Posts by Keith Phillips3

It feels like the industry is moving so fast that people who built the foundation are being left behind by new platforms. Is it just me, or does it feel like the old guard is constantly fighting for relevance against the new streaming giants?

amberorca192 said:So, when you say "insulting users," you mean someone dropping an F-bomb or something, right? For me, insulting a user is when your thread on the PŽK sits there for two days without a single reply, or when someone shuts down a solid argument by burying it in three private messages. No one gets punished for that kind of disrespect, but if you call out that behavior, suddenly you're the one getting flagged for whining. It's funny how being blunt is a crime, while being pathetic is just part of the game.

amberorca192, what does that have to do with me or the PŽK?
My sole responsibility here is to protect the users within the on the edge of science subforum from various forms of disrespect and belittlement, as well as maintaining the integrity of the subforum itself.
Anything beyond that is simply outside my jurisdiction. 😉

ironmarlin1 said:And what's the purpose of a forum where access is being restricted?

That isn't quite right.
It isn't about barring anyone who tries to make an actual argument regarding the topics at hand; rather, it's the specific way certain individuals attempt to "argue" with their peers that gets them shut out.

No, there is a clear double standard happening here. It seems perfectly fine when pilence starts throwing insults around, but the moment someone dares to fire back at those insults, they get banned from the subforum.

By its very definition, argumentation shouldn't involve insulting other members.
Unless, of course, the topic itself is centered on a member, which—by the rules of this forum—isn't allowed anyway.

Like I said: we are looking at a double standard. From your perspective (the paranormal crowd), "argumentation" only counts if it happens to validate your own existing beliefs.

The purpose of a forum is discussion. And discussions cease to exist when a user starts trolling, spamming, or insulting other participants.
Insulting others is not the purpose of this forum.

ironmarlin1 said:And what's the purpose of a forum where access is being restricted?

That isn't quite right.
It isn't about barring anyone who tries to make an actual argument regarding the topics at hand; rather, it's the specific way certain individuals attempt to "argue" with their peers that gets them shut out.

No, there is a clear double standard happening here. It seems perfectly fine when pilence starts throwing insults around, but the moment someone dares to fire back at those insults, they get banned from the subforum.

By its very definition, argumentation shouldn't involve insulting other members.
Unless, of course, the topic itself is centered on a member, which—by the rules of this forum—isn't allowed anyway.

Like I said: we are looking at a double standard. From your perspective (the paranormal crowd), "argumentation" only counts if it happens to validate your own existing beliefs.

That is incorrect. Pilence has already received warnings and even bans specifically due to posts made in the on the edge of science subforum.
However, unlike him, Endymion17—along with another PZ moderator—has not faced the same consequences for similar, or perhaps even worse, behavior simply because they hold moderator status in a different subforum.
When Endymion17 was removed from on the edge of science, it was due to posts that would have earned any other user a ban in any subforum.
Holding a moderator position in one area does not grant anyone the right to insult, troll, or spam users in another.
The fact that certain individuals are acting like offended prima donnas, staging protests just because a subforum is named on the edge of science, merely demonstrates their narrow-mindedness and dogmatism. Nothing more.

ironmarlin1 said:And what's the purpose of a forum where access is being restricted?

That isn't quite right.
It isn't about barring anyone who tries to make an actual argument regarding the topics at hand; rather, it's the specific way certain individuals attempt to "argue" with their peers that gets them shut out.

No, there is a clear double standard happening here. It seems perfectly fine when pilence starts throwing insults around, but the moment someone dares to fire back at those insults, they get banned from the subforum.

By its very definition, argumentation shouldn't involve insulting other members.
Unless, of course, the topic itself is centered on a member, which—by the rules of this forum—isn't allowed anyway.

Like I said: we are looking at a double standard. From your perspective (the paranormal crowd), "argumentation" only counts if it happens to validate your own existing beliefs.

From our perspective—those interested in the paranormal—argumentation is primarily about presenting ideas without insulting or belittling fellow participants, regardless of their specific beliefs.
Anyone who cannot or will not accept this, and resorts to ad hominem attacks against users, is removed from the forum.
The forum rules define this very clearly.
If the word "science" in a subforum title acts as a red rag to certain individuals, that is their issue, not the forum's. They should ask themselves why a single word causes them such intense pressure.
In any case, if they find it so problematic, they should simply avoid that subforum.
Thank Bog, there are various subforums available for anyone wishing to engage in reasoned debate about anything.
For those who wish to insult, spam, and troll—there is no place here.

Arthur Martinez said:Roughly $6,500 bucks.

With a standard American Express card, you might be able to pull about $6,000 in cash, but the terms are frankly terrible—I wouldn't recommend it unless you're facing an absolute emergency. If you have a Gold card, the limit is higher, though the conditions remain just as dismal.
As for the exact credit requirements for a cash advance, I haven't the slightest clue.
Why don't you just call American Express directly and ask?

ironmarlin1 said:It seems perfectly obvious that this forum is pivoting toward commercial success. That’s precisely why they shut down anyone actually trying to make a reasoned argument. It reminds me of how, if I were running a major radio station, my primary goal would be spinning whatever top-40 hits are trending rather than playing something sophisticated like classical music. The logic is quite simple: you cater to the broad, often unrefined masses. In that regard, the way things are run here is a perfect prototype for what Anderlon is aiming for: a flock of young, hotheaded kids who just want to show off and don't bother using their own heads.

What is the point of a forum if nobody shows up? 😕

That is simply not true.
It isn't that people are barred from presenting arguments within a topic; quite the opposite. Rather, it is the specific manner in which certain individuals attempt to "argue" with their interlocutors that is prohibited.
By definition, providing an argument does not involve insulting other members.
Unless, of course, the subject being discussed is a specific user, which, by the very rules of this platform, is also forbidden.

Galileo said:The moderators over at the Edge... they should probably notice that Geza has branched out into two other aliases. He’s exhausting enough as it is; just imagine the headache of reading him when he starts having full-blown conversations with himself...

While it might certainly seem that way, I disagree. 😉
Geza is simply... Geza.

It appears you have provided only a single word, "banderas," without any accompanying context or source text to rewrite. Please provide the full text you wish for me to transform. Once provided, I will apply the requested persona—long, detailed, formal, and blunt—while ensuring all geographic, institutional, and personal references are seamlessly converted to their US counterparts according to your specific instructions. kaže:
To be perfectly honest, I don't believe there is any specific provision regarding a "15-day window from the initial transaction" to be found in the regulations either. From what I understand, the owner has been paying their own contributions since the very day the company was established.

Of course, payments are required starting from the date of incorporation, but there is a specific deadline for filing that must be strictly observed.
Excerpt:
#

You can file both the notification regarding the commencement of business operations for contribution payers (M-11P Form) and the notification for the start of insurance coverage (M-1P) directly at a Social Security Administration service desk. Please ensure these are submitted within 15 days of your official business start date.
#
You are required to submit the Employer Contribution Report (M-11P Form), the Primary Health Insurance Enrollment for the insured individual (M-1P), and the Dependent Health Insurance Enrollment for family members within 15 days of your business commencement date. These filings must be submitted in person at a local Medicare office.

How, for instance, can a student—or anyone else who isn't paying into the system through some other means—simultaneously serve as a director of a company?
Under Section 13 of the Pension Act, that simply isn't permitted. The following details regarding the recent legal developments and the implications of the latest judicial rulings have been compiled from reports published by The New York Times. It appears we are facing a significant period of legal restructuring. According to the most recent updates, there is an ongoing debate surrounding how the Companies Act Amendment will interact with existing corporate frameworks. The core of the issue lies in whether certain previous decisions can withstand scrutiny under the current interpretation of the Constitution. There is a notable tension between the legislative intent of the new amendments and the established precedents held by the Supreme Court. Specifically, when examining how these changes affect corporate governance and liability, one must consider if the regulatory shifts align with the fundamental principles outlined in our nation's founding documents. Furthermore, the interplay between various administrative bodies—including those overseeing social security and healthcare—must be carefully monitored as these legal shifts take hold. While some argue that these adjustments are necessary to modernize our economic landscape, others remain skeptical about the potential for overreach by federal institutions. We shall see if the courts ultimately uphold the stability of the existing system or if this marks a permanent shift in our legal architecture.

jadesailor14 said:you have hundreds of companies operating without a single employee for years
the entire duration without any issues whatsoever

As I stated above, I don't personally know anyone in this situation, but fine—I will take your word for it. When we are discussing actual practice, listening to theorists makes my hair stand on end.

jadesailor14 said:with the cash contribution, you can spend the initial capital on whatever you want
even a cruise through the Caribbean, as long as you report it correctly and calculate/pay the taxes accordingly😉

Of course. But what does that have to do with the capital contribution itself?
You wrote earlier that the initial capital contribution ALONE counts as revenue. 😉

banderas said:NO!
I solemnly swear to give my Bank of America card to the first person who writes that a company must have an employee.

Excellent.
Now, it would be lovely if you could actually explain why you're getting so worked up. ☕

You get the exact same answers from various clerks at both the IRS and the Social Security Administration (and darkraven10 already noted above that he received the same response from a "higher authority" at the IRS).
I received those same answers when I was setting things up (though I didn't need to worry about this specific issue, so I didn't pay much attention), and a friend of mine is receiving them now while opening a business.
They mentioned penalties before, and they are mentioning them now.
This means it isn't just one lone clerk or one single government agency spinning this tale.
And we aren't talking about hearsay from some guy at a bar; we are talking about answers coming from the official institutions.
Granted, not in writing, obviously.

Dammit. 😁

By the way, wait a second—did you actually receive an IBAN from Bank of America in Chicago?

jadesailor14 said:you don't have to
Just tell me which specific law, article, paragraph, or section mandates that an LLC must report someone or anyone at all?
What is this 15-day rule about?
Did I not mention above which issue of The New York Times stated that this provision was repealed? Why is it so difficult to read and verify for yourself?

I have no idea which laws or paragraphs apply; I don't spend my time obsessing over those details—I will simply consult a lawyer.
If you haven't noticed, I am merely reporting what is being said and what people are telling you.
In practice.
That is why I suggested it would be best to ask someone who actually operates this way—they certainly know how things REALLY function in the real world.

The reality is that when dealing with government agencies, you often receive contradictory answers and inconsistent procedures.
Let's not even get started on Customs. 😁

And by the way, are you speaking from actual experience, or is this pure theory based on "how things should be" and dryly citing legal codes?

jadesailor14 said:What kind of black-market VAT refund are we talking about if the company is dormant? If you can claim a refund, it means you bought or paid for something, which implies you had an inflow of funds (startup capital, revenue, a loan, etc.), which means (by some miracle) that you actually had transaction activity in the account.

What else did I say? 🙄
From what I gather about milkyja, his initial plan is just to make purchases through the company (likely by lending his own salary from another job to the business), then eventually engage in some business rather than remaining dormant, all while working for another firm simultaneously.
Startup capital does not count as turnover. 😉

swiftscout8 said:I'm wondering if it’s possible to maintain an LLC without having any employees and just let the business sit idle for a while. Basically, just using it to burn through cash.

By "burning through cash," you're likely talking about reclaiming tax credits or something similar. 😁

Until you make your very first transaction, the company can essentially remain dormant—meaning you just file zero returns with the IRS and call it a day.
From what I understand 😁, once you process that first transaction through your business checking account, you generally have a 15-day window to register at least one person for Social Security and payroll taxes.
Apparently, if you miss that deadline, you're looking at penalties (at least, that's what I've been told).
I'd be curious to know what happens if you fail to register anyone while the company is technically "active." It would be helpful if someone who has actually navigated this specific scenario could share their experience.

Kevin Morris12 said:Does a foreign currency account equal a checking account?

Anyway, I went into JPMorgan Chase yesterday to set up a checking account. I should have my Visa debit card in about ten days, but honestly, the teller was more confused than I was. When I asked if it was an Intel card, she just kind of stammered, "Well, I'm not sure..." then turned to a colleague who was even less helpful. Eventually, she just settled on, "It's a Visa card you can use at stores..." So, basically, I'm just crossing my fingers that it's an Intel card.

At the Federal Reserve, when they link things to a checking account, they typically offer either an Intel card or a Maestro card.
The only real distinction is that with an Intel card, you aren't required to enter a PIN during a transaction.
That's really all there is to it.

d@d@ said:Anything that carries an inflated price tag is essentially begging for plagiarism or theft. It isn't just about software; you see the exact same pattern in fashion, cars, real estate...
.

And what about industrial-grade software?

While I agree that software pricing is often overblown, I highly doubt piracy will ever truly be eradicated, regardless of how much they drop the prices. No matter how low the cost goes, there will always be someone who feels they’re being ripped off—especially when alternatives exist. Once people get used to having easy access through unofficial channels, that habit becomes incredibly hard to break.
At the end of the day, it’s like anything else in America; just as everyone has their preferred dentist or family doctor, everyone seems to have their own go-to pirate.
It's what happens when people simply don't feel like paying or hunting for files online. 😁

This might sound like a strange tale, or perhaps just an ordinary one presented through an unusual lens.
😁

From what I can gather, you took over the firm where you used to work alongside this individual at the same level.
And now, he refuses to take orders from you; instead, he’s launching his own startup and attempting to poach as many clients as possible to bring along with him.
Still, it’s a fairly standard occurrence in the cutthroat world of American business.

However, the part about taking 50% plus gas money and officially reporting the employee... that really floors me. 🙏

I would certainly opt for b
- if nothing else, it would minimize the window of opportunity for things to go sideways (sleeping in until noon, right?)

As for what she should do regarding her personal life, I would advise her, I would advise her, I would advise her...
to ignore all advice altogether. 😉

Just as Beethoven could have just as easily been Hitler, and Hitler could have just as easily been Beethoven.
😉

To start things off, I suspect this proverb isn't really aimed at those who lack capability, but rather at those who lack the will—people who refuse to try and then proceed to complain, often because they are psychologically broken, whether by their own hand or the influence of others. 😉
The spirit can be just as dependent on the body as the body is on the spirit.
(And that holds true even for someone using a wheelchair.)
(Post-weekend thoughts... 😉 )

By the way, since we are discussing motivation—doesn't everything ultimately boil down to that? It's not just about resisting an extra burger or a bag of chips 😁 or dealing with sweaty gym shirts; it's much deeper than mere mental discipline.
On the flip side, consider the same logic applied elsewhere: what is a blind person, or someone in a wheelchair, without motivation and mental control?
- Could you elaborate further on the evidence you're citing?

👍

An athlete who focuses strictly on physical conditioning and technical drills while neglecting mental fortitude stands zero chance—they will inevitably buckle under the pressure.
The same principle applies to an athlete who over-prepares psychologically but fails to put in the necessary work on their physical strength and tactical execution.

wanderingridge be 😎
Don't go judging skill based solely on individuals, because every single style has its share of frauds.
Furthermore, pointing to evidence that someone once lost (or won) a fight tells you absolutely nothing about their actual level of proficiency.
At the end of the day, anyone who frequently finds themselves in physical altercations is bound to run into someone tougher, regardless of their training, preparation, or technical ability.

Take, for example, Bruce Lee, who ran Ip Man’s school and is legendary as one of the greatest fighters out there. Back in the day, he actually challenged a Mantis school, seeking a match against a grandmaster (IP Sui), but ended up losing to one of the students (Master Choy Su Wing) and took a beating so bad the master had to step in to prevent serious injury.
That doesn't mean Southern Mantis is a superior style, nor does it have anything to do with the effectiveness of the system itself. 😉

gogo said:Keith Phillips3,

I think I even spotted your username over by the entrance among the "unclaimed" guests—what kept you from showing up?

Ha 😲 ?
To be fair, I mentioned quite some time ago that I might attend—it seems that was taken as a definitive RSVP.
I simply couldn't make it, honestly (though I won't go so far as to say I'm heartbroken about missing out).

Paul Campbell3:
that sounds like a very diplomatic way of answering how the party actually went.
Kudos to the effort and the planning—after all, the members themselves are responsible for the atmosphere.
At the end of the day, you get what you make of it, right?

Look, diplomacy is paramount here. 😁
You have a point; while the members certainly drive the vibe, if we're being realistic, it's hard to expect some sort of massive, unified celebration involving everyone from various different forums (and the reasons for that are perfectly clear and understandable). One must admit there were certain organizational oversights. However, the first time is always the steepest learning curve—the next time (assuming there is one) will undoubtedly be smoother.

By the way, a round of applause for Simone and Paul Campbell3 (imagine me giving a respectful, deep bow). 🎉

I’ve heard the prevailing sentiment was essentially a case of "throwing the kittens into the deep end first"—it serves as a rather simplistic observation of the situation. 😲

Extremism is never the answer.
In my view, there is no merit in swinging from one extreme to the other.
If you constantly pivot from one radical ideology to its polar opposite, you end up achieving absolutely nothing.
😉