For me at least, it's quite on the contrary, there are few viable cases for content I wish not to consume via RSS.
Some of my reasons are:
1. Having a central place where I can keep track of my my reading lists.
2. Offline first (download for later use is the default behavior)
3. Deduplication - for advanced use cases such as messy web feeds, where ordering is far from guaranteed, a well defined key can reduce the clutter significantly.
Is that really "widespread/mainstream" though? Podcasts listening is pretty huge; in the US "38% of those age 12+ in the U.S. are monthly podcast listeners" (ref: https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-infinite-dial-2022/)
I can't believe it took this much scrolling to find a reasonable take. I think personal preference is clouding people's judgement. Of course it will depend on your employer and how much the office was part of company culture prior to covid, but I think what you're predicting will largely bear out.
Huh? Maybe you're not understanding that a Y towing a Y is netting you fewer total miles in the long run than just driving a single Y. There's no reason to do what you're proposing.
A simple exercise to prove this to yourself: if you have a full Y and an empty one, how much range do you get when towing the empty one in Regen mode? It's less than half of the full range. And when you switch to the one that had been towed? Yup, less than half your full range.
> The weird thing is that none of it is terribly surprising or unexpected.
Have I been living under a rock? I think we may have suspected that the ultrawealthy was not paying their fair share, but paying nothing? Using elaborate loopholes to actually get out of any tax burden at all? I found that to be shocking.
This is disingenuous. ProPublica pointed out that, regardless of the individual transaction, he amassed so much wealth that the .5B in taxes were a drop in the bucket.
PP isn't accusing Musk of cheating the system. They're pointing out that the system is broken.
No Propublica was being disingenuous. They note his total wealth, then took a snapshot in time of a single year, where he paid $0.5B in tax, ignoring his actual income of $1.5B
It’s like looking at a retiree and saying “you only paid $15,000 in taxes, but you have $1M in assets!!” ignoring that those assets were either already taxed or will be taxed in the future.
He didn't use any loophole. He didn't make more than the allowable yearly contribution, which is small. If someone can turn that into billions good for them. The vast majority of wealthy people could not, hence why this is a weird anecdote like OP was saying, not an actual problem with tax code. And there are many such actual problems we should be focusing on.
It was at least not a public intention, but I know more than one multi millionaire that has used this "loophole". Peter thiel isn't some super rare exception
Backdoor Roths are a thing. The income limits don't matter in practice. The trick is getting appreciable money into the necessary accounts in the first place.
