buerkle

There's still many high interest savings accounts that are at least 4%

I froze my credit with the 3 big credit agencies in the US years ago when someone attempted to open multiple Dell and other company accounts in my name. Easy enough to unfreeze for a temporary period of time when I need it.

I'm in the Austin area and lost power for 2 days. Some friends of mine lost power for almost a week.

Showing ID to vote wouldn't be controversial in the US if states made it easy to obtain a valid ID for the purpose. But states routinely use it as a backdoor mechanism to prevent people from voting.

Just this week Trump posted on his social media that Obama should be indicted for treason, aka, executed and not a blip from the supposed left-wing media

Not every side deserves to be covered for each story. This is the problem with major media today, they give equal opportunity to people that have no idea what they are talking about. It's like one side says 2+2=4, the other 2+2=5, and media gives them equal air time.

No I want to block both. I don't want to give devs the option of creating a function doSomething(String) that happens to accept MyType. If I need to call trim then I'll do

  StringUtils.trim(MyType.toString());

foo(UUID, UUID); foo(AccountId, UserId);

I'd much rather deal with the 2nd version than the first. It's self-documenting and prevents errors like calling "foo(userId, accountId)" letting the compiler test for those cases. It also helps with more complex data structures without needing to create another type.

  Map<UUID, List<UUID>>
  Map<AccountId, List<UserId>>

But then you are representing two distinct types as the same underlying type, String.

  MyType extends String;
  void foo(String s);
  foo(new MyType()); // is valid

Leading to the original problem. I don't want to represent MyType as a String because it's not.

I love my bolt, but I wish it allowed you to choose a less aggressive setting when using the steering wheel paddle. My old leaf had that option.

I disagree with term limits. I'd prefer to see the number of representatives vastly increased (no increase since 1929) and gerrymandering removed. I do agree they should not trade on the market.

I think you misunderstand the risk that non-CEO employees are exposed as cycomanic pointed out. CEOs that make this much money are more capable of defending themselves than a regular employee, not only from their wealth but from their network. It's rare that a CEO has to testify to Congress, or deal with FTC/FCC, etc. And dealing with BOD, hostile takeovers, or activist investors pales in comparison to what many people deal with day to day. A CEO is not going to go homeless from a hostile takeover.

Sorry but the risk:reward narrative is tiring. Many of these CEOs walk away with millions whether they succeed or fail, there's little to no risk for them. In fact, even they fail in cases they end finding another well paying executive position. Meanwhile, many of their employees are living paycheck to paycheck.

I bought an electric early last year and never considered Tesla because of Elon. I'm sure I'm not the only one.I disagree with "have to go out of their way", many companies now build electrics and it's easy to find them.