Believe me, I would be upset if I found out that my auto maker was using my driving data against me. That's part of the reason that my daily driver is a 96 Honda Civic. I drive carefully (as evidenced by the fact that I have been driving the same car for nearly 30 years), but that doesn't mean that I want anyone keeping tabs on how I drive. I especially don't want someone keeping tabs on how I drive without my knowledge. Worse, the automakers are profiting by sharing that information and I don't get a cut.

That being the case, if what you are upset about is that your insurance agency doesn't know who is actually driving your car, then I can't sympathize. They don't care who is driving the car. They simply want to know how badly the car is being driven. If you loan your car out to someone that is a terrible driver then I actually think that the insurance agency should get to know about that. After all, they sold you insurance based on the risks they perceived from you, not someone else that might be driving your car.

As an example, I have a 16 year-old daughter that just started driving. I made it very clear to the insurance agent that she wouldn't be driving my wife's car (a late model Honda Odyssey), and instead she would be driving the 2006 Kia Sedona. Mechanically the Kia Sedona is still sound. It has new brakes and tires, and it has been well maintained. It's a big vehicle with ABS brakes and side airbags. When (not if) my daughter gets in an accident she will be as safe as I can make her. I still got a discount from specifying that she wouldn't be driving the Odyssey. Insurance companies just want a reasonable idea as to how much risk they are taking on. Personally, I think that is fair.

I would consider using a telemetry app for her when she drives. It would have to be phone based, and not based on the information from the vehicle, as there is no way that I would put her in a vehicle new enough to support telemetry. The biggest reason that I wouldn't want to share her driving information is that I have driven with her and I suspect she is in the lowest quartile of new drivers. In fact, I suspect that if the insurance agency knew how terrible she was they would charge me more to insure her. On the bright side she is getting better with practice, and she is cautious about driving places that she isn't already familiar with. That makes a big difference in practice, but it is unlikely to show up on any sort of telemetry app. Hopefully she can avoid any accidents and improve her skills to the point where I don't feel like I am taking advantage of my insurer.

They don't care. They aren't trying to prosecute you for bad driving. They are simply trying to charge you more money if the vehicle that they insure gets driven badly. If you let knuckleheads drive your vehicle then you probably should be charged more in insurance.

Congrats to you as well! :) Baby is only slightly premature, being induced at 2.5-3 weeks early due to size.

Nice idea.

If you pinch "imply" hard enough you can make it mean "infer"

That statement itself is enough to pinch all the linguists out there. :P

What makes that the "correct" version? It seems the line has quite the history and has taken on many forms. Fwiw, Wikipedia justifies "implies".

I ought to be jealous of you. But i'm much too lazy.

I lost a lot of weight after reading "The Hackers Diet" He was a real help to me.

You are lucky then. I have an another location 10 miles away where I sometimes watch Netflix and now every time I do I have to adjust my household. I am on the Ultra Premium account, and I am supposedly able to watch 4 streams at a time, but only if we are sitting in each other's laps.

I just did the math and my family watches less than 20 hours of Netflix a month (I have 6 kids). It turns out that I haven't watched Netflix since November. It's not that big of a deal, but getting a message from Netflix every time one of my kids wants to switch where the household resides is just enough of a pain that it makes me want to stop using Netflix completely.

Per hour they are definitely my most expensive service. We can definitely live without them.

The whole point of audits is to at least put a finger on those individuals who knowingly cooked the books. Properly done audits would make it easy to know precisely who to prosecute in the case a criminal trial is needed. The easiest way to make sure that the audit is done to a certain standard is to make the auditor liable for mistakes that they failed to uncover. Audits should be comprehensive enough that the auditors should either find the problems in the books, or, in the case of more comprehensive fraud, make an airtight case criminal case against individuals if fraud should go undetected.

Eventually fraud comes to light. These schemes always unravel.

This ruling is definitely a step backward for that level of transparency in our financial markets.

This is precisely it. An auditor that doesn't share in the civil and criminal liability is a complete waste of time.

In an ideal world investors would come to recognize quality auditing firms in the same way that we recognize quality manufacturing firms. These firms would demand a significant portion of the fee up front and would not sign off on the audit until they were satisfied that the company was, in fact, clean. The company being audited could then rest assured that their books were clean (internal embezzling is definitely a thing). More importantly they could attract more investment because they could show that their business had received a quality audit by a well known auditing firm. Failure to pass an audit, or an audit by a less well known firm would be met with skepticism from investors in the same way that you are skeptical of random misspelled brands on Temu.

A quality audit would simply the part of the cost of doing business for companies that wanted to be publicly traded. The reality is that investors already expect that to be a thing. This is witnessed not only by this case, but by the fact that the Tingo Group was able to raise billions in the U.S. stock market on the strength of an audit by Deloitte Israel. The proper response would be for the auditors to be held liable for those things that they should have uncovered with a proper audit. In the long run this would probably be good for the auditing firms. Sure, they would be on the hook for poorly done audits, but publicly traded companies would basically be required to pay for comprehensive audits. Quality auditing firms, with good reputations, could charge more for audits, and could do the work necessary to guarantee that the books were clean (or at least that the fraudsters were consistently fraudulent). Misleading auditors should carry criminal penalties so that if companies did trick their auditors the auditors would be able to hand over their books to law enforcement to allow for easy prosecution in criminal cases. These quality audits would be worth the effort to companies seeking the greater capital that the market gives.

Companies that didn't want to pay for quality audits could get the amount of auditing that they wanted to pay for, but investors could see this as a red flag. At the very least auditors could serve as an insurance backstop. Before investing you could take a look at the company auditing the company you wanted to invest in to make sure that they had the resources to back up their audit.

None of this is even remotely controversial actually. In fact, it is the only reason that auditors should even exist, and it is definitely what investors expect from an audit. What is the point of an audit where the auditors can't be held liable, or at least if the audit can't be later used to show who acted in a criminal manner. Almost by definition audits should show that the books balance, or should at least point the finger at the responsible parties in the case of fraud.

In recent times there have been a string of huge frauds perpetrated against companies where the fraud could have been caught with a minimum of proper auditing. As an example, Trafigura had to write down nearly half a billion dollars as they found that a significant number of their nickel shipments were just useless rubble instead of nickel ore. You can be sure that company will be more careful in the future.

Proper auditing definitely is worth the money spent on it. Investors need the information provided if they are going to make informed choices. As fraud mounts companies that do their due diligence will stand out in the market. If the law doesn't require proper audits, then some auditing houses will almost certainly take it upon themselves to guarantee proper audits as part of their service, and auditing insurance will become a thing. It will then be up to the investor to prefer properly audited companies. Unfortunately, in a world where Sam Bankman Fried can trick people out of billions of dollars by promising ridiculous returns I am afraid that stolid businesses will always have a hard time getting the investment they deserve.

over the deep face of the depths.

"deep" fits neither the words nor the context.

"depths" It says water, not depths.