I suspect you're confusing money and cash - they're two distinct things. I would be incredibly to learn that my bank had anywhere near the amount of cash stored compared to the amount of money deposited there. Cash has storage costs and pays a 0% return where deposits with a central bank have historically paid higher than that. (This isn't universally true.)
Think about how often the english documentation coming with cheap products from china is mocked - do you really want your professional output to be treated in the same regard?
If you're writing translation code then you're (probably) doing it wrong.
If your clients are happy to only ever have a product in one language which will never have to deal with anything outside the 7bit ascii range then ignoring the complexity required to do it is (probably) fine.
As soon as you hit some requirement which violates the above if you haven't considered how this might affect you you're likely in for some horrible problems when suddenly you need to handle these things.
I never saw an issue with this. Council tax pays for things like garbage collection, local services and street cleaning. Unless those things are disproportionately more expensive for expensive houses(and I strongly suspect they aren't), why would they pay more?
Like someone else already noticed - when you buy a house for say £20m, you will pay about £3 million in stamp duty, which is insane already. Owners of expensive housing already pay a tonne in that tax for the privilege of owning it.
> I never saw an issue with this. Council tax pays for things like garbage collection, local services and street cleaning. Unless those things are disproportionately more expensive for expensive houses(and I strongly suspect they aren't), why would they pay more?
Because we live in a society and those with the most expensive houses have likely derived the most benefit from that. Just like anything else, the price of civilization is about the value it provides, not about what it cost to produce.
> Like someone else already noticed - when you buy a house for say £20m, you will pay about £3 million in stamp duty, which is insane already. Owners of expensive housing already pay a tonne in that tax for the privilege of owning it.
Stamp duty is a terrible mechanism: it mainly just discourages people from moving, which then means it doesn't even raise that much revenue.
>>Because we live in a society and those with the most expensive houses have likely derived the most benefit from that.
How so? The same limits on garbage collection still apply regardless of how expensive your house is. Even if you have a £20m mansion the council will only collect one bin per week. I'd risk a guess that expensive mansions also require fewer police and fire department visits, and as for street cleaning I have no opinion really.
>>Stamp duty is a terrible mechanism: it mainly just discourages people from moving, which then means it doesn't even raise that much revenue.
I agree with you. I'm looking to buy a house right now and stamp duty feels like money thrown into a fire - basically paying few grand for the luxury of purchasing a place to live.
The difference is what that funds. In the UK, council tax is intended to fund things like rubbish removal. In the US, property tax funds schools. Other taxes make up for the low “property” tax in the UK (property in quotes because renters pay it directly too - it is an occupancy tax not an ownership tax)
Property taxes should be relative high, so the city gets their part of the increasing land value when the city grows. So that land owners get to collect only a small-ish part of the windfall of the increased value.
It is, after all, the city that made the land more valuable by building more city around it.
To address the last point - if your neighbour can't afford to move because the rent is too high elsewhere then under a non-rent controlled system would the landlord not have raised her rent to a point she would be unable to pay it and would thus be forced to move elsewhere?
(I don't know enough to actually have an answer to this.)
1) move away from rising costs, in literally any direction (pick just about any other place in the world), settle into a home you can afford and move again later if you want/need.
2) Live in a rent controlled apartment, become trapped for the rest of your life in a neighborhood where you can no longer afford groceries, healthcare or a haircut because of the rising cost of living.
The 50m is a slightly misleading point (it includes everyone too young to vote, whatever their viewpoint) but there's a much stronger case to take into account the perspective of the 16m people who voted against this car crash.
To declare that because a poorly defined proposition sold with untruth and misdirection won out in a vote means that we can't reflect on what is now known is absurd.
If every vote in which the outcome was swayed with misdirection and untruth was invalidated, we’d have to give up on democracy completely. Every view and opinion was expressed and the electorate had plenty of opportunity to make a decision. I certainly feel I had sufficient information to make an informed choice.
I take a longer view. Democracy is a serious business and the fact the referendum decided on a specific outcome matters. Parliament agreed to hold the referendum and agreed to honour it. In the long term interests of the integrity of our nation and system of government, we should face up to and follow through on those commitments.
It wasn't just the usual 'misdirection and untruth', the Leave campaigns were found guilty of multiple crimes (and there's still more to investigate). If it had been a binding vote, it would have been invalidated.
> If every vote in which the outcome was swayed with misdirection and untruth was invalidated, we’d have to give up on democracy completely.
I would say the opposite: unless you do that, you have already given up on democracy.
> I certainly feel I had sufficient information to make an informed choice.
So do 93% of both leavers and remainers. Trouble is, these two groups disagree about which statements are true: is the EU democratic? Which is responsible for employment rights? For the level of immigration from Africa and the Middle East? How expensive is it? What benefits does it provide?
It is necessarily the case that around half the UK voters believe total nonsense. I know which side I believe, but that doesn’t really help.
>I would say the opposite: unless you do that, you have already given up on democracy.
As you say yourself, despite all that has happened, the vast majority of leavers and remainers still believe in the same choice. Most of the issues are matters of opinion, not fact. Even if leaving the EU is a disaster, many Brexiteers will believe it was only disaster because "it wasn't done properly".
My take on that is, this was a risk they chose to accept when voting for Brexit and which I chose not to accept when voting for remain. However they won the vote, so we all took that risk.
The opinion that fewer immigrants will mean less crime. That our trade deal in the EU exposes our companies to unfair competition. That fewer immigrants will help preserve 'our' way of life. That we will be free to reach our own trade deals with other countries. Most of Brexit is about forward-looking hopes and expectations. I don't believe it, but it's hard to disprove because what do people even mean by 'our' culture, etc?
If you have a little discernment you can probably filter out bad advice. Personally I have often gotten better advice about legal or health issues from online forums than I have received from professionals like lawyers and doctors. At a minimum these responses are a cheap way to learn about things you should be looking into so you are better prepared for talking to a professional person.
If you talk to _your_ lawyer about your issue the lawyer can't go and tell anyone else, nor can that discussion be raised as part of a legal process against you. Not the case if you post it to a public forum.
I'm guessing this is on a one way road? With traffic driving on the left you'd normally want to look right to check you're not stepping into oncoming traffic (although you should probably check both ways on a normal zebra crossing as you'll be crossing traffic in both directions).
I was curious so I looked at the identifiable image[1] in the article in google maps[2] and it seems that only some of the crossings have these notes - notably the one way street crossing has look left/right on the respective sides of the road and the crossing with the island has them on both lanes, but the crossing over the two way street has nothing. I can't say I've ever actually noticed these (which may be because they're less common outside London or because I just don't pay close enough attention to the floor at my feet when walking).
But without there being a general audience for those things the cost is generally too high.
The example which springs to mind is the pre-peeled fruit a number of years ago which was similarly dismissed for having a harmful environmental impact, but if you've lost motor function in your hands it means you can eat a wider variety of foods.
Just because you don't see the need for something doesn't mean the need isn't there.
