revo13

Yea. Can't say I would have been in the market at $2k+. I admittedly got lucky on mine.

This is a very un-republican thing to do, but as another poster mentioned, you could apply a tax/penalty/whatever to companies when their products are accepted into landfill sites. That would get passed on to consumers until it was cheaper to simply keep them out of landfills. Presumably your quality would go up in order to keep more of the profits of selling the units in the first place.

Not sure it would work in reality, but an interesting idea that is actionable by the government.

EDIT: typo

This is true that you can buy replacement parts. I did that a couple of times with my previous Lowes grill. I find those parts are a race to the bottom as well though in terms of the metal quality. I just got tired of replacing/rebuilding/etc. I found my AOG on clearance at a local shop for $1k.

Apply this to gas grills as well. Spend $500 at Lowes/HomeDepot and you will have a pile of rust a few years later. At least in the grill industry (for now) you can still choose to spend higher $$ to get much better quality. An AOG (http://www.aoggrill.com/) will cost you 3-4x the Lowes grill, but it is 100% stainless steel with a 10yr full warranty. That thing will outlive me. Unfortunately you won't find these at your Big Boxes. You have to go to a smaller specialty grill store.

I agree with this one. You are never so free as you are between jobs (for whatever reason). Even if you can't afford to take a far away trip, go see family for a week, drive somewhere new, or just goof off all week for a week.

...but yea, also file for unemployment immediately. Your former employer paid for that safety net.

Regardless of conspiracy theories, it was definitely the responsible thing to do to wait.

Coming from a failed startup myself, there is probably a bit of debt associated with the company at this point. In our final throws of life, we raised additional capital (angel/VC/etc) via convertible note to sustain the business a bit further. This in addition to back rent, unpaid bills, etc, leaves quite a pile of financial liability that any acquiring company would likely assume. Easier to let the company die and hire the staff as a separate operation.

$60,000 income with std deduction and personal deduction equates to a tax burden of $8,219 or effectively 13.7%. $1,060,000 income equates to a tax burden of $406,314 or effectively 38.3% (treated as a short term capital gain).

That is money I could have saved and invested BEFORE being taxed an extraordinary rate for it relative to my place in life. I happened into money when I'm typically taxed at <14%, and nearly 40% of it is taken from me. Simply because I earned it over the span of 12 months. What if I built a company over 10 yrs and that is the culmination of that?

> All the rich people would just buy them overseas.

That is a fair point. That said, if I buy something overseas from Europe right now, I don't pay VAT (coming from US). A large number of vendors compensate for this and keep the prices for US purchasers high and not an exact match to their Euro prices. So I think in practice you would see overseas retailers raising their prices to come close (or match) the US price that includes the consumption tax. That would balance out and lead people to do the easy thing and just buy in the US. Maybe... Maybe not...

So you are content with having a tax system that treats you like a 1%er in the event that you cash in a payday (say $1mil - 35-40%) during a given year, despite the fact that you may have worked your whole life at a middle class level, scraping to save? A consumption tax would allow individuals to actually make choices about how/when they are taxed. Lets be honest, people will still want their "stuff". If they have more money in their pocket, they will spend. That is what America is built on. I would like the opportunity to defer spending at my choice in order to save more in the present without being taxed into oblivion.

And I'm sorry if you didn't read my entire comment. Of course an ignorant consumption tax is regressive. SAFEGUARDS would have to be in place to ensure that the population can acquire necessities without an undue burden being placed on them. Exactly the things you mention: housing (single home), food, healthcare. However, 50"+ 4K TVs do not fall in that category. 30' fishing boats do not fall in that category. Certain items in sales tax heavy states (Texas) already do this is the form of tax free checkout for certain item classes (food at grocery stores).

More evidence as to why the income tax should be replaced with a consumption tax. Just let people make their dammed money already and apply a simple tax when they spend it. Windfalls wouldn't be "dangerous" or punitive in that model, and savers would be rewarded.

--Of course I oversimplify the consumption tax, and safeguard would need to be in place on that to ensure it is not regressive with respect to necessities...

Yeah, I know the foundation for it. It is just an irritating process (I know, stating the obvious) that should be better. Both the company and applicant invested time/money in exploring a relationship, and candidates shouldn't be left with a brutally ambiguous result. Even if it takes 5 more min in a debrief and some possible hurt feelings, the company should respect candidates enough to spend that time and help them understand the specific reason(s) as to why they aren't getting the job. I really want to know, was it my salary reqs, my quietness, my loudness, I looked wrong at the VP of Eng/CEO?

This applies to onsite interviews obviously, not initial phone screens.

Coming from 4 years at a startup as emp#1 and looking again in Austin (engineering), if I hear one more time that "they loved you but didn't think you would be a good fit" instead of a real reason for missing the cut, I am going to go nuts.

Thanks Elixir team!!

Concur with this. Log everything, and use Logstash/Kibana to sift through it for what you are looking for.

I realize it isn't only a recent years activity. However, when it was floated 10+ years ago, it was met with a certain air of hilarity. The groundwork has since been laid (including that court decision) to get us where we are today with respect to providers starting to get bolder in their operations and lobbying efforts, to the extent that certain assumed beliefs about the behavior of the Internet are being threatened in a legitimate way.

I wouldn't describe the current treatment of Netflix by numerous service providers as "Fine". I am on AT&T Uverse and I have to route my Netflix traffic through a private VPN service in order to get HD quality video. Why? Because AT&T is holding me hostage, in the interest of negotiating with Netflix on the other side of the table for extortion fees. I pay for a certain level of access to the Internet. I expect to be able to access ANY site or service without the telecom getting in the way of that. I dread the day where I have to pay AT&T additional fees on top of my base internet package to access Netflix fast (call it the AT&T Internet Movie Package). Or alternatively, Netflix charges me a surcharge on my bill because I am an AT&T subscriber.

I really can't believe you are so deluded to think that there is not a problem brewing here that has the potential to ruin the Internet as we know it (both as a consumer and a business owner).

I would propose that it did exist as sort of a defacto state of the internet. Only in recent years have the telcos begun looking for revenue grown, leading them down the path of treating their subscriber base as some sort of resource to be bargained off to the highest content provider/bidder, while still charging large sums of money for the customer to have a connection.

Aw man... Where can I get this now that the campaign has ended?