Definitely red. But I think in northern and central california the whole blue city / red outside cities thing is kind of like the European Coal and Steel Community. So much shared infrastructure and interdependence, and water and electricity is not evenly distributed.
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...”
Wouldn’t the sign in mechanism (which validates e-mail) prevent this, in the sense than they won’t be able to get a third-party account to authenticate with for a particular e-mail without verifying ownership of that e-mail to the third-party provider?
You address this by only linking accounts once a user has successfully signed in with another provider. That way if their email exists from another provider, you're more certain that it's the same account
... 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.
Did it include the detailed paperwork for the equity which would include all terms such as requiring conversion to a corporation? Or was it just a number that you assumed didn't have any gotcha clauses attached?
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.
