> Rather, it will use the original cost basis, pay tax on gains up to the adjusted cost basis, and the inheritors will use the new cost basis should they sell in the future.
This is just incorrect, at least in the US. The estate does not have to pay capital gains tax for assets passing through to the inheritors.
It's a great policy proposal though - this is one fix for the problem!
This is the "long shot" in my giving. Officeholders today are incentivized to carve out a slice of supporters, play to only that audience, and demonize everyone else. Approval voting is the best solution that I've seen. It's worked well in a few cities, but mainstream acceptance is a ways off.
Thanks for this.
Do you have any thoughts on Evidence Action vs GiveWell?
Looks like GiveWell supports on of EA's charities (Deworm the World), but broadly each org is looking to do similar things.
It's impossible for us to give you a good answer from outside your company.
Sometimes, "best practices" are pure waste. Sometimes they are even counterproductive. Sometimes they will pay off immediately. Sometimes they will pay off for the company, but only after the current team has left and won't receive credit. Sometimes they would pay off for the users, but the company doesn't care about their users.
If possible, discuss the issue with a senior engineer (or two) on your team.
I would not get too confrontational with your manager. At the end of the day, your customer is your employer. But keep a note of the compromises that you're making, and remember if they cause any problems. Determining when to cut corners, and when to break out all of the formal methods, is an important part of your maturation as an engineer.
> I've had trouble finding it, but years ago, I read the abstract of a study which looked at chess performance, pitting people who had access to some basic chess software against those who didn't. What they found is that the strongest predictor of success was whether a player could utilise the software effectively, rather than pure chess skill.
There was a time when this was true - a grandmaster and a computer was stronger than either alone. But that window closed pretty quickly. Today, even the strongest GMs' best strategy is to follow the computer blindly.
I doubt it, the author's other articles suggest they want a revolution to get rid of capitalism.
It's ironic that they criticize the current approach for not working, and then suggest a nebulous 'transformation' that has even less chance of working. Even if they created a communist revolution in the US, they would then need to extend this to the rest of the world which would likely involve wars that increase emissions.
TLDR: The first stanza, not necessarily the second:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
This is just incorrect, at least in the US. The estate does not have to pay capital gains tax for assets passing through to the inheritors.
It's a great policy proposal though - this is one fix for the problem!