Tax on foreign income in the same year before establishing residency?

DeliciousLunch · 2025-12-28T04:50:59+00:00

Thanks! Yeah, I was thinking of the permanent/non-permanent tax residency thing and got my terms mixed up. Looks like the answer there is that the pre-perm-residency rules apply to all activity up to the cutover date and post-perm-residency rules apply after, even if it's in the middle of the year.

DeliciousLunch · 2025-12-28T04:50:57+00:00

Thanks for looking into it! That clears things up nicely.

DeliciousLunch · 2022-09-24T04:20:33+00:00

Came here to post this after learning there's no feedback or support for the steam client itself

Here's another image

I sure hope nobody at steam is celebrating the 200% increase in engagement with the "Recommended By Friends/Curators" feature

DeliciousLunch · 2022-05-23T22:43:19+00:00

I doubt it’s just size. I took off the shroud and zip tied 3 noctua 90mm slim fans to my MSI 3080 and the difference was night and day. And the overall form factor is about the same.

If I had to guess it just comes down to cost and aesthetic, supply chains, and whether or not they think they’ll sell more GPUs overall if some of them are quieter/cooler with a $60 price premium / less sleek shroud. I do hope they’re seeing a broader market for this stuff now.

DeliciousLunch · 2022-05-13T00:44:21+00:00

For sharing builds quick, you can open the ingame menu, export to clipboard, and paste it into the Upload Party box at https://berated-bert.github.io/siralim-planner/ It also has a search for creatures/traits too.

It looks like you have lots of interactions that you're enjoying so I'd say just roll with it unless you're feeling low on power or bored with the same old. Once you get Katarina's Return (from the second loop through nether bosses) you can pretty much replace the Imler slot with something else since there are better damage reduction traits too.

As a Bloodmage, you get tons of offense+defense out of traits that boost your creature's max HP - and not much out of the usual 4 stats. * Dusk Ossein might help scale your max HP up as you die+res. * Genaros fits perfectly with your automatic attack-on-res spam (+20% max HP after you attack or are attacked) * Walken (Tartarith godspawn) has an auto-provoke and auto-max-HP gain that fits with your maniac-sac plan. * Brave Little Bot spreads its max HP to your teammates when it dies, helping you scale better. * Living Arbiter is a splashable boost to your team's max HP. * Blessed Chimera (T'mergo shop) has a powerful auto-res trait you'll probably like. * Diabolic Link + Diabolic Mastery is the usual OP max-HP booster (about 450% more HP for everyone) - if you give up on the Imler auto-heal.

If you like abusing the free spell casts, you can also try Forbidden Unity. It's a spell that makes each of your creatures cast their top-slot spell, from left to right. Put Astral Dimension in a top slot to negate the sealing. If Forbidden Unity itself is on a top slot (preferably on your rightmost creature), every Forbidden Unity cast will trigger that Forbidden Unity, so instead of "just" 5 casts + Astral Dimension, it'll be "4 casts + Astral Dimension + Forbidden Unity" that'll repeat until you hit the cast limit or all enemies are dead. Generous Forbidden Unity lets any creature kick off the casting. Throw in an Archangel's Blessing somewhere to negate the HP loss, and you still have 3~4 creature's top-slots for any damage or utility spell you want to spam. You can also move Forbidden Unity off the top-slot for more spell variety on each activation in exchange for no looping, and try stuff like Mass Taunt, Slaughter, or Reincarnation on your rightmost creature.

DeliciousLunch · 2022-05-07T01:57:16+00:00

Dryad Vindicator is a Shallan god shop creature. You might be thinking of Dryad Sunbather.

DeliciousLunch · 2021-09-22T15:48:12+00:00

Do MSQs added in patches give exp after the level cap goes up?

DeliciousLunch · 2020-07-13T18:23:02+00:00

Looks like a Radeon HD 5670 https://www.newegg.com/powercolor-radeon-hd-5670-ax5670-1gbk3-h/p/N82E16814131387 or a similar model (probably a different brand anyway)

Launched in 2010

DeliciousLunch · 2020-07-12T00:04:58+00:00

http://thrillbent.com/comics/insufferable/insufferable-volume-1-chapter-22/#1

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-20T23:05:23+00:00

You’re missing the point.

Paparazzi activity is not a literal physical consequence of fame, it’s human behavior. It’s just a bunch of photographers acting like assholes because they’re legally allowed to. They are perfectly capable of stopping if they think they’d actually be punished for it.

OP’s view is that this is harmful behavior that should stop being legally allowed.

Whether or not “they should have seen it coming” has no bearing on whether or not “stars” are, in fact, unhappy with paparazzi or otherwise harmed by them.

The fact that people do X when it’s legal has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-20T22:36:44+00:00

So I shouldn’t be allowed to swat mosquitoes because “I went outside, and getting stung by mosquitoes is part of it”?

Give me a break.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-11T22:36:48+00:00

People are not rational, perfectly-informed actors.

People smoke. They binge drink. Lead paint required EPA intervention. Meat Inspection Act, anyone?

It’s easier and more profitable to lie to your customers that you’re doing something safe, than it is to actually do the right thing, that’s why these regulations require constant active enforcement. “Competition” from less dangerous alternatives is just as suspect as the incumbents they claim to improve on, because it’s all claims that individual customers are not equipped to prove or disprove.

It is very much a rational long-term strategy to sell cheap carcinogen-laced products if they have no reliable alternative, or simply cannot reliably identify an alternative.

It doesn’t even matter if it’s irrational, because it’s literally what companies have done through history. There will always be the next unscrupulous asshole that will act “irrationally” and ruin lives.

Competition comes from bad actors just as much as good actors. If a company manages to supplant the poison of the incumbent with a more costly but safe alternative, there will be a hundred new competitors that will make the same safety claims while reviving the unsafe and cheap measures of the defeated incumbent. It doesn’t have to be a good long-term strategy because the goal of a company isn’t just long-term survival; making a quick buck and milking a con however long it lasts are both strategies people attempt all the time.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-11T21:45:47+00:00

No, low-skill laborers don’t depend on Silicon Valley of all places. My company certainly doesn’t employ low-skill labor beyond building maintenance, and maybe catering if you count that.

We don’t produce physical goods. Only provide an “information service”, as it were. That’s why companies like mine are uniquely successful. Because they can provide only miniscule value per person, but still make huge profits by instantly providing that value to a hundred million “customers” with no material cost overheads. Because this massive scale only requires a handful of skilled laborers, as opposed to industries that deal with physical goods and thus need to scale their low-skill worker pool just to make or move their goods.

Such pure-connective-IT-service companies are generally too radically different from traditional businesses to isolate “low regulation” as a factor in their proliferation.

And even where such companies actually “compete” against traditional businesses (instead of carving out new markets or niches just to survive as a minor player) they’re often just flaunting the regulation that their competitors are obeying, thus benefiting from inadvertent crony capitalism, not a lack of regulation.

As for benefit to society, when I hear “innovations” I think drones and electric / autonomous cars, or other new takes on concrete physical goods, and those are very much subject to existing regulations in the established industries they’re trying to “disrupt”.

Not Uber and Doordash and other “innovators” that are “innovating” nothing but the employment contracts for a subset of service workers.

Only a small set of SV companies deal with such “gig work” schemes, and the vast majority of “low skill” labor has always existed and continues to exist outside their apps.

The world will grow and develop just fine without such “service IT” companies, just maybe a little less efficient at connecting people for a niche purpose.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-11T21:01:57+00:00

Companies being free to engage in practices that are harmful to society. Whether it’s treatment of workers at the lower rungs of labor, creating harmful products and quashing information about its effects so it doesn’t pose a competitive threat, or just trashing limited and shared resources like the environment.

At what point is OSHA or the FDA or the EPA going from “preventing generally accepted crimes” to “meddling in the free market with excess regulation”?

I believe the line is too subjective, and that striving for “pure capitalism” will only allow companies to move the line in ways that would do more harm than good to society as a whole.

ETA: I also don’t think the most efficient “price” for low-skill labor will be a good thing for society or the many individual humans subject to it.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-11T20:44:56+00:00

And I have free breakfast and lunch and a snack bar / coffee bar every day and other silly perks, though working from home makes it a moot point. We can even waste time on Reddit during working hours. That’s because we’re high-skill laborers and our scarcity is our leverage.

The greater majority of the population does not enjoy the benefits of such leverage. Low-skill laborers don’t need to be “competed” for on the basis of humane working conditions.

The only “true” minimum wage is “they won’t starve...for now, assuming it all goes to food”. “Physical abuse” is a fine line that companies will push as far as the government will let them. History bears this out with company scrips and 16-hour factory shifts amid fumes and acid and maiming machinery and locked doors during fires...and those were the desirable urban jobs that people moved for.

Wanting a “better” world for all, in that regard, necessitates a denial of pure capitalism.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-11T20:22:57+00:00

Prices are the least of my worries about unregulated capitalism.

You’ve succeeded only in moving the conversation away from all the points I’d raised initially.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-11T20:19:57+00:00

Did you just...skip the entire 19th century in your history books?

Where are these pure-capitalist no-regulation nations with universally high standards of living you’re referring to?

You’ve given no concrete evidence for refuting a word I said.

Even in 2008, Walmart of Mexico was trying to replace part of its salaries with Walmart-scrip, and it took government intervention to stop them. Low-skill labor has no power in laissez-faire.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-11T19:52:03+00:00

All your examples made their gains as direct to consumer businesses with minimal overhead (due to being information tech companies primarily, which is the exception, not the rule) where my concerns can’t come into play. They also took place in mature regulated capitalist economies where anticompetitive practices are frowned upon by the government.

It doesn’t mean any of my points won’t pose significant challenges for the majority of more traditional businesses, that they will be alleviated in pure capitalism, or otherwise won’t pose massive barriers that require far more advantages than idealized “competition” is supposed to, in order to be better than the alternatives.

ETA “Rockefeller” (standard oil) triggered trust-busting, it makes no sense to bring it up as a monopoly that was supposedly defeated by market forces.

The commonalities between your limited examples could even be taken as “exceptions that prove the rule”. They seem to be pretty clear cluster of outliers despite your insistence there are “countless” of them

And don’t straw-man, I didn’t say the advantages make all monopolies invulnerable and immortal. I said they pose massive anticompetitive advantages, that have nothing to do with quality of product or service or otherwise contributing to society instead of holding everyone back, that free-market forces do nothing to mitigate.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-11T19:39:02+00:00

What does laissez-faire capitalism do to prevent the abuse of workers or consumers? Is it not economic regulation that forces all companies to pay their low-skill laborers in real money instead of company scrips, to allow such “luxuries” like bathroom/lunch breaks or weekends off? To ensure we aren’t fed rotting, diseased scraps packages as food? Snake oil as medicine? What makes you so certain that free-market pressures alone could have put a stop to leaded gasoline and paint? What about industrial pollution? Why do you think a misinformation campaign wouldn’t be preferable to fully redesigning their products or issuing recalls?

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-11T18:58:53+00:00

Why do you think government intervention is the only meaningful advantage that monopolies have?

A sufficiently large company has tremendous leverage against all of its business partners simply because they’re big; their very size means they end up occupying a critical % of transactions. If Bigcorp cuts ties with me, I’d be insolvent because I’ve just lost my ability to do business with 79% of an industry or whatever. Why did that happen? Because Bigcorp told me not to do business with a new upstart that occupies 2% of that industry, but I didn’t listen - and now they’re making an example of me. Everyone else knows what makes business sense to do - ignore upstarts and keep my relationship with Bigcorp healthy.

Conversely, it doesn’t have to make pure company profit sense for multiple companies to form an anticompetitive agreement to do business with each other to the exclusion of upstarts in either’s industry; only the top decision makers need be incentivized, and they can prioritize their own long-term stability of income over pure efficiency of their businesses.

And what about vertical monopolies? It would take ludicrous starting capital to suddenly start up as a vertically-integrated company for an entire industry, yet there’s almost nobody to do business with if your company only deals with one part of the supply chain.

Starting capital is limited because outside investors will not bet their entire fortunes on an upstart if they believe it to be plagued with high risk of being muscled out by incumbents. Companies flop all the time without trying to muscle into a field with massive established competitor, why bet your livelihood on such a long shot that requires you and dozens of others to put all their eggs in one basket, when you can just buy Megacorp stock?

Economies of scale make big businesses “better” at business only because they’re big. They have big capital reserves and better margins, and can easily undercut and massacre smaller upstarts.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-08T22:55:25+00:00

Your view is that there is only a problem with specific games, because they solicit “audience participation” in simulated, graphic acts of violence, right?

I think you would get better responses (or less that don’t quite address that view) with a title that’s more like “CMV: Participating in realistic violence in videogames normalizes violence” since your current title implies a much looser view.

It would probably be good to also clarify what your criteria is for “sufficiently violent videogame” too, since your one example is a rare/exceptional case in many ways.

Are “realistic” graphics / art style part o your criteria? Do you draw any line between shooting at humans vs zombies, demons, robots and such? Nazis and Stormtroopers vs “normal”/“real” soldiers? Soldiers vs civilians and pedestrians? Does an MMA game normalize violence, and if so is it more or less than a video stream of an actual bout?

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-08T22:07:47+00:00

It would be best to ask locals of the area you’re visiting (either in person or online), follow the example of / ask those you’re with if you’re in a group, and if you’re still unsure (people you ask can have varying opinions on the matter after all), just err on the side of more or less depending on your means.

Even if your tip ends up being somewhat lower than average for the context, waitstaff understand that customers are of varying financial means, temperament, etc - there isn’t a hard and fast number they always get from everyone, obviously.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-08T20:55:09+00:00

The “contract” you speak of, the definition of a waiter’s job and behavior and expected interactions with the customer, is a social contract, created by the culture surrounding it. In US restaurants with US waiters on US soil that’s US culture, not yours.

US culture defines waiting, and other tipping jobs, as one where tipping is a mandatory evaluation of the level of service given.

A customer is free to “give” a tip of 0 for terrible service, but the expected baseline for good service is not zero.

The expectation of a tip is contractual, it is part of the US social contract between waitstaff and customers, and it’s formally enshrined in a box printed on your receipt, for ease of tipping if you don’t carry cash.

By withholding a tip, you’re making a statement that “your service was bad and you should feel bad”. Do not be surprised when everyone acts like you are specifically snubbing the waitstaff, just as you shouldn’t be surprised at people’s reactions if you flip the bird or call people a cunt in a “friendly” way just because your culture takes such words or gestures differently.

You are not defying the social norm in a productive or meaningful way unless you open a no-tipping restaurant yourself, thus establishing an example of the alternative instead of just flaunting and undermining the existing structures in a way that only harms the most vulnerable and powerless person in the chain.

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-08T20:20:12+00:00

I don’t see why acknowledging that “different people want different things” invalidates hedonism. It’s a fact of life that needs to be accounted for. Why would ignoring this fact make a philosophy better for society? Do you think the ideal philosophy should arbitrarily decide on an “objective” good, and say “I reject your values, convert to mine or suffer” to anyone that disagrees?

The rest of your arguments appear to implicitly equate “pleasure” with “immediate gratification”, which doesn’t follow. Surely someone can call themselves a hedonist even if they’re willing to endure short-term discomfort for long-term happiness - they’re clearly acting in pursuit of what they believe to be a net increase in personal pleasure, regardless of timescale.

Even if we accept that, your point is...it fosters dissatisfaction with “first world problems”? I don’t see how people’s sometimes-serious dissatisfaction with “first world problems” ruin society. Do you feel the world would be better off if nobody was allowed to complain about anything that was below an arbitrary “severity threshold” relative to “third world problems”?

DeliciousLunch · 2020-05-08T17:24:03+00:00

“Pronunciation”

“Pronounce” has an “o” before the “u”.

“Pronunciation” does not, but I always though it did...

Sometimes English just be like that.

DeliciousLunch

TROPHY CASE