This makes most salaries nondeductible, so you will need about 25% more revenue (80% of 21% federal and up to 10% state income tax) to break even than
otherwise. If you’re pre-revenue your runway doesn’t change.
Apparently the right number is 90% of 21+10%, because amortization starts at the midpoint of the first year. (If you take authoritative tax advice from me you will totally go to jail.)
As someone mentioned above, some people are protesting peacefully while others are committing crimes and rioting. The concern is that police, and now federal agents, aren't acting in good faith and aren't interested in distinguishing between the two. It's possible to be concerned about abuse of power by law enforcement - which has been rampantly on display these past few weeks - without supporting anarchist attempting to set fire to buildings.
If we could know for sure the police weren't going to abuse their authority, there would have been neither protests nor riots.
I think that's plenty observed actually. When you look at who's been shot, beaten, and gassed it's largely protesters, not people rioting. Although it's easy for police to make the claim that it's rioters, since they seem to declare every protest a riot.
Right now they are considered a platform, not a publisher. Platforms can't be sued for libel. They are acting as a publisher. Remember the Covington Boys, CNN (A publisher) etc. got the pants sued off of them for Libel. That is one rich kid. Anyway if it is determined they are a publisher they can be sued. So if you were to post that I'm an Orange NAZI on twitter. I could essentially sue you and twitter, if I prove that I am not an Orange Nazi I could win millions. Both you and twitter would pay. No one knows if you have enough money to pay out 8 figures but everyone and his lawyer knows twitter does.
I think this falls under a reasonable interpretation of the unlimited.
a reasonable person would understand that there are bandwidth limits both technological and environmental. A reasonable person would expect that the level of service they signed up for would continue or get better over time.
I see two issues.
One is that after a certain amount of data is used they limit bandwidth. If you limit something it is hard to call it unlimited.
The other issue is that early on throttling was not in place. They specifically added throttling to entice users to switch to more lucrative data plans.
I would potentially reluctantly agree, iff the throttling was only during peak hours and when things were actually overloaded. And if they had been doing so from the start. ("I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." is incredibly shady.) But they weren't on either of those things. They throttled after a certain amount of data per month, and it was a flat throttle.
I disagree. That the word 'unlimited' exists in the language does not mean there must be a place and justification for it found in marketing material.
The only reasonable interpretation of a word is its meaning; since there are no shortage of words to describe non-unlimited data plans, the mobile networks should use those instead.
A back door is a vulnerability regardless of its intended use. There is no way to assure it can't be used elsewhere. I would be shocked if the existing decryption method used internally at Apple wasn't fully available to other agencies. How hard would it be for a three letter agency to get someone in the right position to obtain the keys and tools?
The closing of this vulnerability makes business sense for Apple. Considering how connected these devices are only, marooned data would not already be available elsewhere. Perhaps a photo that wasn't uploaded or a note taken. Everything else is accessible. Location data is available via cell tower logs. Voice calls, call history, SMS, email, web history, etc... all available already...
If company A has $1M in expenses and $1M in investment, after the tax change it will need ~$5M in investment.