> contending the company lowballed the price of trademarks, customer agreements, software licenses and other rights it moved offshore
At the same time they were telling HMRC (the British tax authority) that IP rights, etc. were incredibly valuable and a significant cost of doing business (in the form of payments back to the mothership), and that's why they made very little profit in the UK and didn't need to pay much tax.
That mentions the digital services tax; I remember some of HN being quite angry that "Europe" was trying to get a share of the immense wealth extracted from it by American multinationals.
"Wealth extracted from it" seems like a disingenuous framing of "voluntary market exchange of money for services." It's not like Europe is a colony. Tech companies only make money by providing goods and services people choose to pay for.
Also, almost any web product could have the core functionality reproduced by 3 guys in a couple of weeks.
The actual value is in the brand, siloed data, lockin, network effect, etc.
China solved that by banning most western services and building their own, and many of the results are better than the west, yet the same network effects stop those services expanding.
These are all fairly strong arguments for regulator's to step in because the market clearly is no longer working to direct the profit towards the best products.
The have to share their wealth because they are allowed to operate within a stable legal framework that everybody else is paying for except them. It seems like US isn't using their own taxes efficiently enough given that CEOs dont get killed on the street in the EU but they do get killed in the US. And these corporations arent willing to pay for that, well then they should not be allowed to operate here either.
Ah, the next level in determining Schrodinger's cat's outcome is if the detector measures Zuckerberg's profit taxability instead of radiation decay; the measurement's results depend on who is carrying them out, where they've taken place and, in all instances, the cat kills itself due to our inability to fix the crazy rich-favoring taxation systems.
> Professional transactional email services exist because this problem is genuinely hard. [...] They handle the weird edge cases like a major provider deciding your IP went too quiet.
Except the whole point of the article is that they don't handle that. You had to fix it yourself.
> GitHub, GitLab, and Gitea all respect .gitignore and won’t show ignored files in the web UI
Is this right? These tools don't show ignored files because they aren't part of the repository. If a now-ignored file has made it into the repository, surely you want to see it?
`git add -f` will add ignored files. Once you've done that, any files you've added will be part of your commit regardless of the contents of .gitignore.
Also, files that are added to .gitignore after they’ve already been committed will still appear as modified. To stop tracking them, you need to remove them from the index (staging area):
Are you sure? Post 9/11 the CIA decided they needed to be in the business of kidnapping and torturing. They didn't seem to have any trouble finding employees to do it.
Soldiers need to kill people, but you don't want sociopathic soldiers - you want the opposite: Someone who can handle their emotions, not someone who hides from them, runs from them, or tries to bury or ignore them. The latter are not stable or reliable under stress.
I remember when I was a very young child - more than half a century ago - getting into trouble for eating dirt. I was amused more recently to hear about my nephew doing the same thing. It seems, from my point of view, to be instinctive. I wonder why?
you’re correct. I was just using it to emphasize how all encompassing regulation sometimes feel. I was annoyed and didn’t think; when seeing just another European regulation piling on then endless sea of things you can get fined for here.
Cypress was the last placed in Europe to remove laws against suicide in 2021 it seems.
At the same time they were telling HMRC (the British tax authority) that IP rights, etc. were incredibly valuable and a significant cost of doing business (in the form of payments back to the mothership), and that's why they made very little profit in the UK and didn't need to pay much tax.
reply