Not necessarily. Unless I am misunderstanding what specifically is being referred to as a tram. In Portland, Oregon for example, we have small trains that run at street level and share lanes with automobile traffic.

Portland's trams don't move anywhere close to 35mph as the OP mentioned. Portland's trams are quite capacity constrained due to needing to navigate the short blocks and many intersections of downtown Portland. Dedicated travel cooridors where these trams could move at closer to 35mph would allow trips _through_ downtown to become competitive which currently are often not ideal.

The streetcars in Portland OR are useful on some routes but they're pretty much painfully slow around downtown.

Are you just saying that no company should be selling pickup trucks or SUVs?

I'm guessing you either don't remember or didn't see what SUVs and light pickup trucks looked like in the 80's and 90's, but there is absolutely a lower bound on size that is way below where we are today.

Yes, or at least tax them more appropriately to the cost to road safety, energy consumption and to society in general.

This is probably the case. The truck is between the size of a Tacoma and an F150, and the SUV is about the same size as a Tahoe or a Range Rover. Certainly not small, but not strangely large for the US.

Pickup trucks haven't always been bigger than parking places. We should be selling reasonably sized vehicles of all needed configurations, not these monstrosities.

My 20 year old half-ton pickup is larger than a Rivian. People just didn't notice until urbanism became a bigger topic.

Which is good! Urbanism is dope. I'm a big urbanist. I also just deal with finding a spot because I like my pickup.

Same, been seeing quite a few of them around Portland, Oregon as well. Would definitely get one if I was in the market for a vehicle right now. I really like the form factor of a pickup or SUV vs. what Tesla has to offer.

Same in Austin, TX. Although I bought stock so can’t decide if I’m just seeing because I’m on the lookout or if there are actually more and more on the road.

I don’t own one, but the SUVs look really nice. For some reason I don’t like the truck design even though it’s very similar to SUV.

That seems like an overly broad statement. If the companies producing tax filing software were solving a problem for their users then why shouldn't they exist. Even with this new option being offered by the IRS there is still likely room for private companies to solve the same problem (tax filing) in a way which is perceived as better by some users and so still justify their existence.

>If the companies producing tax filing software were solving a problem for their users then why shouldn't they exist

Because the "problem" they're solving has been solved in other countries without a profitable middleman. Intuit's continued existence in this space is dependent on their lobbying team.

That's a slightly different issue though. Just saying that because the government has offered a solution to the problem of filing taxes doesn't automatically imply that no other organizations that are solving the same problem deserve to exist.

I suppose if you are arguing that the one and only reason that tax preparation software is needed is because of Intuit's lobbying then that could be true, but Intuit's lobbying is only part of what has led to a complex tax code.

Yes, the one and only reason tax preparation software is needed for normal people with normal incomes and expenses in 2023 is because of Intuit's lobbying. That's why people are upset about it.

Some businesses only exist due to government failure. The solution is to fix the government, not preserve a middleman asking for their cut.

The comment you originally replied to didn’t say that.

The problem's continued existence was one they were largely responsible for. It's a bit like saying someone who prevents the installation of trash bins then offers to pick up litter for money is providing a valuable service.

If they can provide value on top of the public service and find customers willing to pay it, then they weren't killed by the public service.

Why are a data access layer and an ORM mutually exclusive? An ORM is just an abstraction over your database. You might find use in it as a tool to access your database but contain the use of the ORM to within your data access layer.

I never said they are mutually exclusive. I said you don't need the ORM.

Mind sharing an example of a large(ish) app that doesn't make use of an ORM? Last time this topic came up, I went looking for one (admittedly not too hard) and I came up empty handed.

How about any evidence at all?

Am I misinterpreting this? It sounds like they are excluding people who match any of the criteria after December 8 2021. If I’m understanding that correctly then most people would not be excluded by criteria 3. There are tons of people, even those who got vaccinated originally, who have not gotten any boosters.

I recently had to go back and file an amended return for one state and file a return for an additional state for the past 5 years. It made my life a lot easier to be able to just install the past 5 years versions of TurboTax Desktop which I had saved the installers for. I was able to run through this whole process using the tax rules that were in place at the time.

Not sure if this would have worked on a web version or not, but I was pretty happy to have this option available to me.

There is an important nuance here in that it assumes that all employers understand that someone being fired can just mean that they weren't a good fit for that particular position. I'm not sure that is universally understood. I would be that most people still look at firing as an indication that the employee is no good. That isn't necessarily correct at all, but unfortunately I do think it's how the majority of people perceive things.

I have some issues with the "fire fast" philosophy, but this is not really one of them. Companies don't generally even divulge that they fired someone when giving a reference. They will say the employee is "not eligible for rehire," which is frequently code for "we fired this person for cause," and is generally interpreted that way. I do wish they would just come out and say that the person was terminated for cause, so others wouldn't have to guess, but that's not even really related to the "fire fast" issue.

Resumes have employment dates on them, which will be interpreted long before past employers are asked about anything.

So? Just don't list the position if the tenure was too short.

Yes, of course. And yet, having a gap on a resume is also something people make judgments about.

Yes, and given that being without employment (really, without income, but those are equivalent for most people) for long enough is literally a life or death situation, you're fully justified in that by lying about it in self defense. If you're privileged enough that not having any income for an extended period isn't a big deal, then, so what? But, if you aren't, lie.

So don't leave a gap. Do I have to write the .tex for you myself?

Apparently. I generally don't include lying in my toolbox.

You don't need to lie, but you also don't need to disclose every single thing to your new employer. If you had a short stint at a company, just leave it off. If they ask, just say you took some personal time to figure out what you wanted to do next. I think that's a totally valid description of trying a new job that didn't work out. I know a lot of people who have taken years off for fun. No one questioned it.

You should. You're at a disadvantage if you don't, because everybody else sure does.

"Fire fast" can mean you get canned after a 6 month probation period (I know I was at one place). Explaining a 6 month gap is just barely possible if you leave it off, two of those in a row and it's a substantial chunk of anyone's career.

That's a two way street. An employee who knows he'd be a better fit in some other position should proactively agitate for it, rather than hoping the boss will guess it on his own.

The purchase page seems really confusing compared to how they typically do things. Typically, when purchasing something like a Macbook, you select the base model and then some of the upgrades are listed at + $XXX.00. That combined with the fact that the XDR display stand cost so much, I thought they were charging and additional $1599 for the VESA adapter. I was momentarily absolutely furious until I realized that the VESA adapter is a no additional cost option.