CPAs aren't cheap, and most people's tax situations really aren't that complicated. Even for high earners with lots of investments, it mostly comes down to collecting a bunch of forms and either doing manual data entry or sending the forms to the CPA to do a bunch of data entry. It's not particularly clear that the CPA's work will be more accurate.
In a situation where there's some complex tax issue, absolutely, go with the professional, but for most people, the CPA is mainly there to provide peace of mind.
Also, if you make a good faith effort to pay your taxes correctly, the potential legal trouble for getting it wrong is pretty minimal. You'll need to pay the correct amount plus interest and penalties, but "interest and penalties" are pretty light (effectively 14% simple interest on the amount of the underpayment). And since the IRS doesn't usually take more than a couple of months to say, "hey, you screwed up," interest and penalties usually add up to like 3% of your underpayment.
I've used TurboTax, H&R Block, and TaxAct software in the past, before switching to freetaxusa a few years ago. The major difference is that Freetaxusa isn't constantly trying to upsell you into different products, or starting you out on a "free" tier and then 80% of the way through saying actually, you need the paid version, or you need to pay extra to efile, or something like that.
The dirty secret is TurboTax will tell you to upgrade to Deluxe Professional Premium, but you can just access the forms directly and enter the numbers if you need to.
There's a similar mechanism for most horse races in the US, though instead of it being just the winner's entry, all of the horses in the race are offered for sale at a certain "claiming" price just before the race starts.
In the USA they have had similar rules for some motorcycle racing classes to make them more even. Sometimes a super trick bike with lots of trick factory parts gets bought for pennies on the dollar.
I'm a fan of the workflow where the PR gets squashed in the upstream git repo, but the individual commits are preserved in the PR in the code review tool. I feel that Phabricator handles this well.
But does that still lose the source commit long term? What I'd love to have is a mechanism that keeps references to the pre-squash commits at blame granularity, allowing one to dig deeper into the commit messages associated with a given line. Kind of like a sourcemap, but for squash instead of transpile.
You don't lose it long term if you're using GitHub PRs — GitHub keeps the "reflog" (quoted because I imagine their implementation may not actually use reflog) of the branch indefinitely, even after force pushes. Graphite (built to replicate the Phabricator workflow) enables viewing and diffing these versions. (disclaimer, I helped build this)
When you squash merge on github the new commit references the old PR. If you don't delete branches on merge you would keep the commit history on that branch, but then you have to battle with branchs persisting forever.
You’re translating the problem from : searching through branches that are named according to their ticket and what they are meant to accomplish to: complex and not-context-free git bisect.
GitHub and Azure DevOps also do that, you just need to know where to look.
I don’t mind squashing either, unless I’m being really intentional or rewriting my history my intermediate commits couldn’t be reverted without leaving stuff broken (totally a me problem of course).
Intermediate commits being snapshots of “broken” state isn’t a problem at all. When I quit for the day, I commit, broken or not, and pick it up in the morning. I want to be able to drop my laptop in a puddle and still pick up where I left off when I get a new one.
I think the problem is putting those broken commits into the trunk. Ideally you want to clean up your commits so if you need to revert you don’t accidentally break your build and so reading thru history isn’t awful.
The DA treats anything less than automobile burglary as not worth their time. The way the law is written, smashing the window of a car and taking the contents is simple vandalism and theft (not as serious as burglary) unless there's evidence the car is locked.
If the car owner testifies at trial that the car was locked, then that's evidence. But ~no one visiting SF is going to come to town to testify at a trial, especially when trial dates can move around somewhat unpredictably. So a criminal can operate with relative impunity if they only ever break into tourist cars.
So, how do they identify tourists? Apparently they look for wheels that aren't curbed properly. Curbing your wheels is one of those things most people learn for their driver's test and never think about again, but if you live in a place where you're frequently parallel parking on steep hills, it becomes second nature. (Also, it's one of the few things SFMTA will issue a parking ticket for.) So thieves target cars that are parked on a hill but don't have their wheels curbed.
I'm guessing you curb your wheels, and your friend doesn't.
It depends on what you're trying to optimize for, and how much you're trying to optimize it.
If what you're concerned about is maximizing the odds of getting a jackpot, all you need to do is pick 27 different numbers. Say, 1-2-3-4-5-6 through 1-2-3-4-5-32.
If what you're concerned about is maximizing the odds of getting a jackpot that you don't need to share with anyone else, you shouldn't play any numbers that you think anyone else is likely to play, such as the numbers in this paper, six numbers that form a straght line on the play slip (vertical, horizontal, or diagonal), any six consecutive numbers, the winning numbers from any recent drawing[1], or famous lottery numbers like 4-8-15-16-23-42 (the mystical numbers from the TV show "Lost.")
If what you're concerned about is guaranteeing a small win of some kind, then use some rotation of the numbers in this paper.
If what you're concerned about is minimizing the variance in the outcomes you achieve, then you'll want a more complicated formula for picking tickets, taking into account the values of the prizes for matching 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 winning numbers. And if you're specifically looking for a set of tickets that's robust to operational interruptions in your ticket purchasing (what happens if the lottery system goes offline when you've bought ten of your 27 tickets, and you can't buy the last 17!?)[2].
But if one of the things you care about is the fully-loaded cost of buying 27 tickets, you'll almost certainly want to buy 27 random tickets, because picking specific numbers takes mental and physical effort, and 27 random tickets are unlikely to have enough overlap that it will have a significant impact on your likelihood of winning a large prize. The main downside of buying 27 random tickets is that it makes checking whether you won take more effort than if you already had your list of numbers.
And on that note, if what you care about is the fully-loaded cost of buying and redeeming your tickets, one of the best things you can do is the opposite of what this paper is about: you want to MINIMIZE the likelihood of winning a prize. Going to the store to cash a ticket takes effort, but it isn't much more effort to claim 27 prizes vs one single prize. So if you have a choice between a 1-in-27 chance of collecting 27 $2 prizes vs a 100% chance of collecting one $2 prize, you're better off with the former, simply because you can probably avoid an extra trip to the store.
[1] Unless you think there's a problem with the RNG system. IIRC about 15 years ago there was a state that drew the same lottery numbers 3 days in a row because they introduced a new computer PRNG and part of their runbook introduced the same seed for every draw; after the third consecutive draw they fixed the issue.
[2] I've had this happen to me, though the problem was that my bank froze my account partway through buying tickets, and I was buying a lot more than 27 tickets. The most famous/infamous lottery syndicate in modern history, a group from Australia that tried to buy every combination in the Virginia lottery in the early 1990s, also ran into logistical issues and was unable to finish buying their complete set of tickets, but they got lucky and hit the jackpot anyway.
Afaik (and I watch this fairly closely) there hasn't been a study. There are a lot of anecdotes, typically of the form "a person won a few million but spent like they had an income of a few million per year," sometimes of the form "a person won a huge amount of money but it turns out money doesn't solve all problems," and sometimes of the form "a person won a huge amount of money and invested it poorly." But most people who win a big lottery are still rich a decade or two later.
I don’t know about breweries in CA but the ones in CO all have beer that is up and down the “heaviness” scale. Most breweries you can get a light larger that’s like 4.1 ABV all the way up to double IPA’s that are running in the 9-10% ABV
Anchor was everywhere when I lived in SF for a good while. It was the reliable staple when you knew everything else at the party would taste like bitter barf. It did sell where it was made; perhaps they could've made a stronger effort to make a name for it elsewhere.
As I recall, back in the day (90s) my family subscribed to a regional daily paper, a local weekly paper, National Geographic, Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, Reader's Digest, Smithsonian magazine, various kids magazines depending on age (e.g. Highlights, Boys Life, etc), MIT Technology Review, and a few industry-specific publications.
In addition to that, we'd frequently stop by a newsstand or bookstore to pick up other periodicals if there was an article we were interested in, or if we had extra time to read that week.
The idea of halcyon days when all you needed was a single subscription is a myth. If you wanted regional news plus some pool reports from Washington, Wall Street, and somewhere in Europe, then sure, a single subscription would do. But if you liked to read several different news sources, you paid for several different news sources.
Will corroborate; family was subscribed to many newspapers and magazines when I was a kid. NatGeo included.
They all slowly got culled, though. Why? Because the content kept getting worse, and when it came time to deliberately renew one it simply wasn't worth the effort nor the money.
People don't pay for journalism because journalism went to shit.
In a situation where there's some complex tax issue, absolutely, go with the professional, but for most people, the CPA is mainly there to provide peace of mind.
Also, if you make a good faith effort to pay your taxes correctly, the potential legal trouble for getting it wrong is pretty minimal. You'll need to pay the correct amount plus interest and penalties, but "interest and penalties" are pretty light (effectively 14% simple interest on the amount of the underpayment). And since the IRS doesn't usually take more than a couple of months to say, "hey, you screwed up," interest and penalties usually add up to like 3% of your underpayment.