stocks, which happens to look like a loss on paper at the moment that the deal occurs.
And for somebody to whom $3k is a significant amount of money, fucking around on the stock market to engineer a $3k on-paper loss is quite out of reach.
But the maximum benefit of a wash sale is only $3000 in deductions, which he is entitled to, but does not really effect his financial situation in any way.
IRS laws say you can deduct $3000 ordinary income (i.e. income earned by working, so doesn't include capital gains) per year and deduct without limit against capital gains. Should your capital losses exceed your capital gains that year, you can carryforward the rest of the capital losses without limit onto the next year 2023, 2024, etc.
The whole point of the article is that "tax loss harvesting" beneficial to Steve Ballmer and the other billionaires mentioned in the article, because they have $Bs in capital gains to begin with (Steve Ballmer had highly appreciated MSFT stock as mentioned in the article). An average Joe like you and me even if we have that much capital losses would find it difficult to find the capital gains to deduct against, so we're typically limited to only $3000 per year deducting against ordinary income (compare against no limit for capital gains), which is much less useful tax shield compared to someone like Steve Ballmer who gets most of his income from capital gains, and who therefore can use his massive cap losses to shield against taxation much more effectively. This is the part that makes "Although this is also available to masses" somewhat moot. Even though it's "technically" possible, the masses don't have the massive capital gains to actually deduct against, so they don't benefit from this to nearly the same magnitude as someone who draws most of their income from capital appreciation.
Therefore, one could argue that this section of the tax code is "unfair" in year 2023. The article makes the case that wash sale rule was effective in the 1920s, but that in the 100 years that have passed, technology has made evading the wash sale rule trivial (especially for billionaires), so the rule as drafted in the 1900s is no longer effective at preventing what it intended.
It looks like the majority of people who own stock own it in things like retirement accounts[1, Table 3.]. Tax-deferred retirement accounts apparently can't use this trick[2].
The IRS will also reject the reported loss if it qualifies as a wash sale.
> You cannot deduct losses from sales or trades
of stock or securities in a wash sale unless the
loss was incurred in the ordinary course of your
business as a dealer in stock or securities.
I think Java is a solid choice for a data heavy application in 2023. As many have mentioned spring boot is a man excellent choice for the Java backend . You should also take a look at JHipster. It combines the strengths of Java with a modern front end like React or Vue or anything else of your choice to make a modern front end .
How was the cab experience in general in Spain before the influx of Uber and other tide sharing services.
Was it like the you could fail a can and it would take you where you wanted to go for a reasonable fare or would cabbie in general cancel rides, ask for more fare than the allowable maximum etc.
It was pretty good, most taxi drivers were self employed but associated to a guild that you could call to request a ride. The prices were set by law and there are enough taxis that flagging down one near a city center was pretty quick, and there are established taxi stops where there is always a queue of taxis waiting. Now there are taxi apps but if you are traveling it's a bit of a mess because they are usually only city wide and you need to figure out which one to download.
In fact, it is usually cheaper to take a taxi instead of Uber or Cabify if there is the slightest amount of demand pricing in action. The Cabify app also is able to request rides from taxis alongside their own service, but I suspect this is for regulatory compliance.
In my opinion, the success of ridesharing apps in Spain is due to knowing upfront how much the trip is going to cost (handy outside your hometown, some less honest taxi drivers would take the, ahem, touristic route, anyway taxi apps offer upfront price now as well) and clean vehicles with well dressed drivers that defer to the passenger. The rude, sweaty taxi driver chain smoking and blasting right wing radio stereotype is still very prevalent in the Spanish collective memory...
Many nation states do not have freedom of speech and have laws that content can be taken down if it is considered bad - and the definition of bad is always changing based on the current ruling party.
Thus, they might have just the threatened YouTube with domain level blocking if laws of the land are not followed.
Also I am not sure, why the ruling party is so uppity about this documentary. It doesn’t even show Modi in too much of a bad light. Basically just shows that he was incompetent in stopping riots.
Also not sure, but does the BBC have an agenda with releasing this documentary now on an event that happened around two decades back.
IBM of today is way past a company that advanced computing. It is a body shop and an American company in name only. Most of their revenue comes from GBS which is basically an offshoring division.
