You are not arguing against his point though, you are shifting it.
His point is that it has been paid and you are saying the same thing. His argument is not about who paid the bill (if it was you or the bank) the argument is that it was paid and you seem to agree with that I think?
€ A different way of putting it is to imagine you had 0$ and a job that pays you in two weeks. Now you cannot take any credit since that means the bank pays for you (so the money comes first then the work).
What do you do now to survive two weeks? The answer is that you need money to be able to work, not the other way around.
I think the argument is not that you are not working for money, it's that within the first two weeks that you worked you already payed bills. In a way that means you provided the capital before you did the work. So the money always comes first, which is the basis for his argument. The company then pays you which allows you to keep paying your bills but you cannot pay your bills with future income, hence money always comes first and thus allows you to work in the first place
The difference is only a theoretical though, you would not be able to circumvent taxes by saying I'm not getting paid, I am only compensated with a Bank account which has a limit of $x every month. So yeah, there is a theoretical difference but not a practical one.
But the argumentation is kinda strange, if you think you are not compensated correctly you could always get a job and leave child/elder care to somebody else. If you don't want that, it seems that you are ok with the compensation. If your partner does not want that, the problem is not the unpaid work but the gender roles. If you can't get a job which pays more that you would spend, one could argue that you are probably compensated fairly.
> A woman that loses her home because her husband gets fired from his job now has no compensation through no fault of her own.
This is imo a valid point, because she would still have to do the work without compensation (even though as both don't have paid work they would hopefully share the work)
It's funny but one of my first contact points with iOS (after owning a 3gs some years back) was when I tried to fix the mail settings for a friend and I had the exact same problem described here.
After finding out that you have to add the account via settings it kinda makes sense, but the first thought is: you have an email account, you have an email app, of course you add the account in the app, why would it be anywhere else? The account and the app could not possibly be more directly related to each other.
If you already know how accounts are managed in iOS you will think this is fine, but it is absolutely not intuitive, let alone easy to understand for people who do not know about sso and shared accounts.
I did not laugh at others misfortune or moral failing but at the following sentence "the US feels like the only place where users have the freedom to choose what their internet should be". I do not laugh at people having only a single choice of ISP or the abolishment of NN, but at the blindness with which that statement was made. If by "users" ISPs are meant then I agree, but let's be real, users often don't even have a real choice of ISPs, let alone what "internet should be", whatever that means.
With the rest of what you wrote, I don't even know what argument you are referencing. Was it that I said the internet is shitty? Nowhere did I say that you can't access a website so Im not exactly sure why you want to test access to websites or state that you can stream video. Is that all it takes for you to say that your internet is "working just fine"? Maybe I understand that statemend a little wider than you do, so let me elaborate: When I say "it's really shitty" I mean more than just accessing websites, I mean bad industry practices, non competing ISPs and no or limited choice of ISP, total surveillance, rampant data collection by big companies, etc.
For me this is not a sign of a "fine" working internet. But if you limit it to "I can access websites" then I agree with you.
To your last point, I never asserted that your Internet is slow or that you can't access sites, so I don't know why you keep misstating my comments.
Well last I heard ISPs were not providing top service to say the least. So unless "working just fine" means "it's really shitty but hey we have internet", I would say that no, the internet is not "working just fine" at least from that perspective. I don't know why you think removing net neutrality laws was a good idea but maybe you can elaborate.
Laughing truly makes me feel better and distracts me from my worries, I don't know why you have to be condescending about it. I did not say that I think filtering is a good idea, the contrary is true.
I just think saying that the EU pass regressive internet laws, while the US is the beacon of freedom and choice is laughable.
I almost had to laugh after the US just recently abolished Net Neutrality. And what is the grind with cookie notices and GDPR? I very much like to know what companies can do with my data, what data they have and demand deletion of it.
This is not against companies, it's for people. Companies should have had these information in the first place, now they just need to display it to the user but I guess thats too much to ask.
Im all against filters but cookie notices and GDPR are consumer friendly laws which I like a lot.
The problem here is a little more complex than one might think at first.
Usually when something is overvalued it means that the value it has been given is higher than what people are willing to pay, resulting in a product which has been assigned a value nobody is willing to pay. This is not always that clear cut, as some things have different values to different people. What is overvalued and probably overpriced for one person might be well within reason for someone else.
The housing market is very dependent on the location you live in so wihtout further information it's hard to say if a house is "overvalued". The price is normally closely related to the property price, so while housing might not be overvalued, property prices could very well be.
Then there are different considerations regarding the longevity of your assets (aka your house). Most things you buy are rather short lived, this is not the case for property, which can be inherited over multiple generations.
You also have to consider that the amount of land is limited (within cities) and owners/sellers are not necessarily companies trying to make a profit, so "normal" supply/demand doesn't necessarily apply in these situations and producing more (land/property) is just not doable. This also means that renting prices usually increase similarly to housing prices.
There are lots of other variables here to consider but even regarding only a few of them its already really hard to say what a house or property is "worth", so what you should much rather be asking is "what are people willing to pay/how much can they pay". If that is your question you could look at default rates and newly approved credits to determine whether people are able to pay for their house.
Exactly, they calculated the best possible time and found out that 5.51 is not even possible.
Todd Rogers however has multiple impossible scores which are still considered "records" even though they can't possibly be obtained, some of them are stupidly obvious, like games in which the score increases in steps of five, yet he has a number not evenly dividable by five and such stuff.
I guess nobody really knows why he still holds these records.
You learned pretty much everything that you are doing right now and I am fairly certain that 99% or more of that was learned without you feeling bad about yourself.
I for one can't remember a single lesson from school, yet I can still recall some of the stuff I learned and apply it, despite nobody yelling at me for doing it wrong at some point.
Being upfront and honest about stuff is all nice and good but when I give a code review or get one, I find it far better to constructively discuss stuff and not yell at people or insult them for whatever reason. Linus did not even ask why it was done that way, he did not have all the info. Would you prefer being instulted for doing something the "wrong" way, eventhough you had a perfectly good reason for doing it that way? Even if you knew it was "wrong" but there just isn't a good solution and you are just trying to fix the problem at hand?
But does that even make sense? That would mean they redesigned something that they are not able to build in realistically at least the next 5-10 years. Or to go even further, they tried to make something better that does not exist yet. Wouldn't it make more sense to just go for the self driving car first and then, after you are sure that you can build that, creating teams which make it better?
€ A different way of putting it is to imagine you had 0$ and a job that pays you in two weeks. Now you cannot take any credit since that means the bank pays for you (so the money comes first then the work). What do you do now to survive two weeks? The answer is that you need money to be able to work, not the other way around.