Looks like while some people agree with you, it's not the most common use.
> The name derives from the maximum permissible five floors of combustible construction (Type III or Type V) over a fire-resistive Type I podium of one floor for "5-over-1" or two floors for "5-over-2", as defined in the United States-based International Building Code (IBC) Section 510.2.[1][4] Some sources instead attribute the name to the wood framing of the upper construction; the International Building Code uses "Type V" to refer to non-fireproof structures, including those framed with dimensional lumber
It’s debated, but the prevailing belief is that it originated to refer to the number of stories. Hence you’ll also see “5-over-2” used fairy commonly as well.
Specifically, someone had asked how a "single line of Powershell" could be useful in a FOIA request (in the marshell thread I think). This is the example.
I have lived in San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle since the pandemic started and while Portland and Seattle have gotten worse, they don’t hold a candle to how dangerous San Francisco has become. There are parts of San Francisco I won’t walk around in the day time. There simply isn’t anywhere like the tenderloin or SOMA in either Portland or Seattle.
You're right that FDIC doesn't have to, but it's in everyone's interest that people keep keeping their money in a bank, so the long and the short of it is that the FDIC's playbook is to find another bank to buy SVB (for pennies on the dollar), and as part of that deal the purchaser bank will make them whole. FDIC doesn't necessarily have to do that, but it's what they've done in the past, so guessing that they will do something similar this time around isn't out of the question.
For your explained meaning, it is in depositor's individual interest to remove their money. Get cash or t-bills. Also get a credit union account where they work for the members.
FDIC is in receivership of the bank, so they can sell off assets or do whatever they need to do to recover money to pay out depositors. If you had a million dollars and they are able to recover 90 cents on the dollar - your $100k "loss" would be covered by the insurance.
Legislation doesn’t guarantee rights. If the same body trying to violate your rights with a bill can just pass another bill to repeal your rights, your rights are not protected. Two things are required to guarantee rights from a government: a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government, neither of which the UK has.
> a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government
Remember Brexit? It took them almost four years to achieve after the referendum, in part due to decisions by the constitutional court.
This is just a hypothetical destination at the end of the day.
For example the POTUS gets to appoint judges which has lead to the courts becoming increasingly partisan. And Trump did a pretty good job of abusing his power left right and centre without any repercussions.
Whereas on the flip side, UK politicians have been taken to court over the lawfulness of various decisions (such as “brexit”) and PMs forced to step down over incidents far less serious than anything that has resulted in POTUS impeachments.
And as much as the US constitution guarantees rights, the constitution can be changed. In fact 2 of the rights described here are amendments themselves.
We can all argue about which political system offers greater safeguards but ultimately it’s all just theoretical debate. A bad actor with sufficient support in either political system could do serious damage to the rights of their citizens.
So I think it’s a
erroneous to distil the argument down to such a simplistic model and then argue that America is somehow more free than the U.K. because of it. A more valid argument would be that we are roughly equivalent in a subject that is clearly very complex.
The problem with gas stations becoming EV charging stations is that EV charging takes substantially longer than filling a gas tank and no one wants to hang out at a gas station.
Gas stations are also just too small. Most in my area can accommodate 4-8 cars at a time.
EV charging is much more suitable for places like Supermarkets, Malls, Restaurants - places where people spend much longer amounts of time and with larger areas to park.
Like 9 minutes versus 5 minutes, for a comparison of our stop at a fast charger on the way to LA from the Bay Area versus gas fillup. Such a long time.
But yes it’s good to have places to go for the longer (30 minutes say) charges.
No argument there! But 50% + 8.6% sales tax vs 50% + 20% VAT is definitely a difference.
Of course, the area under the curve matters, too. I have no insight into what effective tax rates people are paying in 50% top-bracket tax countries in Europe.
As a double-income no kids couple in Silicon Valley, I think we're still paying something like 18% effective tax rate federally.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop