didn’t just cut out some harmless turn of phrase written into the covenant that actually has no racist meaning

I gotta say, because of the nature of systemic racism turns of phrase that are ambiguous or are explicitly neutral can be prejudiced or discriminatory is different ways.

We can’t rely on a statistical model to tell us what is infringing on right. We have to be critical.

Aaaahhh that makes more sense.

The idea of these tranquil woodworkers blitzed on caffeine was what stuck out to me.

I saw prime bottles in a video about native american traditional woodcarvers.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxG9lUS_JhRZYjAfm7HEnMIKTvnTQuWgAs?si=2n_6mcUqV3SmbdDo

People drink way too many energy drinks up in Canada too.

In the context of this post this is disgusting to bring up.

This doesn’t have any bearing on what this old lady was put through.

I have a high level of respect for people that share their dreams openly.

she probably had a bad day

People haunted by figments like this don’t stop having bad days, but it’s seemingly by choice so don’t worry

Do NDAs last for 25 years or something?

Do we pay doctors for their legal acumen now?

This WHO article mentions this and cites the study

Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion

Legitimate reasons could be contrived. The question isn’t what it takes to get a PI to investigate, the question should be what it would take for them to spill unrelated tea.

The first step in opening an investigation is investigate your client. Their relationship to the subject and the validity of the harms that they might have suffered or the validity of whatever narrative of criminality.

If you manage to pass that smell test, the information you get from the investigation would be severely limited to the scope of validating and proving that the harms occurred.

Again, you could get them to do stuff for you. You might not be able to get any useful information past that.

So do you know what a PI is generally hired for?

There’s a narrow swatch of misbehavior that the “skeletons” would need to be, for a PI to take the case and get involved. The client would have to have some vested interest or harm done to them, or some idea that the target is doing some harm to somebody before taking the case.

If the idea was get dirt to be vindictive, the PI would not take the case.

If they did take the case and there was evidence that things were clearly criminal, (quid pro quo, malfeasance, etc) they would refer the case to actual police. They would only continue investigating if the police declined to investigate, and their purpose would be privately prosecuting the person. ( Basically filing a suit to whatever court, like you were suing the person but you prove the criminal acts and they get sentenced potentially)

If the skeleton was more of a civil harm like a breach of duty or breach of contract, the PI would gather evidence relevant to the harm, and not provide their client with irrelevant information like who their favorite callgirl is or whatever bathhouse they frequent. They would also not share info about infidelity unless their client was the spouse that was being cheated on.

Still, what you think a legitimate reason could or couldn’t be probably doesn’t match up with what actually would be the basis of some surveillance.

This comment is super cliff notes, and based on some PI training in Ontario Canada that I couldn’t make myself complete after I realised that it would be more of the same bullshit shiftwork that I was trying to get away from 10 years ago.

OP might have a good time calling some PI firms local to them and asking to pay for a consult and fact check his narrative.

This is a brain-dead take when the USA has prosecuted people for intentionally spreading diseases.

You don’t pay… This is a solved problem, wealth gain/loss would work the same way as capital gain/loss

You can use a net capital loss to reduce your taxable capital gain in any of the 3 preceding years or in any future year.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/capital-losses-deductions/you-use-a-capital-loss.html

It feels like people that don’t like this don’t actually know how to whole system is supposed to work.

They seem to give the average answer, not the correct answer. If you can bound your prompt to the range of the correct answer, great

If you can’t bind the prompt it’s worse than useless, it’s misleading.

https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/revenues_annual

For reference

Yes, but how much cashflow did it have, and how much in dividends did the individual stakeholders receive.

It never didn’t pay it’s taxes afaik

Edit: I’m fact checking myself, Amazon’s strategy is reinvesting all profits to support further growth. They were never in a position like the other poster is describing.

I thought Catalonia finally separated but then the shape was weird…

If the startup made no profit it would never be worth 1000000. You would only have a capital gain if value was realizable.

If you never made a dime from your initial 100000 investment you would sell off the asset at that point instead of paying taxes.

If you were too dumb to sell parts of your assets, and instead chose to be cash negative or fail to pay your taxes, you kind of deserve to lose everything because you were too stubborn to receive advice from anybody.

People do this exact thing all the time. Taking on debts to keep cashflow or avoid taxes is normal.

If you are just sitting on unproductive assets instead of realising their value in some way, you are doing the wrong thing.

You should be able to gain revenue from the asset or it wouldn’t have appreciating value.

All your comments don’t make sense, it’s like you just want to take from the economy without giving anything back.

That doesn’t take into account non federal tax.

https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2024/

This says it more explicitly.

using a more realistic definition of income that includes unrealized capital gains, they found that the same 25 Americans paid just 3.4 percent of their income in taxes during that period. If unrealized capital gains were included in these estimates, ITEP, too, would calculate a much lower effective tax rate for the rich