> I'm not convinced it's actually safer to have kids in the back.
I thought that a major reason for placing children in back seat was because of the air bags in the front seat representing a danger to them when they deploy.
(But maybe kids don't trigger the weight needed to activate the passenger side air bag anymore?)
You can also usually just turn off the passenger-side airbag. I know there's been a button on every car I've owned to do so, for when you've got something heavy in the front seat that isn't a passenger.
I've never had a car where you could disable the passenger-side airbag. We did have a car like that in the 90s, but it didn't come that way from the factory: my mother had a mostly-irrational fear of them (she was on the shorter side, but not so short that it could actually be a danger for her if it deployed), so we somehow got an aftermarket mod that let her disable it when she was riding in that seat.
Of course, she drove that car often enough too; not sure why she felt having the driver-side airbag enabled all the time was safe, but not the passenger-side airbag. (Mom was... often inconsistent with how she reacted to her fears.)
Some newer vehicles will automatically disable the front passenger airbag if there is nothing in the seat or if there is weight in the seat but less weight than a typical adult.
Pickup trucks without a backseat have long had the ability to manually disable the passenger airbag.
Check the area near the hinge on the front passanger-side door, there should be a labelled thing you can turn to disable it. (using a key or screwdriver, similar to the rear childlocks)
It might be due to me being in Europe, but every car I've ever seen with an airbag for that seat has had it along with a sticker warning about it in the sunvisor area.
AA displays the boarding time in the app instead of the departure time once the flight gets close enough (like same day)
>If they printed the exact time boarding starts and people showed up then (and later), no flight would ever board on time
I don't understand the logic. If everyone is there at the stated boarding time and the airline has correctly allocated enough time for boarding, aren't they winning?
200 people can't board at the same second. Reality is you want orderly boarding over the course of ~ 10-15mins depending on passenger makeup. Crew also need to account for passenger with additional needs, catering recharge, etc
It's a civil proceeding not a criminal proceeding so he would not be incriminating himself.
He could argue that by answering he would be admitting crimes and opening himself to criminal liability. But there's a possibly they give him immunity and that route is taken away.
IANAL either but I'm not sure anyone involved in the civil case would have the power or authority to grant criminal immunity (perhaps up to and including the judge, at least local to me the civil judges do not do criminal cases - there is no overlap).
I don't need an answer to point out that your response is relevant to probably 3 or 4 people every year who:
- live in Washington State; AND
- are compensated at least in part in options; AND
- are compensated in excess of $1M a year; AND
- are compensated far enough in excess of $1M a year that they are willing to spend time and money lowering that tax liability
But the answer is "you can't, at least not legally" for everyone except those few people.
The first set of US federal tax rates when it was allowed by the 16th amendment with adjustments for inflation on the the right:
Orig Income Rate Adj Income (2025 Dollars)
Up to $20,000 1% Up to $600,000
$20,000 to $50,000 2% $600,000 to $1,500,000
$50,000 to $75,000 3% $1,500,000 to $2,250,000
$75,000 to $100,000 4% $2,250,000 to $3,000,000
Over $100,000 5% Over $3,000,000
The point being that once you allow the tax, it has a tendency to become more and more. It's much easier to raise income tax than establish it.
I don't have a dog in this fight and if it's what the people of Washington want, so be it.
This is important context, and people forget that "taxation without representation," which started a war, was about a tax of about 1.5%.
Why is it when people are against a tax they typically talk about it in terms of historical context, unintended consequences, interstate migration, while people in favor of the tax almost exclusively appeal to emotional blackmail statements like "paying your fair share" (when something like 40% of the country pays no federal income tax whatsoever) or "good conscience" or assume anyone with any money got it through borderline illegal activities?
It took 100+ years of horribly repressive policies to start that war, including far worse tax schemes including things like straight up requiring burning half your tobacco or only selling it through monopolized channels that required paying tariffs to England before it could be re-exported anywhere else. Policies that resulted in mass starvation and death, sometimes resulting in failed rebellions (like Bacon's). So there's history of Americans being willing to spend decades starving to death to pay high taxes or economically destructive policies before they will successfully rebel against it.
If you could identify where fees get decoupled from profit in finance, I’d be open to the position that they aren’t related but you didn’t share anything along those lines. Considering the costs like cash-back programs that would erode the profitability of those fees are largely in the banks control, I don’t think that is a strong position.
You are the one implying that the revenue becomes profit. The burden is on you to make the case not on me to prove a negative. There are plenty of high revenue low margin businesses. There are also low revenue high margin businesses. So there is not a direct correlation between revenue and profit.
This is bordering on a non-productive discussion but:
Yes, revenue provides cash flow, not profit. And costs provide the other part, as was already mentioned. But if it increases cash flow without increasing relative costs, it increases profit. Do you think banks would charge fees if they could make more money by removing them? Again, the banks are largely in control of these costs, like the amount of cash back they provide. For example, the federal reserve reports that bank fees account for 1.82% of purchase volume, while cash back programs account for 1.57% of purchase volume. In other words, they make a profit on balance.
You can read the financial statements to get more information. That's where the above numbers came from. They don't generally say "Fees contribute to X% of profits" but they do indicate they are relatively large parts of revenue. For example, JPMorgan lists $5.97B in fee revenue and rewards cost $4.28B, with the difference being profit. So where are the extra costs you are implying coming from that make fees a net cost?
>> Cards don't make money from their fees. They make money from people who fail to pay and then pay the ridiculous interest.
> Interchange fees seem to be a sizable portion of revenue. Discover has listed them as 29% of revenue, BoA at ~$10B annually…
My complaint is that pointing at revenue alone does not rebut the initial statement. That's all. The argument was insufficient, not your side of the argument is wrong.
I understand that, and I was trying to be helpful and foster an discussion instead of snark. I clearly pointed to costs as well, but it didn’t seem to sink in.
Saying “revenue doesn’t equal profits” is superficially true but lacking any real substantive claim. It’s like saying “to lose weight you just need to burn more calories than you consume.” True, but a lazy attempt at a retort.
I tried to foster discussion. If profits = revenue - costs, I asked where those costs are coming from that would erode those profits. Yet again, you replied in a manner that limits discussion. Many of us come to HN because we expect higher levels of discussion than the typical Internet forum cesspool, like the guidelines lay out.
Until you are dealing with a difficult employee or struggling with whether to put someone on a PIP or being asked to deliver things you don't have direct control over or dealing with penny-pinching edicts from above etc. etc.
Also when the project becomes a dumpster fire and you have to save it - or go through months of justifying what path is being taken or be clear with leadership what needs to change or be fired for the failure.
I thought that a major reason for placing children in back seat was because of the air bags in the front seat representing a danger to them when they deploy.
(But maybe kids don't trigger the weight needed to activate the passenger side air bag anymore?)
reply