The customer pays the VAT but it is not entirely clear what part of the VAT is borne by the company and what par by the customer. Theory suggests that it is mostly borne by customers through companies setting higher prices to preserve their overall returns.

It is an interesting idea but what you are suggesting can have som unintended consequences:

• large companies that are private, e.g. Ikea, would pay no taxes in any of the countries where they operate, only in Skandinavia where their owners live?
• same for other companies - if Spotify is mostly European owned, it would pay no taxes in America?
• there are tons of ways of going around this restriction - e.g. taking a loan from the owners with very high interest; giving employment to owners; paying owners for "consulting services"; using company assets for personal purposes. The truly rich company owners would still be able to extract cash without paying taxes, so the problem is not really solved...?

Here is the request for Microsoft to implement this: https://aka.ms/AAd2jme If MS says not enough users want it, and you are one of these users, please vote for the feature though the Feedback Hub if Windows 11 runs on your machine.

Am I hearing "if we regulate Big Tech, we are going to lose security"? Sorry, not buying that.

First - if Whatsapp displayed unsecure SMS messages in RED and asked before sending them, I don't see a security issue. Second - where there's a will, there's a way. Doesn't the article mention that WhatsApp actually uses the Signal protocol?

See the above comment - "the proper compensation is MONEY". To have fair free electricity, it needs to be per capita, not per household (too much manipulation otherwise). And once you get there, it is easier to give a lump sum to every person in the country than to check and regulate a given amount of free electricity. And once you're there, there is just a step to doing this through a tax return - perhaps even for people who earn nothing and who could actually get cash back based on this. Sort of a small version of UBI. One disadvantage - free daily allowance of electricity is harder to convert into booze than a lump sum of cash once a month.

That a company commits fraud is one thing, but the major failure was that of the audit firm (then PMM, today KPMG). This is written by the person at Crazy Eddies who was responsible for fooling the auditors:

As a general practice, most large accounting firms use relatively inexperienced kids right out of college to do basic audit leg work. They are supervised by slightly more experienced senior auditors who unfortunately depend on feedback from these inexperienced kids in making informed decisions. During the 1980s, both these kids and their supervisors were mostly young single males between the ages of 22 and 29.

As a 28 year old CPA myself, I understood that audits are very boring and tedious for these young single male auditors. It was difficult for them to pay close attention to their work. It was relatively easy to distract them without ever being blamed for obstructing their work. Rather than overtly interfering, I engaged in a calculated plan to subtly distract them with cute Crazy Eddie employees reporting to me. I encouraged my female employees to flirt and get friendly with their young male PMM counterparts and discuss audit issues with them over lunch and dinner on Crazy Eddie’s tab. Meanwhile, I took certain higher level PMM auditors to pick-up bars and other establishments frequented by good-looking women.

Our auditors wasted valuable time getting chummy with our management and female employees rather than paying attention to their jobs. As the scheduled completion of the audit neared, our auditors rushed to complete their field work and failed to undertake key audit procedures which enabled us to easily inflate our reported earnings.

That chumminess also helped us become more likable to our auditors and corrode their professional skepticism. They did not want to believe we were crooks. They believed whatever we told them without verifying the truth. You can steal more with a smile!

"Punishing"? Requiring these companies to allow 3rd party app markets or 3rd party payment services, or to interoperate with other software, only seems like a negligible cost to implement. Yes, customers will have more choice about what software to use... but that is the point of competitive markets, no?

Try playing "This war of mine". It is a great game by Polish developers and is now on official school curriculum in Poland, because it does change one's view of what war is like... However, I do admit that it is not the standard run-of-the-mill "shooter".

The figures you provide are interesting but althoug I have not analysed their financial statements, I believe some of the figures should be taken with a grain of salt:

"Their "enterprise value" is -$20b, compared to an industry ("fiancial markets") average of (positive) $114.98b." - An average value of one bank? That is quite irrelevant, given the vastly different sizes of banks worldwide.

"Their income last year was under $3000 per employee, compared to industry average $454,000." - Didn't one of the previous statements say they were loss making? That should make the income per employee under $0. Also, in banks, unlike e.g. consulting firms, returns are not primarily driven by employees but by capital - so a more suitable measure would be return on assets or return on equity.

"Long term debt/equity 399.89% compared to industry average 65%." - Not sure what industry you mean but much of banking is based on getting a lot of deposits from clients (debt) with little equity. In Europe, VERY roughly, capital requirements are, say, 8%, and most banks will have gearing exceeding 500%. For a bank, 65% is not viable.

"Their current ratio is below 1, probably, but their financial statements failed to disclose all the information." - They must, by law, publish their total current assets and current liabilities, so it should not be that difficult to divide the two to get the current ratio.

Modded +5, and insightful? So, how does one investor get others to vote for his resolution, then get paid while other investors lose money? In order to "sell" the company, new owner would need to obtain over 50% of shares, paying not just the activist investor but many others, and offering the same terms to all 100% current shareholders (stock exchange regulations protect minority shareholders).

And peons losing jobs? That happens when the company stops growing, and he tired to give 10 reasons why the current CEO caused exactly that. OK, I may not have much background information, but let's not mod "rich a$$hole" phrases up so fast...

Or, in proper poker, it can easily be a sign of a mind that decided to give an impression of being messy :)

Of all places, I would expect Slashdot to differentiate between OS and UI features. I was hoping to hear about Andromeda OS but got an overview of a UI experience - something that Microsoft cud likely still biild on top of Android, should they want to.

Czech Republic here, EU member state. Correction of parent: it is normally possible to buy prepaid sim cards of several operators without showing ID, although various law enforcement agencies are lobbying for stronger controls.

While not trying to belittle global warming, are we going to get an endless stream of these articles?

Ocean is the warmest we've ever measured. Hottest year in New Zealand. Series of 8 hottest years!

Reminds me of last year. Also, next year's articles: Ocean is the warmest we've ever measured. Hottest year in Russia. Series of 9 hottest years.

I get it, the Earth is getting warmer, but that means we should get ready to get these records every year... and perhaps talk about whether the warming is slowing down or speeding up?

The metaphors were amazing. The sinking lily pads were "laws and regulations" that the "democrat" was trying to navigate while they kept sinking. He was chased by "bureaucrats" while trying to reach the next level of "the Great Journey to Progress".