"but the company founder is some billionaire's daughter. I fear ever having a boss like that just because of the fundamental difference in perspective and life experiences. I'm sure I won't be able to communicate with them."
Imagine invalidating a person as a potential colleague and declaring your incompatibility with that person remotely based on a quarter inch deep evaluation of their background. I think this kind of take is in really bad taste.
The Dutch Innovation Box regime provides a lower effective tax rate (7% as of 2024) on profits derived from qualifying intellectual property, such as patents and software. For companies like Uber, which rely heavily on proprietary technology, this can significantly reduce their overall tax burden on profits derived from IP.
The participation exemption in the Netherlands allows companies to receive dividends and capital gains from qualifying foreign subsidiaries free from Dutch corporate tax. This is particularly beneficial for multinational corporations with substantial foreign operations, as it prevents profits from being taxed multiple times as they move up through the corporate structure.
The Netherlands is a popular location for holding companies due to its favorable tax regime for holding and managing subsidiaries. The combination of participation exemptions, tax treaties, and rulings makes it ideal for structuring complex international operations.
So... a nation like the Netherlands optimizes their tax laws such that it's advantageous for businesses that are otherwise completely unrelated to their nation to HQ in their nation to avoid their proper tax burdens in the country they were started in and operate in much more significantly, for the benefit of the Netherlands getting additional tax revenue and to the detriment of other nations who would otherwise be able to tax that business.
Some people might call that a "tax shelter." Since it you know, benefits Uber, benefits the Netherlands, at the detriment of the nation(s) that Uber operates in...
That's one way of saying "Europe is full of nations who provide unethical tax shelters for businesses (while criticizing any nation that doesn't provide their level of social programs), so they can regulate and fine and fill their coffers with money from businesses all over the world." But yeah, blame it on the companies that take advantage of the tax shelters EU nations choose to provide and the EU chooses to allow.
Respectfully, these vague states of support between “active” and less active, “first class” and not first class, etc comes off as “we want to say we have that but shrug any time it’s deficient.”
Its similar to calling the port overall “linux/<cpu-arch>” rather than “linux/<libc>/<cpu-arch>” which wouldn’t normally be called for except when you’re going to embed a bunch of a particular libc specific behavior in your consumption of libc.
Listening to Go advocates talk about C interop like it’s not only a solved problem but quite literally a strength of Go, while Go project leaders represent that support quite differently isn’t it. Perhaps clarification of these level of support terms and how the project embraces glibc specific behaviors unapologetically would help.
The Go project specifically acknowledging the glibc-isms here:
"All Linux first class ports are for systems using glibc only. Linux systems using other C libraries are not fully supported and are not treated as first class."
Go only supporting static-init thread local storage, and thus their "C ABI" libraries can only be dlopen()'ed if the libc pre-allocates memory to hack in libraries later.
Is the new tech lead more likely to get rid of the glibc-isms that Golang won't let go of, like crashing if non-ELF standard parameters like env aren't passed in ELF library initialization, or maybe supporting global-dynamic thread local storage so we can dlopen() shared objects made in Go on platforms that don't hack like glibc?
Go's obsession with glibc-isms is really unfortunate, and it's been many years. If you're using Go with containers on Alpine/musl, keep your code very vanilla, because they won't support you.
Oh, is it a "crisis"? Sounds like we need a "war on" it then.
I think food waste is horrible and I literally donate money monthly(1) to multiple charities to fight hunger, but I'm sick of this framing language that exists to tell simpletons how they're supposed to feel about a topic. Thanks for "raising awareness" though. Enough with this newspeak that carries framed thoughts in specially coded phrases.
Yeah, the traffic isn't bad enough so let's just shoehorn in multifamily units into single family zoned neighborhoods that aren't remotely close enough to the jobs people work for bicycling to be a realistic option. Virtue signaling the housing crisis isn't useful. If you're going to talk about housing you can't just rail against "NIMBYs" and clamor for more housing. You have to actually explain how the infrastructure and transportation to/from jobs will work with your assertions. Otherwise you're just arguing for cramming everyone up each other's asses and let the chips fall where they may.
Most people are not going to ride a bicycle to work. Some of us have kids to drop off at school on the way to work. We have to buy enough groceries to feed a family, which don't fit on a bicycle. Let go of your hipster fantasies. We can't all be single people living in a flat, riding a bicycle to the farmer's market and the book store.
Out of principle, I've wiped my iPhone and moved my primary SIM card to a Pixel 5 running https://calyxos.org
This CSAM scanning will do effectively zero to stop children from being abused. It will only serve to breach the client side of E2E across the industry. Apple's privacy credibility is shot. We need to push hard for true open source mobile.
Today's mobile duopoly (including the look don't touch that is Android), is the digital yoke of our times.
I often bring this up in HTTP vs HTTPS conversations. It's not about what CAs you trust, as that's a policy decision you can make on your own devices. It's about knowing (through whatever CAs you trust), what the origin of the code you're going to execute on your device is. It's about knowing that your ISP isn't injecting extra JavaScript into your page requests. This isn't hypothetical, it's literally happening right now.
When the people injecting JavaScript are interested in exploits rather than dumb ISP value added services and notifications, it becomes more obvious that running code from untrusted sources, even if it's sandboxed, is dangerous.
The EU is literally in the process of putting the same kind of taxes on technology companies. And people are cheering for it. The US does the same in reverse, everyone loses their minds...
Yes, in today's age of liberal democracies, we can take lessons from the past, like the value of free speech, innocent until proven guilty, not being deprived freedom without due process of law / habeas corpus, abolishment of debtors prisons, private property / not being deprived of property without due process of law, etc.
It seems like we have a lot of infringements of basic and fundamental rights in which we are forgetting history and how we got here. However, I haven't seen a significant effort to revive colonialism. So perhaps this isn't the highest priority example of where we need to learn from history at the moment?
Even America's expeditionary wars don't have the intention of changing the lines on maps. The only nation that has done that recently that I'm aware of is Russia. Trying to fly today's wars and examples of exploitation of peoples under the flag of colonialism seems rather forced to me. Why not just say "bad stuff" and tie that to colonialism?
The British, European, and American atrocities were the only ones you consider "recent"? We only hold those to account who are open to being held accountable? Or only those who keep good records?
Sorry, but that's not a very convincing argument to excuse the extremely selective outrage and demands for reparations and accountability. Personally, I think the biases that drive this selective outrage are rather obvious. But draw your own conclusions.
Imagine invalidating a person as a potential colleague and declaring your incompatibility with that person remotely based on a quarter inch deep evaluation of their background. I think this kind of take is in really bad taste.