Please don't name call when people do something you disagree with. [1] Consider instead adding the reference like you did "adding reference" and wait for numbers to correct.
Where are the kids going to sleep? I suppose we can have coffin homes like Hong Kong. Maybe four beds on one wall with the communal toilet and tub down the hall.
The part OP didn't say was they don't believe "poor" people should have homes, children, and especially not more than one bedroom. Utterly disgusted at the thread as a whole, and I'm taking a dimmer and dimmer view of HN generally. Seems so full of nastiness these days.
While I agree with you in spirit, I also think this is an uncharitable view of OP’s statement. While it is true that some subset of the population relies on the minimum wage to survive, it’s perfectly reasonable to question whether that’s the best tool for the job without meaning that the poor don’t deserve homes/children.
For example: federal housing subsidies could be expanded, as well as SNAP, to augment the minimum wage. In fact, that is already what happens. So a fuller portrait of this situation might include the total hourly wage when factoring in government subsidies. I will contend that even with those add-ins the minimum wage still isn’t high enough, especially in relation to the massive productivity gains realized through automation and efficiency over the past half-century.
The fee isn't that much for California. I could see it as expensive if it was in a cheaper state. Also, if somebody is only making $20K annually running a cleaning service in California, they need to run it as a sole proprietorship, find another line of work, or move to a different state.
I made $15K in the late 1980s in California while living paycheck to paycheck. I don't see how anybody can live on $20K in 2021. This hypothetical person would make more money working at McDonald's.
The California state minimum wage is $13 for employers with 25 or less employees, $14 for employers with more than 25. A person would make more money working full time at a fast food establishment than running a cleaning service if their are making only $20K annually. You would have to go back several years when the minimum wage was less than $10.
I ran a consulting business for years as a sole proprietor. It is a viable operating entity, especially for one person. I also had a business liability policy, which you will also want as a single member LLC. It is actual quite easy to pierce the liability protection that an LLC offers, especially for single member companies because many people intermingle assets and debts, such as when personally guaranteeing a loan. If you injure somebody while on the job or engage in professional malpractice, the LLC shield won't protect you. And finally, fraud; if you are using the LLC as a buffer to commit illegal acts, a court will find the company is nothing more than your alter ego and hold you personally responsible.
If you are a software developer, run your business as a sole proprietor until you are ready to sell your product or hire employees, then convert the business to an LLC. You will still get the first year waiver.
All limited liability entities doing business in California must pay the franchise tax. Also, the first year waiver is only for domestic companies, those organized in California.
For a California resident trying to escape the expense, you are going to spend more money by creating your LLC in another state.
This franchise tax is required by any type of business entity offering limited liability. Besides a limited liability company, this includes corporations, limited partnerships, and limited liability partnerships. You can avoid this fee if you have a sole proprietorship or general partnership. Additionally, non-profit corporations that have a tax-exemption from the IRS are also exempt from this fee.
How did you make it through high school while failing in chemistry and biology?
Organic is a scam for the natural is better crowd that occupies the human experience. A chemical is the same whether it is natural or synthetic. Plenty of natural substances are toxic. There is no difference in taste or nutrition between organic and non-organic, however GMO can be made more nutritious.
> How did you make it through high school while failing in chemistry and biology?
I didn't fail either. Our school focused on the theoretical and we never had practical applications of the knowledge.
> A chemical is the same whether it is natural or synthetic
For me the difference is naturally occurring and moderated via biological process of organisms vs extracted and manufactured chemicals. For example, you wouldn't find large amounts of Chlorpyrifos (used in herbicides) naturally anywhere in the world. It was mass produced for use in agriculture.
> GMO can be made more nutritious
If you are measuring specifically for say, vitamin A, you can engineer a crop to have higher concentrations of vitamin A than any other crop out there. So yes you are correct.
At selling carbon credits. The cars are junk. It amazes me that people buy these luxury vehicles and get uneven paneling and mismatched paint, or worse, serious drive train defects, and put up with shoddy customer support including outright lying. Every time I hear one of them say its the best car they have ever owned, I am thinking they must have only owned Fiats or Yugos.
>Space X is probably a bigger success.
Thanks to Gwynne Shotwell. Make no mistake, Shotwell runs Space X.
>people who have completed the necessary paperwork to put their patches/contributions in the public domain.
In the US, authors cannot put their works in the public domain. This ability doesn't exist in statute, nor have the courts accepted the concept. Past attempts to allow this have failed in Congress. One can refuse to enforce their rights on creative works, but copyright still exists from the moment of creation and works won't enter public domain until the expiration of the copyright.
Furthermore, the US allows authors (except work-for-hire) and their heirs the right of termination for copyright transfers and licenses. This is an inalienable statutory right which cannot be restricted by contracts.
No it doesn't. Only the copyright owner can re-license.
You can put modifications (that enjoy copyright protection) to BSD licensed code under the GPL or put BSD licensed code in a larger GPL code base, but you cannot re-license code covered by the BSD license.
I cannot tell if this is willfully pedantic or not. And well, since we are being pedantic, I guess I will allow myself to say, that you can't re-license per se, only newer versions can be re-licensed. a prior release will forever be that license.
Now, with that said, modifications made to a GPL codebase, when published must be under the GPL. This is where the virality or copyleft come in. This in turn means that a GPL codebase cannot be anything but GPL. Putting BSD licensed code inside a GPL codebase is like pouring fresh water into the ocean. And even if you did do that, it should be a separate codebase, because if its a direct modification, then that should be GPL as well.
>...I guess I will allow myself to say, that you can't re-license per se, only newer versions can be re-licensed. a prior release will forever be that license.
Wrong. Why does the GPL crowd continue to believe they can re-license copyrighted works they don't own? Only the copyright owner has the right to re-license. The GPL does NOT give permission to re-license.
The below copyright notice is displayed in ET:Legacy source files and id Software (or a superseding entity) will hold that copyright until it expires a little over a hundred years from now.
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory GPL Source Code
* Copyright (C) 1999-2010 id Software LLC, a ZeniMax Media company.
>This in turn means that a GPL codebase cannot be anything but GPL.
Wrong again. A project released under the GPL can include permissively licensed code such as BSD, MIT, or ISC. The FSF lists licenses which are compatible with the GPL. What you cannot do is change the license on that permissive code to GPL.
>because if its a direct modification, then that should be GPL as well.
It can, but nothing compels it because the original is under the another license. Also, not all modifications meet the standard to be covered by copyright; the modification must be significantly expressive.
A lot of people use “pedophilia” to mean “sexual abuse of children” and “pedophile” or “pedo” to mean “sexual abuser of children”. (E.g., RMS’s infamous defense of “consensual pedophilia” which, merits of the intended sentiment to the side, isn’t even a coherent thing to defend or oppose except under the misuse of “pedophilia” to refer to an act and not an inclination.)
