Plasmoid

It's not that outrageous. Apparently, 90% of India is living on less than $10 per day (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-living-with-less-th...)

Even at a simple level, if it's between spending weeks going through purchasing or not asking too many questions and getting on with it. I can see a lot of people choosing option B.

I'm not sure this is the first time this has happened. There was a major earthquake in SE Asia which wrecked chip production for a year and prices went up quite a lot.

I was actually looking at using this to replace our mongo disks so we could easily cold store our data

I think you're over-estimating how much slack there is in the organization.

A rule of thumb is that benefits cost an employer 25-30% of salary. So you're already pushing to 50% of revenue going to direct salary costs. Then there are employees in non-revenue roles (HR, legal, accounting, IT, etc...) and employees doing non-revenue work.

Finally, you have rent, licensing, insurance, and all the other fixed costs.

You're trying to side-step the point by not understanding it.

A VHS tape is capital in the same way that a machine or house is capital. They are capitalized goods that produce something of value on the other side. You still haven't been able to demonstrate that renting one is morally questionable while the other is fine except by special pleading.

What? Of course they are. They just produce entertainment instead of housing-days.

I think we're at the bottom of the discussion here. You've got your opinions but each time you've been pressed you don't really have a justification that stands up.

That's too broad of a concept to be useful. If you applied it like that then quitting a job would be rent seeking for the same reason

But rent-seeking isn't renting. They're different terms that don't have anything to do with each anymore.

> Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating public policy or economic conditions without creating new wealth. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)

This definition doesn't overlap with renting.

Because:

> Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating public policy or economic conditions without creating new wealth. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)

Given that renting out property you own doesn't meet this definition it can categorically not be called rent seeking. I'm always shocked that people apply this definition exclusively to property rentals, and not VHS rentals, without seeing the hypocrisy.

Let's expand on this.

People assume that renting out property is rent-seeking literally only because they both have the word rent in them.

I would note that people don't use the word rent-seeker (or parasite) when it comes to banks renting out money. I assume this is partly because banks use the word `loan` and partly because referring to bankers as parasites would be a little too close to dog-whistle antisemitism.

Renting out property isn't rent seeking.

CGP Grey once asked "What happens to humans when it becomes uneconomic to employ them?" eg, the value of their economic output is functionally zero.

I bought a USB-C to 3.5mm jack for around $20. It works well but does tend to get caught on things more easily than a pure jack.

Your evidence (none) does not support your assertion.

You're not even wrong.

What's the deal with the 'Who murdered Denise Robert?' ad?

What an absolute sociopath

The FAA finally approved 100UL gas for small airplanes. I'm not sure how widely it's available now.

Those still exist but often have very high membership fees. Thousands per year plus minimum spend amounts

That's really interesting. Can you expand on why those are the correct answers?

I could see that, but given that jobs are all at-will it's hard to argue the employer would have any damages for a contract that can be terminated with literally zero notice.

> Answering "Yes" to 1 when you don't have a green card or US citizenship would be a way to guarantee that I would rescind your offer

This might actually violate EEOC. You would discriminating on the basis on nationality. The question that was asked was "Are you legally authorized to work in the US?" and Canadian have a limited legal right to work in the US under NAFTA.

They rotate those often enough.

> whatever it costs

This isn't an appropriate answer because it can't be applied to the whole of society. You can't spend an unlimited amount of money on everyone and suggesting shows a certain amount of naivete.

Every medical systems grades treatments based on life extensible compared to cost. If it's over the limit you can't have it. You need to do the most good for the most people and you don't have unlimited funds.

There is just one thing missing from this. Name Constraints.

This doesn't get brought up enough but a Name Constraint on a root cert lets you limit where the root cert can be signed to. So instead of this cert being able to impersonate any website on the internet, you ratchet it down to just the domain (or single website) that you want to sign for.

Probably getting close to the boundary of the allowed area

But what is speech if you prohibit any use of money in it? It is just standing on a street corner yelling at passers-by?

Using money to amplify your speech is just the nature of the world. Buying ads, or buying speakers are just different ends of the money axis.

Can someone ELI5 how/why this is legal?

I once had a small discussion with senior leadership that it was easier for me to spend $100k worth of engineering time on a project than to purchase a $1000 license.

It's not self hosting. It's can I run the build from my local command line and get the same results.