Well if it's negative 48V the electricty flows out of your circuit and back to the grid, so you need to make it positive to have the electricity come in.
If I understand correctly, that's also where the Dutch "advocaat" liqueur comes from. They were trying to reproduce sweet avocado drinks, there were no avocados in Europe, so they made something up they thought tasted similar.
Caterina Fake, co-founder of Flickr, famously had issues with IT systems:
Tim: There’re so many places we could start, but in the process of doing homework for this, I found mentioned, and I wanted to do a fact check on this, of you having plane tickets automatically cancelled, and other issues related to your last name. Is that accurate? Did those things actually happen?
Caterina Fake: This has happened to me many times, in fact. And I discovered that it was actually the systems at KLM and Northwest that would throw my ticket out, my last name being “Fake.” And I have missed flights and have spent way too many hours with customer service trying to fix this problem. Here’s another thing too, is that I was unable for the first two years of Facebook to make an account there also. And probably all of my relatives.
lol so much data gets converted into strings at some point when passed around. Definitely encountered systems where you have to check for both null and "null"
This seems like a good spot for the link to @patio11's "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names"
So, as a public service, I’m going to list assumptions your systems probably
make about names. All of these assumptions are wrong. Try to make less of
them next time you write a system which touches names.
I get what he's doing, but some of these are not actionable:
> People’s names are all mapped in Unicode code points.
So... what? What do I do with this? My program has to use something to represent text, and since I fail to be a large multinational consortium, I can't invent my own character set and expect it to work.
Also:
> Confound your cultural relativism! People in my society, at least, agree on one commonly accepted standard for names.
This is pretty much true in countries with naming laws, yes.
> People have names.
People in a database will have certain records which will not be NULL. Whether you call one of those records a 'name' outside the context of that database really isn't my concern.
Unicode is not the only character set (or the best one); this is a falsehood programmers believe about character sets (I wrote a list of this too but I do not remember if I had published it). However, that is not the most severe issue, due to the other things mentioned, such as if people do not have names (or if there are multiple ways to enter them, or if people sometimes change their name, or have the same name as other people, etc).
> Unicode is not the only character set (or the best one); this is a falsehood programmers believe about character sets
Unicode is the best if I want to communicate with other people. I lived through the 1990s; you won't convince me that playing "guess the encoding" with dozens of subtly-incompatible standards (and non-standards, and almost-standards) was a good time, or that having to override a web browser's helpful guess was fun.
Try to understand these issues or rather how they could affect your business processes and software implementations down the line rather than dismissing them on a technical level.
You can store the Unicode representation just as you normally would. But what you don't do is assume that your Unicode representation is the only representation of the actual name.
More concretely, there are names that have multiple equally valid ways of writing them. You can probably expect that usually the same one is used, but you should absolutely not require this when building your business processes.
Even more concretely, as an example there are transliteration or simplification / shortening rules that allow people with otherwise strange or long names to buy an airline ticket. The actual, real name may not be any of the ones you have in your system. This matters e.g. when searching for someone or in customer support.
As for people without names (or unknown names), you should probably recognize that the handling might differ by country. E.g. records with "John Doe" in the US might have to be handled differently: analogous to "NULL != NULL" in SQL John Doe != John Doe. Or maybe even "Jane Doe == John Doe" in some cases. See also "Fnu Lu" (First Name Unknown, Last Name Unknown) used in the US.
And although I don't have knowledge about all the countries in the world, it may very well be that this leads to situations where the "no name" has to be handled specially or at least understood to be a special case, completely differently from other cases.
> So... what? What do I do with this? My program has to use something to represent text, and since I fail to be a large multinational consortium, I can't invent my own character set and expect it to work.
Maybe don't rush to remove your "legacy" encoding support because "everyone is using UTF-8"? Or at least check with some Japanese users with obscure names first.
The government already got their share during the accumulation period. They have no claim on it anymore. If people want the government to spread their wealth around to help society they can specify that in their will.
I think it's unfair, you work your entire life paying tax on every single euro you make(a lot of tax in fact!) and then when you want to leave that to your child it's taxed again? What complete nonsense. I'm very glad the country where I'm from(Poland) doesn't have that.
People could equally argue that it is unfair that some children are born with all the advantages while others have none. I don't think "fairness" is a strong argument here because it is entirely subjective. What seems fair to you looks like a huge injustice to somebody else.
My parents are upper-middle class, and I've profited from their wealth all my life. My inheritance will be taxed, and I don't find that unfair at all. I was born on second base and had an advantage over others at every stage of my life; it would be fatuous to complain about an inheritance tax.
Suppose you've inherited genes which contribute in varying degrees to brains, beauty, longevity and charm. These are arguably advantages rather more significant in life than money. If there was a choice who wouldn't choose these? So should you be taxed given how you will undoubtedly profit from it? Or is it just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill with something and destined for a short life who's hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash?
>is it just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill with something and destined for a short life who's hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the exact point you're making.
I follow the premise of your argument. You're saying genes are a birth advantage, just like money is. I absolutely agree with that. But I don't understand how this ends in "just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill" being "hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash."
FWIW, in many Western countries, healthy people are already functionally "taxed" (although it's often not technically a tax) more than unhealthy people because both pay similar amounts into healthcare but derive different benefits from it.
I also think that's good, just like taxing inheritance is.
Those unearned traits might make you more money, and you might also bequeath these traits to your kids. It would compound the injustice if you could furthermore bequeath all the money to your kids, while it would ameliorate the injustice if the inheritance were largely taxed away.
It's taxed above a pretty reasonable threshold. You have the option of gifting your money tax-free to your children, or to public-good organisations. Hell, you have the option to spend some of the money you made in your lifetime! You earned it, spend it! See the world! Eat the finest cheeses for breakfast, lunch and dinner! Have a masseur on retainer! The kids sound pretty entitled anyway!
Read my comment: your brother passes away without children and the Tax Agency steals 45% of his estate (and that's after the "discount" for the threshold, the actual tax rate over the threshold is higher than 45%). That's not reasonable at all.
I'm still getting 55% of the wealth my brother built for himself without putting any effort into it. It would be different if this were a spouse, but surviving spouses are not subject to these taxes.
Also, taxation isn't stealing. But if you genuinely feel that it is, you have the option of moving to a country with no functioning government. The Somali government, for example, has effectively no ability to collect taxes in most regions.
Why should one be entitled to the property of their brother? What's special about a brother that should be unavailable with leaving property to, say, one's best friend?
I don't see what this has to do with communism, and frankly I don't think you do either. And I do agree with you that taxing inheritance is unacceptable.
Parents everywhere in (almost?) every country of the world are allowed to give tax-free gifts to their children without limit. That's generally not objected to in any way, but suddenly people think it's fair when the exact same money or houses get taxed at inheritance time.
Also - at the end of the day, someone is still getting something that they "didn't earn" - why allow it at all? Tax everything at 100% on death - why give people who didn't "earn it" something?
Obviously I'm being fascicious about this now, but if the argument that it's "unfair" for people who "didn't earn it" to get something, why allow this at all?
And also, personally - I think the argument is flipped on its head. It's not about people getting the inheritance - it's about people "giving" it - I paid taxes on my money throughout my entire life, why should the state take any more just because I'm leaving it to my children?
Limiting the snowball effect of the wealthy getting wealthier generation after generation through no contribution of their own is considered a societal good. Whether it is can be debated, but Europe seems to be in a happier position regarding that than the US, at the moment. Why is it always the rugged individualists, the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps proponents who are in favour of receiving unearned money? It feels less like a considered philosophical viewpoint than naked greed.
(and, on a side note, where do you get that you can give unlimited tax-free money to your children in almost every country of the world? I checked the US, France, UK, Spain, Morocco, South Africa and Brazil, and all have limits after which tax apply. China and the Philippines don't, but neither do they have inheritance tax.)
>>Whether it is can be debated, but Europe seems to be in a happier position regarding that than the US, at the moment
I'm Polish and Poland doesn't have any inheritance tax for children, not sure what US has to do with this.
>>I checked the US, France, UK, Spain, Morocco, South Africa and Brazil
Did you really? Here a UK page about this, there is no limitation on how much you can give your children tax free, tax only applies if you die within 7 years after gifting it:
>>Limiting the snowball effect of the wealthy getting wealthier generation after generation through no contribution of their own is considered a societal good
Again, so please tell me why you don't think we should be taxing it at 100%, to maximise the societal good?
I already pay effective rate of 40% of tax on all my earnings - am I not doing enough for "societal good"?
But is the point not that the person who needs to pay this tax, if they accept the free gift of land etc, still gets to keep 55%?
There are cases that can be imagined (a child inheriting an old house in a high-COL location) where it feels unfair, but in this case it sounds like free money. Surely the government is not asking for more money than the land is worth, or something like that?
There is a name for a system where people pass on their wealth (and titles) to their progeny, by birthright.
I am sure the average 99%-er American would love to be back in medieval Europe, where kings and queens, and lords and dukes cared so much for their offspring! Wealth by birthright, that's so progressive!
Nobody claimed otherwise however making sure your loved ones are taken care of in the best possible position involves love and support otherwise why bother you are already dead.
If you don't want to pay taxes, don't be a part of society, don't use public roads, public schools, public hospitals, and public education.
If you do want to be a part of society, accept that it's a give-and-take situation, and move on. Some people give more than they take, and some people do take more than they have given, and that's alright with me.
Side rant:
It's no wonder that a show like Breaking Bad, where a teacher gets cancer and has to become a drug kingpin to finance his healthcare, has to be situated in the US. The plot simply wouldn't hold in any other civilized country.
It's no also wonder that the name Luigi is no longer only the name of Mario's brother but synonymous with something else, and again something that happened in the US.
Nobody said "no" to taxes. Fair taxes are necessary. FAIR TAXES. Not 45% taxes on something that already paid taxes several times (income, property, VAT, etc). That's robbery.
Agreed with you! A progressive tax (the more you earn, the higher % you get taxed) makes sense as a fair thing to me.
Where I am from, it's 52%, and that's a reasonable price to pay for having bike paths, greening, parks, good roads, affordable public transport, great public schools, and paid time off and maternity/paternity leave.
Once there was a strike of the public sanitation workers in my city due to their low wages. You know what happened? In 2 weeks it changed from a beautiful place to live to a cesspool. Don't know about you but I was happy to spend some of my $$ so I didn't have to fight rats, rabid dogs and mountains of garbage to take my kids from school.
As a matter of fact, once somebody reaches a certain amount of wealth, I'd be very much in favor that it should be 70%, 80%, 90% and 99%. And, of course, then you get the prize "you won capitalism, now relax".
52% is not fair but pure robbery. Not so long ago, people paid the tithe (10%) and if any lord, governor or king dared to go just a little further, they'd be killed, usually by hanging. There's many countries in the world with smaller taxes and still great services. Public money is just wasted by politicians trying to buy votes for the next election.
