Readit NewsWe have an outright criminal at the top, healthcare CEOs can kill you with Excel by the tens of thousands, but a company loses some money and the rules suddenly apply?
What an absolute joke.
That being said, answering anything work related outside of work, unless they are your truly close friends is lame and considered a character weakness, to be abused. And don't expect any extra bonus points for that.
Having a good private (aka actual) life you are willing to defend ain't a sign of weakness, in contrary.
You absolutely want hard physical separation between personal devices and company-controlled business devices. That means two phones and never allow control to cross those boundaries.
Yes, and this to me feels like one of the least understood things about EVs.
There's no engine, clutch, gearbox etc. No timing belt or spark plugs either. So yes, that saves a lot of maintenance.
And depending how you drive you might not use friction brakes at all either. Leaving maintenance to be a 12V battery and tires.
Based on driving an ev for 10 years (Nissan Leaf)
> Yes, and this to me feels like one of the least understood things about EVs.
Well my anecdote is different. We're on our third EV over 11 years, so have a bit of experience.
Each one of those 3 EVs has spent at least 10x more days at the dealer than my 15 year old Mazda (ICE) minivan (which has spent exactly one afternoon at the dealer).
I own a Toyota 4Runner which is known for holding its value long term and is super reliable… but I do have to change fluids regularly, for example. Engine oil, transfer case fluid, etc.
Regenerative braking is supposed to be nicer to the actual brakes, too, even though an EV with the same capacity is generally heavier.
https://insideevs.com/news/731559/tesla-least-reliable-used-...
Indeed. Aside from price, this is why I will never own a new car, or anything newer than roughly 2015 or so (depends on manufacturer). A car must absolutely not have any internet phone-home spyware connectivity.
They say they want one thing, but buy another.
They claim they want a manual transmission and then buy a RAV4.
They claim they want a sports sedan and then buy a RAV4.
They claim they want a station wagon and then buy a RAV4.
They claim they want a base, cheap, simple, vehicle and then they drop $55k on a fully-equipped RAV4 Hybrid.
Be weird. It's ok. Do the dumb thing and follow your desire.
And you can hedge your bets. I bought, used, a manual transmission convertible sports car, a sports sedan (red, even!), and capacious station wagon for all of my Home Depot needs all for less than the price of RAV4 Hybrid and between the three I always have at least one functional vehicle!
Can't recommend enough this approach of multiple older cars. Between the extremely high cost and steep depreciation new cars make no sense unless you're so rich money is not a consideration.
I have multiple sports cars (all over 30 years old), a truck for towing and utility (over 20 years old), a minivan for kid and family duty (~15 years old). All that together is cheaper than a single new car. And having bought them depreciated, the value barely goes down. In fact a couple of the sports cars are appreciating now, worth more than my cost.
That is the case with so much of what is happening now. If these things are possible, the system was already broken.
The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances against each other. But turns out two of the three don't have any actual power to enforce their mandates. This has worked as long as the three branches grudgingly respected each others role. But now that the executive branch simply decided to ignore the other two whenever convenient, turns out there is no recourse.
Absolutely valid to say that "best and highest use" is vague and untrustworthy at best, but it's said this way to avoid getting trapped in the weeds of what exactly it means. Broadly speaking, "best and highest use" is entirely contextual to the land in question. The "best" use for 40 acres of nutrient-rich soil an hour away from the nearest city is going to be agriculture. While a plot of land smack dab in the middle of mainstreet in a rural town would probably be a commercial building or a mixed use building offering an apartment(s) above a shop or restaurant of some kind. Downtown in a metropolis would be some multi-storied residential or business/commercial building, while the middle of nowhere filled with trees is forestry and maybe mining. Everything is contextual.
Who determines the "best" use case is usually delegated to a free market of land value appraisers. It seems counter-intuitive to leave so much leeway at this part, but consider that land value taxation is attempting to best capture the true value of the land. Meaning that land owners want the lowest possible valuation of their land to pay less taxes, but since land can't be hidden, it's (in theory) hard to fake the value of your land. I can't argue my house in an urban community is relatively worthless when A) every neighboring piece of land will have more or less the same value, and B) everyone can see where the land my house is located and what's around it.
This plays into your first comment, if your neighbor adds a bunch of improvements to his land, if you and your other neighbors gain benefit from those improvements (they opened a store, or a school, or installed a modern sewer system or clean drinking water system, or created a private land reserve, and you and your property have access to these), then yes your land would see an increase in value as a result. However, these types of improvements are rarely the case, and are mostly handled by some form of government. The same with a neighbor "overpaying", since in theory they wouldn't "overpay", they'd just be paying the value that the land is assessed at.
Alternatively, if your neighborhood is run down compared to something brand new and shiny, and all of your neighbors decide to clean things up and do renovations and increase the overall perceived value of the neighborhood, then yes you'd see your property value increase as a result of others actions. But this is no different than when communities go through "urban renewal" and other programs that artificially increase the communities' value as a result of private and public funding.
I mean.. if there was to be a law established to do it this way, it better go into very precise detail of exactly what it means and a verifiable mechanism and formula of how it is calculated.
Anything else would be a wide open door for corruption where assessors can do whatever they want to benefit various groups and harm others.
I spoke four languages by elementary school, including learning a new one (portuguese) in fifth grade. It was all seamless, zero effort, perfect local accent. So I have plenty of language background.
I've spent almost 20 years now as an adult trying to learn french and find it impossible. Still speak it at a 2-year old level, at best. I have constant daily exposure to french, it's just an impossible language. Or that learning a new language as an adult it impossible.
Anyone who cares about privacy and control of their personal life.