This covers federal income taxes only, excluding payroll taxes such as Social Security and Medicare. Including those the top 1% pays ~25% of all federal taxes while earning ~22% of all income.
Weed in the US is starting to get this way as well. It’s amazing the amount of actually useful drug information you can get from products sold at weed shops these days. Meanwhile you don’t even get nutritional facts or ingredients with beer. I wish I liked either drug but I should be happy I don’t.
They’re incredibly convenient. It allows smaller groups of people to accomplish more in a shorter amount of time by providing a standardized interface that does a great job of integrating with their existing environment.
When translating database input and output into server-side representations, you have two options: build and maintain the process yourself or use a mature tool designed for that specific purpose in your server-side language. I strongly prefer the latter, as do many others.
I find that most people critical of ORMs end up creating their own narrowly focused, weakly tested ORM-like database compatibility layers in their backend. These have caused more problems than ORMs ever have.
> When translating database input and output into server-side representations, [...]
I'm saying that your server side representation could also be done as a relation. No need for object orientation. I don't have a problem with the M part of ORM, but with the O part.
_If_ you are having different representations, than having an automated mapper between representations is good. Agreed, yes.
A more appropriate name for ORMs would be "network data model to SQL mappers". They don't facilitate good OOP and oppose relational thinking and data management.
Like you said I imagine it was less effort. Less effort can be very valuable if you’re still producing something useful. Perhaps you could use a simple transpilation approach yourself if you think that’s a good idea.
> claim that cats (of all animals!) should stay at home at all costs. that's also weird. But these are mostly internet people, I've never found one in real life...
I’m one of these people. I swear I’m not just an internet person. Most of my friends who own cats also have these views as well.
Cats are incredibly efficient killers and live a considerably shorter life when given unsupervised access outdoors. Just because it’s natural for them doesn’t mean it’s good for them or their environment. Cats can live perfectly happy lives indoors, if taken care of properly. This isn’t weird. What’s weird is what’s normal.
You seem like you very much actually know what you’re talking about. Do you have any recommendations for books for laypeople for understanding modern agriculture?
Do you find yourself refusing to read articles or papers unless you’re first 100% sure that everything stated in them is absolutely true? Having to approach something with a certain amount of skepticism is not something that was newly introduced with LLM’s.
The common language most often used when people from Japan, China, or South Korea visit each other’s countries is English. All three groups of people are more likely to know English than either of the other two languages. The same can be said for the remaining group that doesn’t include people from those three countries.
Interesting! Sorry if this is getting off topic, but how does the Catholic Church feel about using sex as a method for developing closeness and intimacy with a partner, rather than as purely an avenue for pleasure? I imagine that's still frowned upon?
(Not Catholic, but Orthodox, which is similar enough in this matter.) The idea is more along the lines of saying that just as a human person is both body and soul, and neglect of either leads to death, the Catholic view is that the marriage itself, as well as each "marital act" should be: "Free (voluntary in the fullest sense), Total (complete sharing of self & life with the other), Faithful (to each other, exclusively), and Fruitful (pretty straightforward)". It wouldn't be good enough to say a woman married freely, so consent doesn't matter for each act. Or that a couple is generally monogamous, with some exceptions. So the "procreative" and "unitive" purposes of sex are considered to be inseparable without some debasement of the act. Hope that helps.
