Back in the day, in my EU country, everybody drove shift gear. Automatic gear was frowned upon. Nowadays everybody drives automatic. People like ‘boring’ comfort, it shows everywhere.
The Manual Gearbox Preservation Society (https://tmgps.org/) is a notable counterexample.
I look forward to teaching my kids to drive stick. Stick makes driving more engaging then automatic's point-and-go. Engagement breeds attentivity. Texting while driving stick is obviously decreased because both hands are actively required to drive. None of their friends will be able to drive my manual car. I don't know why anyone would hand their kid the keys to an automatic given its downsides.
I had no trouble managing my mug of coffee while driving stick. (Before cupholders were universal, and before texting).
It required some deft coordination to get out of the parking spot and getting up to speed, but I spent most of my time in fifth gear and staying there. One hand is just as free as it is in an automatic.
Texting while driving remains a bad idea, but I don't think a stick shift would prevent it. I could have managed to text just as well as I managed drinking coffee.
Which hand dominant are you? My guess is you're a lefty so being offhanded with coffee in the right, which you don't have to look at, is no biggie.
Righties tend to fiddle (not shift) with the shifter or have the right hand on the wheel most of the time. Texting offhanded with the left is miserable.
The truly dedicated can drive one-kneed, heel-toe, drink coffee, and text simultaneously. But manual definitely makes texting more obviously stupid by requiring intermittent use of the second hand.
I am a righty, and yeah, I mostly held my coffee in my left hand. Texting instead would be very hard. I could probably do it once I'm on the highway (though not while drinking coffee).
I bet a teenager would at least give it the old high school try.
What downsides for the _average_ driver (who just wants to go from A to B comfortably and safely) does an automatic have? Back when I still drove a non-electric vehicle, I really appreciated an automatic giving me one less thing to think about (which means a little bit more attention to the things that matter like safety).
> What downsides for the _average_ driver (who just wants to go from A to B comfortably and safely) does an automatic have?
No downside really.
But as an analogy closer to HN, is there any advantage to knowing about software and operating systems and networking if all you're going to do is watch netflix on a walled-garden phone?
Same answer, no advantage really.
But knowledge is rewarding, understanding systems is fun.
> I look forward to teaching my kids to drive stick.
Same here, in only a few years!
There might be no long term use for it (but near future use certainly, since all our regular cars are standard, only the truck and EV are not) but having another skillset is always good. And it makes driving so much more engaging.
Ferarri is going to retrofit some of their cars with fake manuals (completely electronic emulation). Car reviewers soiling their pants over it was hilarious, especially so after the Luce backlash lol.
> However, some countries have different rules for deciding if a company is tax resident. It is common that, in addition to the place of incorporation, the place of effective management can trigger tax residence. If you run your company from a country with regulations like this, then the company may end up having dual tax residence. This happens when two states believe that the company is tax resident in their jurisdiction and will want to tax the company’s profits.
This 'It is common that [...] the place of effective management can trigger tax residence' is indeed common.
It is still amazing to me that so many people don't get this fact.
It doesn't matter where your company is incorporated, you'll be liable to pay the taxes where you live. And if you think the revenue service of your country is going to forget, you are guaranteed to have a very nasty surprise waiting for you when you least expect it.
The only way to more or less skirt this rule is to keep moving so you're technically never fiscally resident in any country (not even sure if it works), or move your personal fiscal residence to a tax haven like Monaco.
No, I was under the impression that foundations must be established with a non profit goal in mind. I thought you cannot just give beneficiaries cash. I see I was mistaken and that private foundations allow you to treat the structure the same as a trust fund.
Hence the executives/boardmembers-all-fly-to-some-island (Jersey is the one in my mind), have board meeting in the airport, sign the papers, and all fly home?
Company stays "in" Jersey, none of the humans need to live there?
That is unfortunately not how it works. Most commonly the place from which decisions are made on a day to day basis is used. This results in the country in which 50% or more of your directors reside for 183 days a year.
So if 50% or more of your directors spend 183 days per year in the UK then your Estonian based business becomes UK tax resident in the eyes of the UK.
Do not underestimate the complexity of these rules.
If the company is managed 'day by day' by a local director (for example by a company like Intertrust or Trustmoore) then the non-local board and/or shareholders can indeed flyin to have 'a meeting with extensive discussions where all decisions where made and some papers were signed'. I had a company in Singapore for some years doing this.
reply