Anderkent

Just because the incentives to reassert the peg don't work out because of costs doesn't mean this isn't a depeg.

Building is fast if you allow people to do it. You could have a new apartment building in around a year, and that's without really pushing it. Zoning and permits are what's holding construction back

> I say this backfired because the employees ended up getting fired

Did they struggle to find new work because of this termination, and/or had to accept much worse conditions? If not, this didn't really backfire

> If you have to implement a feature or fix a bug, complaining that it's old code won't make things go away.

sure, but you might decide to work on a different feature/bug because this part of the code is too arcane to touch

You mean any stable coin that is _not_ 1-1 backed?

Usually it's not the average latency but the random spikes that kill your responsiveness. My wifi ping is usually within a couple ms of wired ping, but packet loss / latency spikes are a daily occurence

presumably it gets you a better effect than cutting with nonactive substances, meaning the users buy from you instead of the 'weak shit' that's cut with soda

> Twitter has the absolute right in the free market to moderate as they see fit when free speech only protects from governmental actions

You confuse free-speech-the-legal-concept (which yes mostly deals with governmental actions' with free-speech-the-principle. You treat the law as if it was equivalent to the moral norm, and that's just not the case.

Yes, twitter is legally allowed to moderate as they see fit. But just because what they do is legal does not mean it is right.

No, that's backwards. On low difficulty you can indeed force a strategy chosen in advance, but as the game gets more difficult you need to make choices that trade off the late-game power of your deck against the needs right now (so you can get to the late game at all)

> The company knows you're worth more, they can feasibly pay you more, they pay someone similarly skilled and talented more. But they do not simply because of a conversation at the very beginning of accepting a role (and once a year). Talk about an abusive angle.

is this abusive?

the company is not your friend, it is always going to pay you as little as it can that still keeps you working there happily.

agreed that companies tend to fail to adjust comp to actually keep people happy & working there, and in many places this leads to people leaving, but this I would say is exactly because the company doesn't know you're worth more

if they're plugged into my phone, sure

if i'm on the laptop, by the time i take five paces away the sound quality on bluetooth is so bad it's basically unusable anyway

> while not rainbows it does come with the fact that you're expected to be a slave on location for 24/7?

Not at all. You're expected to be productive to a certain standard (and even that is sometimes iffy), not to be 24/7 available.

I think this assumes a more efficient rental market than what actually exists. Even in highly demand-skewed some properties sit empty for weeks/months between tenants.

> this will simply increase incentive to sell (if you can’t get enough to rent out), reducing the purchase price, and allowing people to live there.

But that means less supply for rental, and presumably lower impact on the demand for rental given how different the renting versus buying populations are. Even in a maximally efficient model this should result in raising rents?

>If you charge 1k a month now, the reason you don’t charge 1200 is because they won’t pay it.

>If you have a LVT, and try to increase the rent, your tennent wouldn’t be gaining any more value from the land that they currently are, so you still won’t be able to charge 1200.

This only holds if there's no competition between landlords - so the landlord extracts the maximum possible rent from each tenant. If I'm a tenant and living in this area is worth $1500 for me; but there are two landlords competing to have me pay them, I might end up paying $1000. If then both landlords raise their prices to pass the LVT, my rent ends up higher.

It's an empirical question and not easy to answer as to how much of the economic surplus is captured by the tenant vs landlord

>For the few that would, money clearly isn't a huge problem.

That's not really true? A lot of people will refuse to sell their house even for a multiple of the 'market value', because that's the place they lived and want to continue living.

I've never had an issue with a foreign passport buying a SIM. You usually need a local address but you can just use your hotels.

Hm, OK, I was wrong about the ratio of fees to reward. Good news is that reward is going to halve every 4 years so in 12 years it's probably going to be much more even.

I guess this is something that might have changed - but I definitely recall being charged for making transfers from Poland to the UK, and same very recently for Switzerland <-> UK transfers. In both, rather insidiously, the outgoing bank cannot tell me what the final fee will be, and I only find out what was charged when less money appears in the recipient account than what I sent.

> It's called an externality. It doesn't matter if you'd pay $10 for it if the cost imposed is too great

The cost imposed is proportional to the fee, since the fee has to pay for the electricity used to mine the transaction. And $10 of electricity is just... not a lot to worry about.

If you believe the electricity consumption in general has huge externalities, you have bigger problems than mining, and once you address those the mining cost/diffiuclty will adjust

Where do you live? Bank wires are pretty expensive everywhere I've seen. (local bank transfers like ACH are free on TW too)

>Then it'd be "only" 65 kilowatt hours, compared to ~1 watt-hour for conventional payment networks.

Sure, and? You get other benefits, those might not be relevant for you in which case keep using conventional payment networks. But if things like counterparty risk of your payment processor come into your calculations, even $10 dollars a transaction migth be a good deal.

It's not _obligated_ to, no one says it's illegal. NYT can decide to be an asshole and reveal it despite the request not to. Which it has.

Is there a real argument for why the NYT _should_ publish Scott's name? Other than "it doesn't care whether that hurts the subject, and it expects to get more clicks this way".

This assumes that leadership has perfect knowledge of the situation, which is just never the case. Unions can be an additional source of information about the state of the company, for things that are not being communicated via the usual management structure.

>I can't negotiate my pay directly with my manager.

Why not? If you go talk to your manager and tell him "I have another offer at XXX, I want you to match it or I'm leaving" what is going to happen?

Right, no one ever died from being arrested by the police.

>I also find it fascinating that the users of the Portland subreddit will shun or ban you if you are not actually in Portland, as I am sure that a lot of those folks strongly favour all immigration in general

What's wrong with that? You can be in favour of immigration but still want to have a subreddit for people actually in the town. You're free to move to Portland and join.

Both sides need to be present to escalate the situation. If you look at the videos from a couple weeks ago of the police just herding protests with tear gas and dragging people into vans, they're not exactly a deescalating presence.

Surely not? If there are more numbers that can be represented in any amount of bytes (as shown by the diagonal argument), then you cannot represent a constructive proof for each of them in any amount of bytes.

Why wouldn't EU bureaucrats want to use their phone numbers as the identity?

I don't know if you're misreading on purpose or missing a point.

Suppose I each year I produce two eggs and you produce two slices of bacon. We both value these at $1 each. The total value produced this year was $4.

Next year, we produce the same, but we agree to a trade - one egg for one slice of bacon. Egg with bacon is clearly superior to just two eggs or just two slices of bacon for breakfast; so we value the combo of egg+bacon at $3, giving total value of $6.

Next year, we do the same. Total value was just $6, for 0% growth. However, that doesn't mean there was a 'winning side' to the trade. It just means the previous estimate for produced value already included the benefits of the trade, so there's been no change.