They can absolutely sell. The first 250k (500k if married) of *profit* is excluded completely from taxes. And then any profits after that are taxed at 0%, 15%, or 20%. If you're making that much money on a sale you're not getting my sympathy that you might pay < 20% of your PROFITS. Get out of here with the pity for the well-off.
If they don't need the cash bad enough to sell, then don't sell. If they do, they'll have quite a nest egg after.
> Gripping any mobile phone will result in some attenuation of its antenna performance, with certain places being worse than others depending on the placement of the antennas. This is a fact of life for every wireless phone. If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use one of many available cases. - Steve Jobs
The sentence I cited is from an Ars Technica article and directly attributed to Jobs. Your text is essentially an extended version of that, but I cannot find any site that attributes it directly to Jobs. It also does double down on the gaslighting by insisting that it isn't bad design but "a fact of life" and consistent with any other mobile phone.
Years ago, it was just called Google Apps and was for bringing your own domain. It was even advertised as something that would be good for family usage. And in the legacy GSuite migration debacle a couple years back, they acknowledged that there are legacy users that were/are using it for families and that it would continue to be free (after months of uncertainty).
I have considered paying for YouTube Premium for the family, but I can't unless I create dual identities for all my family members and have them use both accounts on all their devices.
Because it's their right to, and there's no good reason why they should be forced to open it up. It's all the little rights that add together to arrive at the vibrant ecosystem we have now. Apple had and still has the right to create a closed, but coherent ecosystem that consumers are willing to pay a (arguably small) premium to enter with the promise that the quality advertised is the quality received. Taking away that choice from those consumers does not appear to gain back much in other ways. Would Android users be happier? Yes. But there's no evidence that Apple users would be better off _in the long term_. In the short term, both sides might be happier, but that would be shortsighted thinking. It would be removing a reason for Apple to develop future first-party apps that serve as a counterweight to apps owned by corporations interested in selling ad space.
There's also no evidence that iMessage is anti-competitive and a true lock-in experience. People talk about network effects, but iMessage is only a significant messaging app in one country in the entire world. The rest of the world uses a mix of other apps. This is true even in Japan, where iPhones are popular. If people want to use another app, they can. Let the people choose.
Why ask a question in bad faith? You may not agree with my answer, but you asked for the opposing viewpoint and I gave it, but now I see it was a waste of time.
I knew you'd show up and say this. CIQ's CEO claims to have founded Rocky and is the current president of RESF, is Rocky's most prominent sponsor, and Rocky's recent moves have been in the same direction that CIQ requires in order to survive. Regardless of direct control or not, Rocky's financial incentives align with CIQ's.
As you so point out your bias, it would be really nice if you didn't speak on behalf of your employer and let others make their own conclusions without hearing from those biased.
It'd also be nice if employees of Red Hat wouldn't make personal attacks on folks affiliated with Rocky Linux (and to a greater extent CIQ), justified or not, but I can understand nhanlon's defensiveness, just as I understand the defensiveness from many on Red Hat's payroll surrounding everything the past month+.
There is a huge, huge difference between the debt you take on in undergrad vs grad programs vs law school vs medical school, etc. You are looking at the numbers for the most expensive programs (that also result in some of the highest paying careers!) to make the case that people have high debt, but those are the minority. They also tend to be the most educated and have the highest future earnings potential. Most people do not advance past an undergraduate degree. The 28k number is far more relevant, and within the article you linked.
Unless they stated otherwise elsewhere, why are you assuming they went from the Nexus 5 straight to the Pixel? There’s also the Nexus 6 (2014) and 5X/6P (2015) before the Pixel (2016).
From one page before the table (which itself is on page 7):
> An accumulation of adverse event reports (AERs) does not necessarily indicate that a particular AE was caused by the drug; rather, the event may be due to an underlying disease or some other factor(s) such as past medical history or concomitant medication.
If I gave 42,086 people a cup of water as my experiment, some non-zero number of people will die in the ensuing 90 days. Without analysis, your comment only serves to inflame.
EDIT: I think the 42,086 number I used was misleading because that appears to be the total number of reports and not the number of people that actually received the vaccine in that time period. Which means the rates are lower as the denominator is way larger than 42,086.
