It's my understanding that is reason for the PS3 having Linux / other OS support at launch. It was classified as a "computer" vs gaming device and this resulted in a lower import tax for certain countries.
Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
281–290 of 307 posts
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it's not that "infamous," then, is it?
Perhaps the wrong choice of word, English is my second language after all. But it's quite well known in the food importing industry here AFAIK, and most seem to recognize it's exceptionally silly. But it's cheaper...
Infamous is probably the correct word, its infamy just hasn't been translated.
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#283Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Canon will choose to make an insufficiently sized heatsink on its DSLR so that in video mode it has to shut down after 20 minutes so it can be classified as a camera and not a video recorder. The camera will record indefinitely in 4K line-skipping mode, so that's not actually the reason they didn't put the heatsink on. That reason is either incompetence or market segmentation.
> That reason is either incompetence or market segmentation. Yes Or simply because most people don't record longer videos. Or because that heat has to go somewhere and a bigger heatsink might heat some areas (or the user). Or the current heatsink is an existing part and it was "good enough"
The average person isn't recording 8K RAW videos and doesn't have a computer capable of handling that either. And the EOS R5 at 3900$ is unarguably a professional camera.
It's almost 100% using unique parts, too.
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also an egregious waste of carbon emissions in the era of climate change though.
We should just put a price on carbon directly instead of optimizing lots of other rules to also take emissions into account. Fuel is just too cheap.
No post body was provided.
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every law that can be circumvented by a ridiculous trick is either void, or the loophole has to be closed. California did something like this with window tint violations. It's illegal to have your windows tinted darker than some amount. In the old days, if you were ticketed for this, it would be a "Fix It" ticket. You get the tint removed, have a cop sign off that the violation was corrected, and pay some nominal f…
I have heard you can just bribe a cop to sign it off and you don't have to have it removed at all.
I had a drug dealer friend with a cop as a roommate. The cop “didn’t know” but he “loved to help out friends of friends.” It was entirely comical over at their house.
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every law that can be circumvented by a ridiculous trick is either void, or the loophole has to be closed. California did something like this with window tint violations. It's illegal to have your windows tinted darker than some amount. In the old days, if you were ticketed for this, it would be a "Fix It" ticket. You get the tint removed, have a cop sign off that the violation was corrected, and pay some nominal f…
I have heard you can just bribe a cop to sign it off and you don't have to have it removed at all.
I've never heard of outright bribes, but plenty of people have a cop as a family member or friend who'd gladly fix the fix-it ticket for you. At the time I got mine, I didn't have that option. I paid the fine.
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#288Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ford lost in 2019. An appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.[0] My non-lawyer understand of the issue wasn’t so much that they were avoiding a tariff (“tariff engineering”), but that they were removing the seats upon entry. In contrast with the BRAT where the dummy seats were still there when sold. [0]: https://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/03/ford-transit-connect-imp...
I wonder if they could, in theory, sell you the car for 150% of it's final price (so that they seats are there when sold), then buy back the seats immediately for 50% of its price. The invoice would say something like: Car with passenger seats: $15,000; Passenger seat buyback: $5,000; Total after buyback: $10,000. That way everyone gets what they want, and they've technically sold it with the seats still installed.
Or have the dealerships take care of the aftermarket conversion.
Ford should only have issued a guide to independent dealers and repair centers on how to do a conversion between cargo and passenger (and made sure both were possible) but only import the passenger version into the country.
Then it's murkier, because not all dealerships would offer it and the customer isn't buying it from Ford, he's getting an independent dealer to install additional things (or remove) from the vehicle.
Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need something like the senate filibuster debate rule for taxes. Basically just state that there is this thing I can do to skirt the tax system so I declare a tax evasion without having to actually make people do stupid stuff.
That defeats the purpose of the law. If they’re flagrantly violating the spirit and intent by barely passing the technical requirement, then the law should either A) be removed or B) retooled to address the loophole. We should never encourage ignoring certain laws or it undermines the whole system. It’s why I don’t support states legalizing weed under the federal government’s nose/while they turn a blind eye. Sure, w…
> If they’re flagrantly violating the spirit and intent by barely passing the technical requirement
There's no such thing as the "spirit of the law", just like there's no such thing as the "spirit of the code".
If you leave a buffer overflow it will get exploited no matter what. Same thing with the law.