If you read the OP, the word "sprint" is used in its less formal definition of "working long hours for an extended period of time", not in the formal description of an AGILE time-boxed work period.
4,288 karma · joined August 21, 2013
1. An uneducated consumer cannot distinguish between the two. Both products will bear labels reading "Extremely high quality, we take pride in our work, energy efficient AND better quality than all our competitors!"
2. Brands and manufacturers are taking these shortcuts uniformly. So consumers can't simply rely on buying a machine of a certain brand.
3. These issues don't show up for (apparently) 13 years! Even IF a consumer identifies a brand with a strong evidence-based reputation for quality, that brand may have lowered standards sometime in the past 13 years and they would have no way of knowing.
So fascinating to see such opposite recommendations for these games! I'm not sure whether to try them, or run away haha.
That's literally exactly what the link is!
> John Riccitiello: this industry divides people who shun monetisation and those who embrace what makes a successful product
Instead, we get the non-representative clickbait "fucking idiots" in our title, which goes against the HN ethos and guidelines:
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. [0]
This should also revitalize things with contributors a bit too; it actually provides motivation to go in and put yet-another-answer on that decade old question that hasn't aged well.
Tell that to a right-leaning Christian pastor, or their congregation. Most of modern Christianity specifically teaches that, in some places, things are most definitely black and white and some basic questions do indeed have easy answers. "Murdering babies", as a family member of mine likes to phrase it, is to them one of the most straightforward and simple of them all.
If the voting public of the US shifts to where it adopts a view you disagree with then of course the democratic institution would continue to reflect the public.
But we have good reason to believe this will never happen. Polling shows that most individuals support a woman's right to abortion. And even if the Republican party gained control of all 3 branches, they aren't a monolithic and unified block when it comes to policy. "States rights" is a HUGE motivation for most Republicans, and a federal policy banning abortion would be a big stumbling block for getting the votes to pass such legislation even with a Republican majority.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it her career to overturn precedents around women's rights that had been around far longer than 50 years.
> Mites have been blamed for a lot of things. The long association with humans might suggest that they also could have simple but important beneficial roles, for example, in keeping the pores in our face unplugged.
* low competition
* host symbiosis
* significant inbreeding
I wonder how much you can analogize this to a more complex organism like the grey wolf's transition to the domesticated dog? You could potentially use this research to extrapolate trends in canine evolution! As the mites have shed DNA that helped them survive in more hostile environments, we see dogs losing traits that allowed them to survive in their ancestral environment as well; pack hunting behavior, size, ear shape.
Do you feel like you already make a lot of money, and you don't need more? If so, there are two actions you could take. You tell me which results in greater good in the world:
1. Don't push or struggle for better pay. Be happy with what you have, and let upper management and stockholder dividends soak up the extra. I'm sure they'll spend it making the world a better place.
2. Organize, push, and struggle to improve your pay. Since you're already happy with the pay level you get, donate all surplus to the charity of your choice. Put your niece through college. Save some of it, then retire earlier and spend more time with your family.
But now the Fed has to thread the needle and find that "soft landing", something that they don't have a great track record of doing. But they'd rather trigger a recession then deal with the greater issues that come with persistent 8% inflation, so they have to bite the bullet.
Of course equity markets are all down significantly ("the stock market") but equity prices are actually a quite poor indicator of recession. The ol' saying "the stock market predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions" is very true.
But in addition to the aforementioned supply side shocks, the economy is indeed running quite hot. We're nearly at full employment, open job listings are at record highs. Although real wage growth is still stagnant, nominal wage growth – particularly for the lowest paid workers – is growing; something it has historically been loathe to do.
An otherwise robust economy could deal with a few issues like this, but throw in the shocks to the economy and, indeed, the Fed has to step in with a moderating influence.
They post at least once per week and they often discuss recession odds, they break down the causes of inflation, and regularly host industry experts. (One of my favorites was an episode featuring an economist that works for a US car manufacturer and the insight they could give into the economics of new vs used cars and how auto makers are having to adapt to new economics of vehicles.)
[0] https://about.moodys.io/podcast-series/moodys-talks-inside-e...
But not the QE/printing money.
Energy and locomotion are core aspects of the US economy that factor into just about everything including – you guessed it – the price of goods! And just as the impacts of the pandemic were easing in the US, one of the world's largest oil producers started a war and then was subject to sanctions and embargos by the US and Europe. And so, surprise, the price at the pump has skyrocketed! Again, no connection to QE.
The stimulus, on the other hand, I would agree with you; those checks increased the purchasing power of individuals right as supply chain issues cut the supply of goods. I imagine the alternative world where the stimulus hadn't happened might have been more structurally worse, albeit with lower inflation.
Inflation affects the poor much more than it does the rich, which is why it's considered a "regressive tax". The Fed making a historically large rate hike is a direct attempt at fighting inflation, preferentially so over preventing a recession.
And since we're already very near to full employment, the risk that inflation poses to the poor is greater than that of unemployement, hence why it is better for the poor that inflation is brought in check even at the risk of recession.
When the equivalent power of millions of people can become concentrated into a single person, you get all sorts of weird consequences! Most of them not good for the public as a whole, and often with a corrupting influence on liberal democracy. It is indeed fitting then, that a solution targeted at this very rare and specific problem would look a little weird; even though it's extremely similar to the existing property tax that every home owner pays.
I'm probably simply misunderstanding; maybe Weissman's data is a 1:N mapping?