Wireless has traditionally been left out of common carrier / nn talks because its easier to compete in infra-structurally compared to running cabling.

From personal experience: Hiring your designer buddy who lives in San Diego while the two other guys in your company lives elsewhere entitles you to pay $800 a year in somewhat unexpected tax, even though you're not selling any services to any CA companies. Yea, jumped in feet first, but really did not enjoy the $800 bill that came with it.

> From personal experience: Hiring your designer buddy who lives in San Diego while the two other guys in your company lives elsewhere entitles you to pay $800 a year in somewhat unexpected tax, even though you're not selling any services to any CA companies

No, it doesn't, you can do that as a sole prop or (non-LLP) partnership, and not pay the $800 tax applied to corporations, LLPs, and LLCs.

Asking the public at large to absorb for you (by granting you a personal liability shield) the risk that that the resources you give to the business plus those it is able to earn will not be able to meet the businesses liabilities is what you pay the $800 for. Which is why only the limited liability entities pay the tax.

I think this is a great example of the saying "There are two types of companies: those who have been hacked, and those who know they've been hacked"

And those who will lie about it no matter what happens.

They have ~300 employees. So 33M is not a crazy price to pay. ~110k USD/employee/year. Considering the industry they're in (information and tech) this is totally reasonable.

Otherwise no big deal that it may or may not fit your values to donate to Wikimedia.

Not crazy, no, but surprising that they have ~300 employees.

And if you realize it I imagine your strike price was $0, so its full profit. IANAL tho.

(This thought experiment may be completely wrong, I'm unfamiliar with US tax law)

If people were attempting to propose improvements via forking and this were true, would that not create rather dire tax liabilities?

Say you bought into bitcoin 'original', and then it forks into bitcoin 'improved' as well. Loads of people agree that the improved version is much better and switch to it, leaving the original near worthless.

But then if this interpretation of tax rules were true you'd be left paying cap gains on the full value of the improved version, rather than the difference between original and improved at sale time. Ouch.

I think there's an implication in your thought process that the 'bitcoin original' value, which you bought into, goes to $0. This would constitute a capital loss, and you would have gains up from $0 on the secondary blockchain ('bitcoin improved'). This would seem reasonable to me, as it's essentially a wash. The only thing that would muddy the whole thing up is the holding period for short term and long term capital gains.

I do this for manual buys when I'm doing large purchases/sells. However something I am willing to pay this .25-1% fee on is monthly automated purchases of cryptos for speculative holding.

Because they can get more money faster by selling the mining units. Mining is not a guaranteed return but selling a unit is. Plus large scale mining requires a large capital risk (electricity), that is compounded with the large capital investment into the hardware.

Plus if they have significant BTC reserves (I believe they do) then selling mining equipment strengthens the BTC network and improves the value, maybe, of their current holdings.

This is even more interesting than I thought at first glance: by selling hardware to other miners (for conventional money, I suppose, as that's what they need to pay upstream suppliers like TSMC) they can fund large mining power bills without having to sell their cryptotokens to do so, which would depress the market, which would threaten their whole business. BTC will crash whenever the influx of money into the network is lower than the outflux to power suppliers. Miners can't "hodl" everything when they have power bills to pay. Selling chips to mining investors is a form of inviting new money into the network.

"There are two hard problems in Computer Science: naming things, cache invalidation, and off by one errors"

People give up on the naming things because the name they're seeing makes sense to them in that moment and they may not realize how confused they'll be when they come back to the code in 3 months. May be a lack of experience in maintaining "old code" or just part of the programming culture they're in.

"Comments are for people other than yourself and that includes you because future you is not you"

I'd wager that uranium (as with all the heavier elements) is spread throughout the solar system as it is forged and spread in stars going supernovae/hypernovae

You also get write access to private profile information:

"This application will be able to read and write all user data. This includes the following:

Private email addresses Private profile information Followers"

Changed it again to only read access to user email. Thank you for reporting that issue.