Readit NewsFree speech, I fear, is in retreat.
This, I think, is a fairly key differentiator between valid and invalid use of incorporation. If a company doesn't do any business, then it shall not have a right to exist as it has no reason to exist, as the reason companies exist is to do business.
One may argue there are other reasons a company may exist, but I'd argue those reasons only exist as an unintended consequence of the ability to exist as 'shields' or 'cut-outs' as discovered by those familiar with the peculiarities of international law and accounting/finance.
- International holding companies: if there is Coca Cola France and Coca Cola Germany that economically belong together, you might not be able to just merge them into one entity for legal reasons (both countries might require you to have a locally incorporated presence). So to ensure that both always have the same owners, you create an international holding company that owns both of them.
- Investment funds: investment funds (especially passive ones) are companies whose only business is to own shares in other companies. There is no "real" operating business.
- Feeder funds: sometimes, the law requires foreign investment funds to create a local shell company to be allowed to accept investments from local retail investors. In this case, the only purpose of the shell company is to fulfill local regulatory requirements with regards to the legal form if the investment vehicle and to provide investors with someone local that they can hold liable in case things go wrong. There is no real business in such companies.
In fact, it is often regulation that requires you to create shell companies. If you want to get rid of shell companies, you should start by removing regulation that requires the creation of shell companies with no real business except to satisfy the regulators.
I disagree -- this is the correct thing to do if you believe it is not possible for the checked exception to occur. (Catching it is wrong -- what would you do to correct something which you believe not to be possible? Forcing the caller to handle it is wrong -- if you don't know what to do with it, they sure won't!) Wrapping checked as unchecked encodes your belief that should it occur, it is a logic error, akin to out-of-bounds array access or null pointer dereference.
(Of course, swallowing expected exceptions one is simply too lazy to do anything about is poor practice! Not disagreeing with that.)
If it is not possible to occur, then it should not be part of the API.
The only time I rethrow a checked exception as an unchecked exception is when the code is still under construction. The default of the eclipse code generator is to log and ignore caught transaction. I think wrapping into an unchecked one is the better default behavior for incomplete code under a "fail fast" policy.
If your work requires a phone or computer, they should be providing a dedicated device. Then, turn off your work devices when you are done with work for the day. I know I didn’t invent this solution just now. Who are these people carrying around their work phone when they are not working or on call? If you are working at a place where this is the norm (I did, briefly) leave. It’s not worth it.
> To make this very clear: user/visitor consent is only needed for data going to 3rd parties. All cookie laws, including GDPR and CCPA, allow essential first-party cookies to be exempt from collecting user consent before performing their actions. So your session tracking cookie on your site DOES NOT need a consent popup AT ALL.
Most consent dialogs can be avoided, were it not that the surveillance capitalist services need your data, and shove these dialogs full of deceptive design in your face. In hopes to have as many people as possible complain about the regulations, and use that pressure to lobby them away again.
I'm confused. It sounds like the independent booksellers in this scenario are doing basically nothing of note, their web store fronts are just an ad for bookshop.org where the indie gets a large cut. Is that right?
Btw: my favorite word for speed bump is the Dutch "drempel". It is quite onomatopoetic. My favorite term for speed bumps in German comes from Comedian Helge Schneider. He calls them "Teerwülste" (tar bulges). I don't think you find it being used, but it fits the German style very well as it is precise and sober.