Yeah that's a real problem. It's also interesting that this puts American contributors at something of a disadvantage.
5,546 karma · joined November 3, 2011
Access patterns in Redis are very simple and it is a well optimized single threaded event loop. It is very fast but cannot scale up to multiple cores etc. So in this case, yes, storing and retrieving data will be fast, but uses will be narrower and if you need a high degree of concurrency, Redis will pose some issues for you.
At least in my experience, Redis's key problem is that while it is well optimized it is still a single threaded event loop and therefore with complex use comes a lot of headache. For simple things however, it is really hard to beat.
1. Real estate not directly used by the owner as his or her residence or place of work.
2. Shares of a business where he or she does not work (Zuck doesn't get taxed as heavily on facebook shares as the investors do)
A major part of the problem is that ownership itself is so heavily concentrated that freedom for ordinary people is not possible. But if we have policies which encourage smaller businesses, weaker concentrations of wealth and more ownership by more people that would be a major start.
Cooking is an interesting one because I try to learn various cuisines reasonably well and some of the dishes from places like Indonesia are very complex.
All of these have the point in common that they cannot be rushed so they force a mentality of taking it slow, which I think helps with the time anxiety as well.
For example, things like television attribution providers which listen on your smartphone to try to watermark advertisements and see whether you bought something that was advertised on the RV or radio are pretty creepy. And I have heard too many anecdotes of Facebook ads showing up after conversations not to suspect Facebook is doing the same with conversations (though I can't prove it and can't be sure). The level of intrusiveness there is very high and the creepiness factor is similarly troubling.
But now let's look at something very different. Suppose you look at providers that simply do analytics on something like purchases and only share the data with the client. To my mind there isn't so much wrong with this. And you could have third party referees that can then referee disputes on whether a given click lead to a purchase or not, allowing better payment models. Those are not so problematic.
Everything I have seen in the advertising industry (print and online, etc) is that it is rife with all kinds of problems. And yet the industry exists because advertising is an important part of reaching an audience business-wise and so people put up with all the crap. So I am not sure that ad-tech needs to die. We need a better ad-tech industry. One without the creepy parts.
To this end, I think we need more things like GDPR, not less.
I don't think it is fair to criticize medical practices across cultures. Every culture has a different view on these and optimizes for different things.
A native app might be able to violate my privacy. But an OS that can do so is much more dangerous. The reason is the volume of data that can be collected by the gatekeeper.
But the first time we moved back, I was unable to find a job and needed that assistance, which was then denied to me.
I don't see how it can be fixed. Both parties throw families like mine under the bus as easy ways to appease others. The only way I see is to try to start a very different approach to our national conversation and that is not going to come from our parties of capital (either one).
The process as spelled out by a number of thinkers including Sir Thomas More (who was observing some of these things first-hand) and Hilaire Belloc (who was basing his thoughts on such sources as More) was that the Industrial Revolution in Britain (and hence the world since it started there) can be traced back to the way the confiscation of the monasteries lead to spending up the enclosure of the commons. Basically while the Catholic Church had an effect of spreading out power a bit more away from the state, consolidating this in the hands of the state and in the hands of landlords meant that the landlords were much more powerful and therefore pushed peasants off their land in order to raise more profitable goods such as sheep.
The result was a large number of destitute peasants who ended up in the city unable to support themselves. Some of these were shipped en masse to the New World. Others were given destitute wages in the early textile mills.
The same process starts much later in France where you have a parallel confiscation of the monasteries under an effort of secularization following the French Revolution. Although the Reformation fizzled in France for various reasons, the same political pattern of state seizure of Church lands did happen just as it did elsewhere in Europe and this lead to the same destitute masses forced to the cities.
This process closely parallels the way the Andrew Johnson administration pushed freed slaves into the wage labor system thus revving up the industrialization of the North which was jump-started by the civil war.
Water is an issue. But then it is an issue in much of the US too (Flint for example).
Europe's industrialization was built on the back of religious divisions rather than racial ones for example, which makes the problems somewhat different.
I love how people come up with racist justifications for structural racism. Classy.....
My wife's country (Indonesia) also had a caste system and some parts still do, but even poor people have better security in access to food and shelter than poor people do in the US. The economic problems are not so deep.
The US built its industrial base on the backs first of slaves then of the freed slaves, poor immigrants (particularly from China) and dispossessed Latinos whose land claims were not recognized post-annexation. Until we understand that racism in the US is a tool of classism and we address the underlying economic injustices, there will be no social justice. But there is no political party willing to take that on and no real hope for the foreseeable future.
But new immigrants are barred from access to Medicaid, meaning if we had returned to the US, we would have had a 5 year period where we could be fined for me losing my job just because I am married to a non-citizen.
Now, the first policy (Medicaid exclusion) was a part of Bill Clinton's re-election campaign (and when Hillary responded to the accusation of helping round up votes for it, she defended that law, guaranteeing there was no way I would vote for her). The requirement to purchase without undoing the exclusion was done entirely by Democrats without any GOP help.
When your family has been sold down the river enough times, there's a lack of trust. I maintain that the Democratic Party treats families like mine as cheap bargaining chips because we only get one vote as a household while other families get two, so there is not much harm in throwing my family under the bus or off the boat if it gets some other votes somewhere.
At the end of the day the only two things politicians want is your money and your vote. And it is only in these ways we can hold them accountable.
I developed a very strong appreciation for how stratified California social class was on issues like public transportation.
Come to think of it I have been wondering why Sweden can have a really nice public transit system covering the entire country and California with less land, more people, and more tax dollars cannot. I bet that stratification is the answer.
What I am doing is trying to help a third party organize so that if not this year, if not next year, if not in four years, we can eventually make an impact.
Basic point is: If my family is not to be fully included with the same rights, then you don't need my vote. This willingness to throw elections made the Democrats come around on gay rights. It ought to be used by those of us in mixed-nationality families to make them come around on immigrant rights.
(In addition to organizational efforts, I am in the running for volunteering for various positions in the American Solidarity Party, primarily because they do include families like mine in their agenda.)
Your second point is I think correct on part of the problem but I think there is a second deeper issue which goes beyond dark money per se and implicates everyone. That is the fact that family and community are support structures which each of us rely on during hard times. If you come from a wealthy family and you really screw up repeatedly you will still probably do better than if you come from a poor family and do everything perfectly. But the family support structures have been under constant and sustained attacks on a number of means on the idea that if we undermine the family we will, for example, liberate women from inequality (in truth, it only increases gender inequality because motherhood has heavier burdens as single motherhood). Undermining the family, however, creates larger markets for a lot of things. A larger number of smaller households consume more. So business steps in to fill the role, as does the state. Moreover if you liberate business from the state and from community, then the first thing it will attack is the family and the reproductive order because it isn't very efficient for employees to have and raise kids (better to import kids after they grow up).
So I actually see the sexual liberalism of the progressive left and the business liberalism of the Koch brothers as mutually reinforcing, as politically heretical as that might be in the context of US political discussions.