I dunno, in my limited use, Fable is MORE prone to phrasing quirks. I had it use, for real, the phrase "load-bearing for correctness" yesterday. It meant something about not needing a validation check because something else (the "load-bearing" part) was already checking it.
I do agree that it *feels* nicer and smarter to use.
Thanks for giving more information. Just as a comment on (1), a lot of people don't use X/social. That's never going to be a sustainable path to "improve this UX" since it's...not part of the UX of the product.
It's a little concerning that it's number 1 in your list.
I'm glad it's not just me struggling with the screenshot functionality. I've encountered the bugs you're describing, and recently, I've been encountering an incredibly frustrating one where hitting print screen just...doesn't do anything. The only way I've found to temporarily fix it is to manually open the Snipping Tool (via the Start menu) - then the print screen key starts working again for some indeterminate period of time.
This is really interesting. I'd considered a solo 401k at one point because a made a small amount of self-employment income in one year, but decided against it because it wasn't enough to be worth the hassle, and I didn't expect to keep having self-employment income. Now I wish I had gone through it, just so I'd have a place to roll over this old 401k. (Of course, now that I look, Vanguard doesn't do solo 401ks anymore and redirects to Ascensus, so might just be frying pan to fire anyway.)
I'd love to move the account (especially after this!), but unfortunately I can't because of what is basically an annoying side-effect. My current employer doesn't offer a 401k plan, and the only option I have for contributing to a Roth IRA is via backdoor contributions. Such backdoor contributions (which are basically an IRS-sanctioned loophole) have to start in a Traditional IRA account, and you cannot have any other/pre-existing Traditional IRA funds at the time of the contribution. So, I have nowhere to move the 401k funds besides an IRA account, but I have to leave my traditional IRA accounts empty so that I can do a backdoor contribution.
I wish the federal government would just get rid of the salary cap for direct contributions to a Roth IRA, since they basically already allow it via the obnoxious and convoluted path.
(Author of the comment you are talking about) To be clear, they DID link to the same FAQ, but hosted and branded on the new domain and name. I had to go digging to find the same info on the Guideline site I was already familiar with.
My guess is your different experience is precisely because you use Gusto as your payroll provider. My previous employer does not, or at least they did not when I was working there. This was truly the first and only email I've gotten about it, but I have always gotten regular transactional and notification emails from Guideline just fine, including yesterday with a confirmation that I'd changed my asset allocation!
I almost posted something this morning about this, because I received an email that really frustrated me. I have a 401k with Guideline from an old employer. The email was from Accrue <[email protected]>, and said, in part:
> Login: Please visit my.accrue401k.com to log in. You’ll find that the 401(k) dashboard and user experience remain familiar. If you’ve set up your account, your same login credentials will provide you access into the dashboard. (Please note, Accrue does not currently offer a mobile app).
The my.accrue401k.com part was a hyperlink to that site. I've independently done some digging (and contacted my old employer to verify!) but this is precisely how a targeted phishing attack would work. Asking someone to enter their financial account credentials into a site they've never used or heard of, based entirely on an unsolicited email, is INSANE.
This email was the first time I've heard of Gusto, of Guideline being acquired, or of Accrue 401k (which apparently is the company created to hold Guideline's 401k accounts that are NOT affiliated with Gusto). Nice.
I live alone, and just counted, I have 10 in regular use. A few more that can connect to WiFi but aren’t (why would I want my tower fans on the internet, anyway?)
I had probably 20 prior to swapping out some smart light bulbs and switches for Zigbee.
I don't think that's all that true for airliners. Pilots definitely practice for engine-out scenarios during all levels of training up to the airlines, but the ability of a plane the size of a 737 to safely land on anything but a runway is...limited. And if you're low, slow, and trying to go around, that's not a lot of time to glide to ground that is "level enough".
It's a safety measure. When it comes to regulating aviation, in general, the FAA is concerned with protecting the public. The "public" doesn't generally have the knowledge to evaluate a pilot, aircraft, or the operation of an aviation venture. So, the FAA puts rules around these things. The private pilot is held to a much lower standard of skill than a commercial or airline pilot. But, that means that the FAA doesn't trust them to fly around the general public.
You can take your friend for a spin in your plane if you want, or go screw around and kill yourself, but you cannot "hold out" your operation as an air taxi or airline to the general public, and you can't make money off of it in any situation.
A commercial pilot has to undergo much more training in operating an aircraft safely. This means the FAA allows them to get paid to be a pilot - they could be hired to fly someone around in that person's plane. But the commercial license does not really train them in running a safe airline, so the FAA does not allow them to use their own plane to run an airline.
EDIT: To word it differently, the opportunity to get paid increases the likelihood that someone will push limits or take unsafe risks. If you aren't under pressure to make your paycheck, you're less likely to take your passengers into marginal weather. (One of the most dangerous occupations in aviation is medivac/aviation EMS. There, the pressure isn't generally monetary but moral: you want to help a sick patient, so you take more risks.)
It's actually an FAA regulation. If you are not a licensed commercial pilot, there are extremely strict rules on how and when you can accept ANY money for flying, use of an airplane, etc.
Actually, even if you are a licensed commercial pilot, there are still strict rules around payment. You can be paid for your skill as a pilot, but you cannot, e.g. charge for giving rides in your personal airplane.
I do agree that it *feels* nicer and smarter to use.