I also despise the appeal to some false authority. The entire premise for the argument seems to be, "well, I was a nurse and had to go in even when I was at risk, so they should do the same". The fact that she was a nurse or felt a duty to work has absolutely no weight in the argument.
I have been using Feedly since Google Reader was shut down. Use it across iPhone, iPad and web. I also use it to capture other articles and bookmarks on my boards.
I have subscribed to Pro for awhile but mostly for search and a few other things. I think they do have feed limits on the free tier.
I’ve tried and used a lot of different readers over the last 20 years but for me the most important is sync of read status across my consumption devices.
I have a lot of feeds across many different categories. HN, lobsters, dotnetkicks and a bunch of other high volume aggregators make up one category. Then I have feeds for startup/VC blogs, engineering blogs, some hyper local stuff, and some other non tech categories I’m involved in (food, wine, etc)
On all sites/apps I’ve built offering SSO, we’ve gone out of our way to support linking of accounts and detecting existing accounts when claims like emails are found. Also allowing for merges after the fact.
I would consider this a best practice when iffering any “ sign in with...”
... except the choice is not a dollar now vs. a dollar of stock in 4 years. RSUs are calculated as part of your total annual compensation the same was as salary. A grant of $100k RSUs that vest over 4 yrs would be more the equivalent of $25k more in salary, not $100k bonus.
Yes, there's the diversification problem but it's not like you have that same money upfront to invest in anything you want.
RSUs are more akin to salary (i.e., your RSU grant / vesting period = annual salary increase) than a bonus where you get the cash upfront. So yeah, if the choice was $100k signing bonus or $100k RSU, the analysis is different - but that's not how they work.
One of the key benefits of RSUs is that they are priced and granted upfront and can appreciate (and earn dividends) before they vest.
A more concrete example: let's imagine you joined AAPL Jan 1, 2019 and were granted $100k in RSUs. You'd get 667 shares, and vest 83 shares every six months. If the stock doesn't move at all, that's the same as the additional salary (though salary is better since it's prorated evenly as opposed to bi-annual "bonuses").
Of course, the stock prices don't stay the same... and that's where the potential comes in. In the last year, AAPL has doubled. In that example, you would have vested 83 shares at $200 ($16,675) in the summer and 83 shares last week at $300 ($25k) vs. $25k salary in the first year.
In the same period, FB and GOOG have gone up 50%, AMZN has gone up 15%, NFLX (which doesn't do RSUs to my knowledge, only stock options) went up 6%. In all of those cases, you'd be better off in Y1 with the RSU grant.
Obviously, yes, there's downside risk to that too. The floor is still much higher tha stock options which can easily be worth nothing if underwater... but when you factor in that this is 20-50% of your total compensation, that upside/risk seems worth it.
Every single employment offer I've sent or received that included equity stated so in the offer letter, expressed either as a % or an absolute number of shares.
I tried it on a couple of sites I have with ~1k users using pretty heavily. I made $1.50 USD over a couple of months, and most complained that it was being blocked/giving security warnings when visiting the site.
Not that I am making much from ads either, but it just really wasn't worth it. Affiliate revenue, while small on a grand scheme, was much more effective .
It's also misleading and intellectually dishonest to discuss the amount of income tax paid in the context of rate while ignoring the underlying income.
E.g., "The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."
Ok, except this ignores the amount _earned_ by the top 1% (avg $678,359) vs. the bottom 90% (avg $35,083). [1]
And of course, higher wage earners are also likely to have disproportionately more wealth, as it's a lot easier to save, invest and otherwise maximize growth and minimize tax exposure when you have more cash available.
I am not making light of the situation AT ALL - but it's sort of weirdly ironic that the link goes to a 404 page in their "Social Responsibility" section.
This makes me happy, and hopefully it's just available as a base part of Visual Studio / part of all MSDN subscriptions. I loved Xamarin in principle before, but the price tag was steep.
I inherited a Xamarin app on one project - and while there were certainly some issues here and there, the promise of native cross-platform app development and shared C# libraries is pretty compelling.
From my perspective, I think limiting QPM is better than limiting the number of documents that you can index. In my current case, I have millions of "documents" (in a Lucene sense of documents) but relatively low usage. Obviously, my goal long-term is to increase the usage. So being able to pay to index a lot of documents but limit the resources (i.e., VM size, but not storage size) to search would be the best way to scale.
In theory, the more users I have the more $ I have to scale the search.
The solution I'm currently using (mostly because SQL Azure doesn't support Full-Text Search) is Lucene.NET (which is still on a very old version but supposedly 4.8 is coming) and AzureDirectory (which leverages Blob storage). It's clunky, but it works... at least for the scale I use it at currently. I would love to be able to use Azure Search and scale it up again just like with all my other services.
My main problem with this is that a standard instance is $125/mo for anything beyond the free limits (10k documents, 50mB). It would be great to see pricing that followed, say, Azure Websites or SQL pricing... $20-40/mo for smaller instances (smaller by either search volume or index size).
I mean, after all, if SQL Azure supported Full Text Indexes, this wouldn't be critical either.
This is a truly bizarre post. I especially don't understand how they create myths that at least most people wouldn't think.
Like do people really think Square is not PCI compliant? Maybe they're just trying to do some SEO magic so someone searching for "is Square unreliable" will land there, but it's still odd. Why establish this negative relationship when it maybe/probably doesn't exist?
My account was banned for "invalid activity" in the timeframe mentioned. The automated emails said they wouldn't even tell me what I supposedly did wrong. I tried appealing and only got an automated email telling me my appeal was denied. I was never able to talk to anyone or get any actual details on wrongdoing. A quick search and you'll quickly realize this happened to a lot of people.
I had something like $200 sitting in my account, which was obviously forfeited. Before this even happened, I removed ads from my blog (which is where the revenue was earned) because it wasn't performing well enough to justify having ads there anyway.
In the end, I didn't really care so much about my forfeited balance - hell, I even volunteered to forfeit it during the appeal if it was in any way associated with invalid activity among other things. The big issue is that this seems to be a lifetime/universal ban. BEFORE WE EVER RAN ADS, an AdSense account with an unrelated corporate tax ID was also banned for "Invalid Activity". The only reason I can conceivably come up with on the ban is that this was also associated with a Google Apps account that I have.
I'm a longtime Google shareholder and supporter, but it's times like this when you realize you can't trust "Don't Be Evil" any more. Ironically, I've spent way more in Google Apps + AdWords than I ever earned with AdSense.