So in the case of the emails, where there is plenty of context, it’s not an issue. Right?

You are absolutely right. But you forgot a tiny detail, we are talking about the US of A. Which law there is not stupid beyond measure?

There is no justification if what you describe is true. But a lot of people are willing to give Valve benefit of the doubt, assuming it is false until proven in court. Especially coming from Ubisoft of all places.

Both are true. Manufacturing costs went down significantly, but non-smart TVs are now more expensive than equivalent smart TVs by over $100 from what I have seen.

This doesn’t stop real estate being valued for tax purposes. Use the same approach - proxy valuations.

There is pretty reasonable way to value real estate. Hard to do objective valuation of a company whose value is mostly hype anyway. Also, real estate value estimations are riddled with corruption in most places.

Yeah, that would just be nationalisation. After 5 years the government would own 90% of all businesses.

Re-read the comments up the thread, I asked about the same thing. It is not ment to be yearly.

Average price over the last 30 days.

There are so many issues with this idk where to start. Maybe with: not all stock given as compensation are publicly traded yet. There may be no average price yet when they vest.

PS: Also, the original comment proposes taking 40% of the shares, not monetary equivalent which I originally misunderstood as well. So neither of our comments is really rellevant.

The tax deductions are meant to offset the tax on the loan. You don’t get your loans taxed as income so you don’t get full deduction on repayment. They wouldn’t pay less than you overall in my proposal.

That makes sense if you have a balanced government budget or a surplus. But if you are running a deficit, you want cash.

Ok, I see what you mean, but now you have government holding stocks with 0 idea if they should cash out or hold. Both cases could result in the government loosing out on tax money.

If government immediately sells, and you hold until the stocks are 10x the value, the governmwnt lost out on 90% of the money.

If government holds and you sell, the government stocks can become worthless (e.g. company goes bankrupt) and again lose out on tax money. Plus government needs money in the budget, not stocks.

This is why you usually tax the income when you sell the shares. The loophole is taking a loan against those shares, but if you ask me, the answer is to tax the loan money and make repayments tax deductible. The loan is basically getting the money from selling shares early, so it should be taxed when you get it.

I think that doesn’t work well due to price fluctuations of the stocks and avoiding double taxing, but I don’t understand stock options and current tax laws enough to be confident about that.

Personal loans against business assets should be taxed. The repayments can then be tax deductible so they are not double taxed. Without taxing these loans, it just creates a tax loophole where you avoid income tax.

As for company prices being inflated, to some extent, who cares? As long as they don’t get a bailuot when the bubble pops, it’s the investors issue.

One time? Every year?

Sunk cost fallacy does not require continued investment. No idea where you got that from. It just requires considering a sunk cost in your decision making.

The difference between unusable and inferior was never the cusp of this argument to begin with.

Literally quoted the inferior part in my original response and specifically mentioned you should just consider both on their merit without considering the sunk cost:

The logical way to think of this is: You already paid for Plex so both are free for you. Since both are free, just pick the better one.

Never said you should switch. Just because you seems to lack reading comprehension skills and misread my comment does not mean I am moving the goalpost. You are using a straw man argument: pretending I argued something I didn’t and debunking that nonexistent argument instead of my real argument.

One valid complaint is that I did ignore switching costs in my shortened explanation. This is a mistake on my part, though it does not affect whether your statement as written is a fallacy. It is.

Funnily enough, indoors, this would probably make you more visible as the only area with no reflections. Stealth works outdoors because the sky does not have a radar return.

“Identify” seems like a very misleading word in this context. Isn’t it just detecting and locating? Or am I misunderstanding and they can tell me and my roommate appart?

There is another potential issue, which is the frequency. The lower the frequency, the less it will interact with an obstacle including people.

No I didn’t.

no. What you describe is just one form of the fallacy. Sunk cost fallacy in general is when you include a sunk cost in your decision making process at all, instead of just considering the costs and benefits that are affected by the decision at present.

The part I quoted is the fallacy. You wrote you will stop using it when it is unusable, not when it is inferior to Jellyfin. Maybe you were thinking something different, but we can’t read your mind. We can only read what you wrote and what you wrote is a sunk cost fallacy.

Not sure if you’re trolling or you just had a brain-fart 🤔 Happens sometimes. Maybe think about it a little more.