It is clearly a company doesn't want to be lumped together with Typeform, Surveymonkey or Google Forms, so it's positioning itself as a "employee engagement, performance and development tools". They want to sell tooling that is specific to HRs and other people that might have the desire for those specific tools.
I get the desire for boxing things in 10 or 20 neat categories, but companies (and especially those that have a sales team) are often looking to differentiate themselves.
Whether they are able to execute this well remains to be seen, naturally.
Bin Laden hadn't lived in Saudi Arabia since 1991?
If you're referring to the fact that the relatively newly declassified parts of the 9/11 commission report suggest that several powerful members of the Saudi government and royal family were involved in the attacks, then I agree with you that we should have (and still should) insist that the Saudis extradite those involved and take strong military action against the Saudis if they don't. But I don't see how this makes our attack on Afghanistan for refusing to extradite Bin Laden unjustified, it just makes us inconsistent.
It is the kind of inconsistency that makes some people die and some live. One would hope it is avoided to avoid confusion and miscalculations on all sides.
<< Bin Laden hadn't lived in Saudi Arabia since 1991?
Was Pakistan bombed in 2011 then?
I understand what you are saying, but it does not make it look any better.
<< If you're referring to the fact
I was not. I am merely connecting some obvious dots.
<< But I don't see how this makes our attack on Afghanistan for refusing to extradite Bin Laden unjustified,
Hmm. Even the word extradite is obfuscating what happened, but that is beside the point.
Lets adjust this conversation a little as 'justified' is a little loaded. Everyone thinks they are justified in doing whatever they are doing. edit: In fact, there are a few wars happening right now, where people feel very justified.
Lets have a more fun conversation.
Do you think it ( attacking Afghanistan ) over 9/11 ( whether the cause was just or not ) was a good idea for long-term US survival? This is not a bait. I am really curious about your thought process.
>Do you think it ( attacking Afghanistan ) over 9/11 ( whether the cause was just or not ) was a good idea for long-term US survival? This is not a bait. I am really curious about your thought process.
Attacking? Yes. Long-term occupation? No. I think we should have targeted strikes directly at Taliban officials until they relented to our demands.
It's amazing that some people think this is a valid retort when Abbottabad, Pakistan is a 5 hour drive from Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and of course it's safer to hide in the country that US doesn't have access to compared to the 10 year search they've been doing in Afghanistan.
We were all there, the US and UK were warning about the invasion for a long time before it happened. The Russians and their useful idiots in the West laughed, of course they would never invade! Then the invasion actually did happen and now magically history has been rewritten and it was the US that somehow caused it in the first place.
Only problem: I do have a memory and I can remember 2 years ago. So yes very clearly Russia started this war all by themselves despite the US trying to dissuade them from doing so.
Lol, you completely forgot about the little green men affair when Russia absolutely denied they were invading the Donbas and all was just local militias fighting for independence, right?
You've been played by Russian propaganda, and seems to be liking it.
What if Donbass took a tour of independent Ukraine and changed their mind, especially as Kiev crowds have ousted the president that they all voted for?
Granted, he wasn't any good, but he was likely the best one Ukraine will ever have, and now has no chance of it ever catching up with 2013.
I'm genuinely not sure why you think people can't change their mind. After all, they also voted "Yes" on Gorbachev's "reform and keep the USSR" referendum a year before that.
>>My wife is a stay-at-home mom and I've long wished for a disability insurance product that would cover the economic value that she provides, i.e. cover the cost of daycare / after-school care if she couldn't care for the kids.
There is absolutely disability insurance for homemakers and non income spouses in the USA. I've written that exact policy both individual and for employers / employees.
Nixon was certainly an enigma compared to other US Presidents:
Advocated for "Universal Healthcare" by basically mandating the Federal government to provide stop loss reinsurance to employers and creating a marketplace for poor people with income adjusted premiums... sounds familiar.
The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent. (USA)
We need to go back to this. Wealth inequality is damaging society far more than ever. From Onlyfans to Bitcoins Scams, social media platforms has only exacerbated the issue. Will the pendulum swing back to morality and just cause away from lawlessness and perversion? Is there a singular root cause for this behavior? Gen Z maybe the last hope.
No, we don't need to go back to this because it simply doesn't work.
In my country, the top rate of 50% sets in around 70K of income. The top rate is hated so much that it actively curtails people's ambitions. People feel its pointless to level up beyond this point. They won't fight to reach bonus targets because the bonus is cut in half. If they continue to grow in income, many consider working a day less per week, as supplemental income becomes largely useless.
A 92% tax rate, at whatever threshold you set it, means anything you do beyond that point has no point at all.
Further, for organizations to richly reward top leaders, which whilst not popular is very much needed, how do you figure they pay them a high net income? Just do up the gross costs by a factor 10?
Finally, surely you realize true wealth doesn't come from labor?
>The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent. (USA)
>We need to go back to this.
There were so many deductions and tax breaks back then that, to a first approximation, no one paid anywhere close to that. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 removed most of those deductions as part of the collapsing of tax brackets.
California could lower their income tax rate if they stopped subsidizing older homeowners via prop 13. There are people that pay like $1,000 a year (in property tax) living in million dollar homes.
Wealth inequality is not being caused or exacerbated by Onlyfans and Bitcoin scams or "lack of morality", whatever that means.
Corporate and high income taxes have been slashed. This has been going on for decades, but the prior president and congress gave the wealthiest Americans and corporations a two trillion dollar tax cut - a forty percent reduction in corporate taxes - and this was after one trillion dollars in Paycheck Protection Program "loans", most of which were 'forgiven' and a myriad of other pandemic programs - as well as a wholesale gutting of regulations.
In 1940 if you made $200,000 ($4M today) you were taxed at ninety percent to help out with the war effort because there was a long history of the wealthiest being expected to help out in times of societal emergency. The NY Times claims the Great Recession and COVID were the first exceptions but I'd say it's been going on since Vietnam or so. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/19/opinion/rich-billionaires...
> you were taxed at ninety percent to help out with the war effort because there was a long history of the wealthiest being expected to help out in times of societal emergency.
Never heard it phrased this way before but I like it. Those that can help more should help more. In fact, most people take pride when they can (over) contribute.
If somebody has a medical emergency on the sidewalk, the doctor walking by would be expected/assumed to help more than Nancy the software engineer.
Nobody would call you insane for expecting the doctor help more because they are more capable.
The rich were willing to accept the taxes at the time because of fear of communism (there was a strong communist movement in the U.S., and they had seen the communists expropriate (a.k.a. strip people of) private property in Russia in 1917 & China (after the revolution) at the time.
This is also partly why post-war Europe introduced generous social programs - as a way to prevent people from being seduced into communism.
Woah, had no idea it was that high. And that's in a decade that is considered one of the best in US history (if you were the "right" demographic of course).
Any idea what the top tax bracket was that had that rate? Wonder what it would be now adjusted for inflation.
Maybe now I can self host all my wp sites from home. That would be fun /s
I have the Gogole og wifi box still, they acknowledged it didn't work well, replaced it with an Airport Extreme which is still working. I wish Apple still made the Airports...
