LAwLz

I live in Sweden. Our tax system is very different. But to answer your question, I do not use any tricks or clever accounting to try and minimize or maximize the taxes I pay. 
 
 
You can dislike both the system and the people/companies that abuse the system. It's not like "I am just following the law" is a blanket statement that removes any personal responsibility and makes you immune from criticism. 
 
If the law allowed me to hit you in the face I'd still be a bad person for doing it, even if I'm just "following the law". I could simultaneously also think that the law allowing me to hit you in the face is dumb and should be changed. 
 
I'd like to think that we can hold people and companies to slightly higher standards than the absolute minimum that doesn't make them literally criminals. 

CBT Nuggets have some good videos on their YouTube channel for free. They have a paid video service as well but I personally prefer INE if you're going the paid route. 

The SRX configuration (sanitized) and a very simple diagram would help with example IPs.

Not really, he does not go in depth in his networking vids and always has coffee interludes imo he mostly BS's the video, I think ppl would prefer youtubers who cut to the chase with no BS. For a beginner he is is fine but above that level, I would avoid him. 

Congratulations on simplifying it so much you forgot the most important detail.  Not once did I say it was a discount, you are just like Linus hand waving and making up stawman arguments.  A tax write off changes the amount of taxes you pay; which is what you just explained...are you seriously not mindful enough to realize that reducing your tax burden DOES save you money
 
Let me explain it to you simply.
 
You explained effectively what a tax write-off is.
 
A REGULAR CONSUMER CANNOT WRITE IT OFF.  So a regular consumer pays, $1000 and gets NO TAX DEDUCTIONS.
 
To put it simply again:
Person A, tax write off person:
Person A has $100,000 in his bank
Person A has $10,000 in business income and owes the government $5,000 in taxes
Person A buys a $1,000 phone for the "company" [i.e. tax write off]. 
Person A's $10000 is reduced down to $9000 business income, so actually only only owes $4500
 
So AFTER paying his taxes he has $100,000 - $1000 - $4500 + $10000 = $104,500 in his bank
 
Person B, regular person:
$100,000 in his bank
$10,000 in personal income and owes $5,000 in taxes
Buys a $1,000 phone [it's a personal phone so no writing it off]
Person B now owes $5,000 to the government still.
 
So AFTER paying his taxes he has $100,000 - $1000 - $5000 + $1000= $104,000 in his bank
 
 
NOTICE how Person A and Person B BOTH purchased a phone.  Except Person A ends up with $500 more at the end of the year than Person B.
 
You cannot argue about the fact that writing off a phone in this example SAVES 50% of the cost of the phone during taxes [assuming 50% tax rate].
 
You can try putting makeup on a pig all you want, by making an asinine argument about semantics that it's not a "discount" when I DIDN'T say it was, but ultimately it's stupid to ignore the fact that with tax writeoffs a person is ultimately saving themselves the percentage that they would be taxed at.  Plane and simple.
 
You want a more extreme example, if Linus does a tax write off his million dollar house [because he films in it].
A normal person would pay $1,000,000; and still pay taxes on their annual salary of $100,000
But a business write off on a business that is making $100,000 a year gets to write off the $1,000,000
So instead of paying $50,000 in taxes each year, they get to carry forward their "losses" and effectively pay no tax for 10 years [to the tune of $500,000 if the tax rate is 50%].  Now one might say that they can't live off a business, but what rich people can do is take loans against shares of their business thus not paying personal income taxes as they still make $0.

Read my previous post on page 1.  Linus is to put it bluntly misconstruing things.  NO ONE IS SAYING YOU GAIN MONEY.  WHAT I AM SAYING IS YOU PAY LESS TAXES WHICH OFFSETS THE EFFECTIVE COST.
 
If I personally were to buy a $1000 phone, I pay $1000 (well plus GST and PST).  That's my total cost.  At the end of the year my taxes are still the same.
If I buy a phone and "use" it with my business, I pay $1000, it's written off as an expense, so your taxable income drops by $1000.  That means if tax rate is 50% you are paying $500 less in taxes. (And depending how you've structured things you can get a GST credit).
 
Write offs don't immediately give you "money back", but they do reduce your end of year tax bill which can effectively be seen as lowering a purchase cost.
 
It's like paying $1000 at a store you always buy from and getting a $500 coupon and then telling people "but you still paid $1000"...it's stupid ignoring that there is a $500 coupon also with the purchase.
 
Again read and comprehend what I wrote before repeating Linus' illegitimate example.  Notice how I said at the end of the year you have effectively reduced the amount of tax you pay.  Or better yet, read my full blown example from Person A vs Person B here
 
There's a reason why super rich people are capable of reducing their "income" down to below poverty lines...they can exploit things like write-offs as an example.  Linus talked about the subject with what seems to be a lack of understanding about the ability to shift tax burdens to minimize taxes paid.
  
What's funny is when the parent thinks they know a word and saying people are using it wrong when they don't seem to understand it's usage.
 
Assuming I was super wealthy, making millions a year with my business.  You incorporate things into the business to "increase" expenses to the business to reduce the taxes.  It can be quite effective especially given how gov't bodies tend to want to settle if there is disputes instead of spending millions defending [the rich get extra leverage because the gov't has a duty to try recovering as much as possible in the lawsuit which means factoring in their legal fees...so it often gets settled if the person is going to put up a fight and is rich enough to draw it out through the courts[.
 
Some easy, not necessarily legal but still done, "tax write offs".  Going out to dinners, and "discussing" work for a bit.  Buying a "company car" [really personal car].  Hiring "staff", which happens to be paid just below taxable income and happens to be your kids.  Home renovation?  No it was used as part of the office.
 
Now the above really isn't strictly legal, but still likely enough in a grey area...it's also enough to greatly reduce tax burdens

It is usually a good idea to think your reasoning and arguments through so that you can explain to others how you feel and why you feel the way you do.
I tried reading your post and it is quite hard to follow your train of thought. It's almost as if you were just mad and wrote down the words as you were thinking of them. You made up statements from the "opposite side" and then answered them in your post, but never explained to the reader what those statements were.
 
It seems to me that you are claiming that these AI features are actually powered by people instead of a computer. Basically that "AI" like ChatGPT is similar to The Mechanical Turk.
 
If that is what you are claiming, then I am sorry to burst your tinfoil hat but you can actually download and run some of these models on your own hardware, without an internet connection. Chat with RTX and Stable Diffusion are two variants you can use with an Nvidia card if you don't believe me. That wouldn't be possible if it was just "poor people" doing all these things.

It is usually a good idea to think your reasoning and arguments through so that you can explain to others how you feel and why you feel the way you do.
I tried reading your post and it is quite hard to follow your train of thought. It's almost as if you were just mad and wrote down the words as you were thinking of them. You made up statements from the "opposite side" and then answered them in your post, but never explained to the reader what those statements were.
 
It seems to me that you are claiming that these AI features are actually powered by people instead of a computer. Basically that "AI" like ChatGPT is similar to The Mechanical Turk.
 
If that is what you are claiming, then I am sorry to burst your tinfoil hat but you can actually download and run some of these models on your own hardware, without an internet connection. Chat with RTX and Stable Diffusion are two variants you can use with an Nvidia card if you don't believe me. That wouldn't be possible if it was just "poor people" doing all these things.

It might have been a good idea to start a bit smaller, and also figure out what you are going to do with the hardware before buying it... 
 
For example putting a 3060 inside your current PC would have been a lot cheaper and easier.

I've not heard of this being a thing at all.

lol, bit ironic given that you used a blanket statement of "taxes are theft"...you were the one who made such a black and white simple statement and pretty much stated it was getting political; and his response in honest is a good simple response to such a simple wrong black and white take that taxes are theft.
 
Then don't make statements about who cares, because obviously people care.
 
"Legal" tax avoidance methods can often go into grey areas, and the "legal" methods that are used are often abused to the point where there's a massive amount disparity in what someone should be paying.
 
Again, as an example, people use the "legal" option of tax write offs to buy luxury cars [thus reducing the overall taxes they are submitting to the government].  If someone is rich enough to be a "billionaire" in terms of capital it's possible to avoid paying any forms of taxes if they wanted to.  So yes, many people do care because using things as a tax writeoff is exactly how many still manage to get around paying taxes.
 
  
I don't maximize the amount of taxes I personally pay, but honestly I don't go to the extremes that I could to minimize the amount of taxes.
 
The issue with taxes is that there isn't any simple way to write it; and when things are more complex there are always people who can figure out ways exploit it.
 

the idea of ever writing things off pushing you into a different tax bracket is already misleading.
Everyone is in ALL of the tax brackets all at once. 
0 is a number. your tax burden is not your tax bracket. your taxable % does not spike when you get into or out of a bracket, the whole thing is fairly linear with an asymtode at the highest bracket. 

like I dont have the numbers but it looks like this in reality


 

Damn government giving us roads and military and education, how dare they. Those should rightfully be exclusively for the rich who can pay private companies for it.
What have the educated ever done for me

Never heard of Strawberry-Tips day before, but here are some tips from me:
 
1) Use a password manager and make sure you use unique passwords for as many services as possible. It's not uncommon for compromised accounts to be compromised because some services where you used the same password got breached.
 
2) Keep your software up to date. A lot of attacks happen because someone is running outdated software with known security holes.
 
3) Use 2-factor authentication for important services, preferably all services. 2-factor (or multi-factor) authentication will prevent your accounts from being compromised even if your password gets leaked.
 
4) Backup your data. Not just to some USB memory stick or some other local storage, but also back it up to somewhere off-site. For example I keep all my photos on my NAS, but also in Google Photos. If my house were to burn down, I would still have all my photos. Some people talk about the "3-2-1" rule for backups where you keep three copies of data, two local (on different media) and one offsite. I feel like that's overkill for most people but if you got the option to do it then go ahead and do it for the most important stuff.
 
5) Be careful with the links you click. Don't download and run suspicious software. Don't enter your information into suspicious websites. Try and limit the amount of services that have access to sensitive information.

This thread is wild. 
 
Seems like some people are more interested in making sure their favorite company (LTT, AMD or both) isn't seen in bad light than to actually look into the situation and help OP.

This thread is wild. 
 
Seems like some people are more interested in making sure their favorite company (LTT, AMD or both) isn't seen in bad light than to actually look into the situation and help OP.

This isn't really "news".
 
There seems to be an odd connection between reporting on minute details and disliking people/companies.

Not sure if Apple is more desperate to sell phones or people are desperate to talk about Apple.
 
 

I am fairly sure that never happened. 
Maybe you're thinking of when YouTube enabled ads on channels that didn't have monetization? 

The creators have full control over when ads are shown, how many, and which type.
If you see unskippable ads, it's because the creator has it enabled on the video. If you see midroll ads, it's because the creator has it enabled. 
 
At least that's the case with uploaded videos. It might be different for live streams, but I am 99% I've seen streams where someone says then need a toilet break, and then an ad shows perfectly. I doubt that's a coincidence. 
It might also be that the default is that YouTube sprinkles in ads every once in a while by default if the creator doesn't manually ad adds themselves. 
 
 
Edit:
Found a source that confirms what I said. 
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7385599?hl=en
 
If you think LTT live streams co rain a lot of ads, it's because they (the creator) chose to include a lot of ads, because more ads = more money. 
You can place ads manually if you want, and you can let YouTube insert ads for you. If you do the latter, you have several options for how often ads should appear. 

It's not a situation where it is either Apple or pharmaceutical companies. They could do both. What you are doing here is called a "fallacy of relative privation".
But it is most likely easier to tell Apple "hey, stop deliberately making it hard for users to leave your ecosystem" than it is trying to reform the field of medical research. Making changes to IP law for medical stuff could have devastating effects as well if not done carefully and correctly. Telling Apple that they have to support RCS, or telling Apple to stop restricting what developers can communicate to their users for example is way easier and far less risky.

Exactly
 
Back when the DOJ investigated Intel (almost 20 years ago) it wasn't because Intel just had a lot of market share. They kept an eye on Intel because they were really big, and they started an investigation when there were claims that they paid companies like Dell to not sell AMD products.
 
Making a good product that sells well and takes over the market = fine.
Using the control of the market to disadvantage others = not fine.
 
 
The threat Apple constantly puts on developers to bend to their will or risk getting kicked off the market is in my opinion a fairly obvious abuse of this power. The only reason why developers even go along with restrictions like "you're not allowed to tell users that they can get your product for cheaper outside of the iOS app" is because Apple holds such massive power over the market. Getting kicked off iOS could potentially kill a company. So developers have to do what Apple says, and Apple uses that power to make sure they get a cut of all the revenue those developers make. They are using threats that only holds water because of their power over the market to make sure they make more money. That if anything is a clear abuse of their monopoly if you ask me.
Them making it so that there are apps on the iPhone only they could develop, like third-party browsers, use of NFC and so on are also a clear example of them keeping others down for their own gains. When Microsoft did that the DOJ forced them to give third-party developers access to the same APIs.
 
 
With great power comes great responsibility. Apple unarguably has great power.
If you are in such a position then you can't use that power to harm others, especially not for your own gains.

It quite literally is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#:~:text=Fallacy of relative privation
I'm pointing out this fact (again, since @LAwLz already did) because you keep doing it. You posit that because there are worse problems facing us right now, we shouldn't be bothered by this one. My comment has nothing to do with children. You are way too literal-minded here and I suggest you start reading between the lines a bit. Otherwise, you'll never understand nuanced arguments.
 
First off, I'm literally being forced by my employer to carry around an iPhone, so your objection already flies out of the window.
 
But even then, even if I never had to touch a single Apple device, I can still complain about Apple's behavior on behalf of people who like and buy their products, simply for wanting them to have more options open to them. You don't get to tell me that I can't voice my opinion about something that doesn't concern me.
 
Third, and this is where Linus ostensibly is affected: If someone buys AirPods, they should get to use them to their full extent regardless of if they own an iPhone or not. Either make it impossible to use them at all without an iOS device or make it fully functional without any device, no middle ground. Maybe AirPods are the best damn in-ear headphones on the market for that price, I wouldn't know. But if they are and someone buys them without owning an iPhone, not having the full functionality is unacceptable. Gatekeeping functionality behind the purchase of another expensive device is royal bullshittery.
 
No it isn't. You're building a straw man. You're just full of fallacies.

Again, can you elaborate?
 
What exactly do you mean by "PCI-E bifurcation"? I assume you mean splitting for example one PCIe x16 port into two PCIe x8 ports.
I looked up some lower end Z77 boards and found that for example the Gigabyte GA-Z77-D3H has two full size x16 slots, but one runs at x16 speeds and the other runs at x4 speeds. It is not possible to make them both run at x8. Is that what you are saying you have gotten around by shortening some pins on the CPU?
 
I also looked up some lower end AMD motherboards such as the Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 3 and the spec sheet there says the exact same thing.
One x16 slot running at x16.
One x16 slot running at x4.
 
No mention of running both at x8.
So I don't really think this is an Intel-exclusive thing that doesn't exist on AMD motherboards. 
 
 
Are you sure that it is a software lock and not a hardware limit?
I am fairly sure this is a cost-saving measurement done by motherboard manufacturers. That they only physically make traces in the motherboard for an x4 connection to the second PCIe slot.
 
Maybe I am complete off base here and you are right that motherboard manufacturers are locking this with software and you have found a way around it, but as it stands right now I kind of doubt it to be honest. 
Without looking into it too much, I wouldn't be surprised if you shortening the pins on your CPU just results in your CPU being tricked into thinking it has two x8 connections, even though the second port still only has an x4 connection. If that is the case, you might get a lot of corrupt data if you start pushing the second "x8" connection so that it tries to use all 8 lanes.

OP can you please elaborate what you are trying to say?
It seems like everyone is confused. What is the practical end result of this guide? What paywall are you talking about? How does AMD and Intel differ in this regard?

It's not a situation where it is either Apple or pharmaceutical companies. They could do both. What you are doing here is called a "fallacy of relative privation".
But it is most likely easier to tell Apple "hey, stop deliberately making it hard for users to leave your ecosystem" than it is trying to reform the field of medical research. Making changes to IP law for medical stuff could have devastating effects as well if not done carefully and correctly. Telling Apple that they have to support RCS, or telling Apple to stop restricting what developers can communicate to their users for example is way easier and far less risky.

The good thing about opening things up is that you still get to stay in the walled garden if you want and enjoy all those benefits. It's just that others who may not feel exactly like you could also benefit in some other ways. 
 
If you want an analogy, it's like if some restaurant added some vegan options to their menu, while keeping all the old stuff there as well. Just because the restaurant now has more options and can appeal to more people doesn't mean you have to order the new stuff. You can keep ordering the old non-vegan meals if you want.