We absolutely are! Our list of open positions is on our website: https://www.viasat.com/careers/openings. I'd post my usual spiel about our Seattle office (where I work now), but we're renting coworking space up here, so I don't want to bait and switch.
I found it quite a hassle to manage a lot of events. So many e-mail exchanges, links and confusing interactions. It puts too much focus on the "confirmation" part. I couldn't find how to notify users a day before the event date but I'll keep looking. Thanks.
It's worth pointing out that Sweden has been doing the "simplified tax return" with all information prefilled for, IIRC, about 20 years. Internet filing is newer, but the basic method is really old.
It's really quite unfathomable to me how behind the U.S. is on these things (that and banking comes to mind). But maybe it's just the entrenched interests that are doing their damnedest to stop this from happening. It seems that here's one example when you can't argue that corporations are "adding value"; they have been making money due to the primitive IRS system and now they think they're entitled to it.
I pay my rent with check. That's the only way my landlord wants it (no cash, or any electronic way). I've seen (though rare) people paying with cash in stores (I live in LA).
'FoneFu' - That's actually a pretty geeky name. Coz I've noticed scripts with the .fu extension (GIMP plugins i think have .fu extensions)
I too have such a domain name ending with 'fu'. sounds fancy but sometimes the kind of expansion you said strikes my mind. So I never used my domain name.
My app was supposed to be 'JaxFu' and acronym as Jax's Friend Updater but when i thought of that 'fu' part, i didn't take chances so i changed the name.
B/w this app has a lot of potential. I would choose to dial a few digits and enter the ISBN and get the price than to open my phone's browser, go to Amazon, search for the book and find the price (and then glance thru the page to find out which is the price for the new edition and a used book).
A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.
http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
That's not the answer to the question. That's "government statistics". It's meaningless to refer to a safety statistic like "45 to 88 percent of brain injury can be prevented by a helmet" without understanding how frequent brain injury is in the overall population of bicycle riders.
According to that site, having everyone wear a helmet could prevent 250 to 500 deaths each year out of 80 million bicycle riders (700 deaths, two-thirds with brain injury, 45 to 88 percent prevention with helmets, 80 million riders). So if you wear a helmet, there is a half of a thousandth of a percent chance that you will benefit from it.
When you look at it THAT way, the safety improvement sounds trivial, nowhere near the size of the benefit from wearing a seatbelt. It gives a whole different perspective than "45 to 88 percent of brain injury can be prevented by a helmet".
And, that site pulls data from "multiple sources", not all of which may be legitimate, and appears to be a pro-helmet propaganda site.
Also, there are a lot of other variables -- what percentage of those injuries occur among people who tend to ride recklessly (probably-homeless people weaving beater bikes against the flow of traffic, really crazy bike messengers, etc.) vs. people who tend to ride with the flow of traffic, effectively communicate their intention to drivers, etc.?
It's like if car crash injury/fatality statistics failed to distinguish between licensed & trained drivers and those who have no / suspended licenses, etc. (It wouldn't hurt if education on how to bike safely in cities were more common in the US, either.)
Also, living somewhere with a lot of cyclists (such as Amsterdam) means that people are more likely to learn how to cycle safely from other cyclists, and that drivers are more likely to understand how to share the road with them. There's a major network effect.
You need to do the stats per ride, not per rider. If you are biking to work everyday in San Francisco, that helmet is much more likely to save your head than it is for the average weekend rider.
So if you wear a helmet, there is a half of a thousandth of a percent chance that you will benefit from it.
That's per year, your lifetime risk is ~50x that. Or, .0005% * 50 = 1 in 4,000 which is a fairly large reduction in risk of death. Granted being a heavy smoker is ~1 in 3 chance of early death and plenty of people still smoke but this is one of those things that can kill you when your young.
PS: I would also assume that as the numbers of hours / year increases so do your risks. I don't think the 80 million people average more than ~2-5 hours per week riding so more riding time = more risk.
1 in 4000 over a lifetime is not a fairly large reduction of risk - it's a very small reduction of risk. There's a much bigger payoff in thinking about the 3999/4000 chance that something else will kill you.
I feel those are bad odds. Plenty of other people are happy with them.
Also, that's 1 in 4000 before 60 (60 - 10 = 50). You have a 12% risk of death before 60 which means if you died before 60 the there is a 1 in 500 shot that it was biking without a helmet that killed you. Granted a significantly increased change that it was biking, but using a helmet would not have saved you.
I would agree that biking after 60 without a helmet does not really increase your death chances that much.
https://www.car.info/en-se/polestar/stats?from=2020-01&to=20...