It depends on how they got their income in the first place. My family are dairy farmers and frequently trade cattle at local auctions. This is still a cash based society (rural Ireland), it does not take many heads of cattle to make up 10k, many other deals are done informally (e.g. my grandfather buying cows from a neighbor without auction) with a value that is of that order. The money may hit a bank account if something more formal needs to be bought (insurance, new machinery etc) but those are not all that common.
As a child I would always remember my grandfather carrying (at least in the house) large rolls of bills.
Usually means labels, safety, privacy, worker rights, quotas, etc. The EU has a vast amount of regulations that protect consummers but make business harder/more expensive. The UK should retain most of those independently, will probably fudge some of them.
The EU rule is minimum 15%, the UK choses 20% of its own accord.
But that's not the interesting bit, the interesting bit is the follow-up question: "what stops the UK changing this from within the EU?"
The answer for this one is nothing - in fact, EU states have already agreed that all states will have full VAT setting powers from 2022.
>> biofuels directive
You'd need to give more context here - Boris Johnson has committed £12 billion partly in support of going beyond the requirements of this directive as part of the so called "new green revolution".
What exactly is the conflict with the biofuels directive? If anything it's weaker than the current UK Gov's expressed desires in this space?
Thank you for the information on the VAT directive changing in 2022. Is that the definitive VAT system? I've not really been following EU legislation for the last few years.
The thing that concerns me with the biofuels directive is it's requirement for 5% of petrol to be made up of biofuel. As the cheapest source of this is palm oil, we then end up contributing to the destruction of habitats in Indonesia in order to grow palm oil to burn in our cars. The EU does recognise this and I'm sure I read that come 2030, that will be disallowed, but then they will likely need to use Soy or some other oil that will cause even more destruction.
I don't have any sources for this to hand and I may well have some of this information incorrect. It's been about five years since I researched much of this.
The only reason to do that is price, which importing (from the USA, presumably) would surely negate. When chlorinated chicken has been brought up as a debate point it's as an example of a standard that might slip, that cheaper UK chicken might be chlorinated for a UK market.
I am not an author, but was around when we decided to create Please in 2015.
When we created Please we were currently using Buck from Facebook. As has been covered elsewhere at the time it had some limitations which meant that it was getting more and more expensive to workaround (no multiple outs from rules so doing things like sourcemaps was hard etc). We had previously migrated from a set of disparate build tools (Gradle, Gulp etc) to Buck after evaluating it against Pants (we actually trialled our repo with both).
We all had experience with Blaze (Bazel did not exist in 2014/2015) and wanted to get closer to the experience we had in Google, hence the final decision to build our own. At the time we rolled it out we had full Buck compatibility (and actually most of our engineers did not notice initially). Once we were happy it worked, we migrated in full to Please.
Overall it allowed us to provide much better tooling for our developers (queries on the build graph for smaller CI/CD footprints, coverage in all languages, and for rules that can output multiple languages (like protocol buffers) we only build variants in the requested languages rather than all languages).
If Bazel had been open-sourced and easy to extend at the time we would certainly have looked to adopt and improve it (as we did with Buck at the time). But by the time they open-sourced it the two system had diverged in their approach and use cases.
I (obviously somewhat biased) think having multiple principled build systems which prioritise the needs of different communities is good for the ecosystem overall (and allows the sharing of good ideas such as the Remote Execution Interface).
Experiments on sedated sheep and partially ventilated
anesthetized pigs have been unsuccessful, suggesting
that application to large mammals may not be feasible.
Yes the (d)ethicists have so jammed up the drug development process with impossible safety thresholds that basically nothing new can now be tested in humans.
I travel in Europe a lot, but Google Maps for Android has had the ability to save offline maps for ages now (which I use all the time). GPS also works offline obviously so you can navigate pretty well (still no search for offline though). In the latest version (7.5 I think) you just get the area you want to save in screen, click the search bar and scroll down to the bottom to see the option. I think it works on iOS too but you might need to use the "OK Maps" easter egg.
> get the area you want to save in screen, click the search bar and scroll down to the bottom to see the option.
That is going to be really useful, it doesn't allow me to search even for something as simple as "home". It does let me zoom right in and keeps names of important landmarks intact like rail stations.
I use this exact same system, although it sort of hurts to see my old phones get slowly crippled by my girlfriend. She is currently just bringing my old Galaxy Nexus to the end of its life.
The sectioned titled "Inconsistent get interface" compares get() to getattr() which are two unrelated functions. getattr is the same as a property lookup on an object (person.name, person['name']), get() is a method defined by some types which returns a stored value.
In the provided example he calls get on an empty dictionary for the key 1, then calls getattr of 'a' on an int. Finally he calls it again with an optional default argument of None.
The difference is made apparent by the example:
In [13]: test = {'values': 1}
In [14]: getattr(test, 'values')
Out[14]: <function values>
With Chrome you have to trade memory usage for the process sandboxing of each tab which adds a measurable overhead. But I think for the general population it is a trade worth making.
I think it definitely used to be, but these days Firefox crashes so rarely that I don't see it as an issue. I imagine other browsers are similarly stable, and it depends on your personal usage patterns, but I think the majority of users probably neither use dozens of tabs nor experience frequent crashes, so both should be fine for most users, but power users are likely to prefer one or the other.
As a child I would always remember my grandfather carrying (at least in the house) large rolls of bills.