jasonwocky

The population of Japan may not need it, but some capitalists may need to be convinced of their preferred system's inherent immortality.

> Capitalism still works fine, because it's not a designed system, it's not a central plan.

What logic is this? "Anything which is not a designed system works fine"?

I don't think he's saying that there's anything "wrong" with it. Just that it's not enough to really kickstart the faltering economic engine back into its top gear.

>> Inefficient collaboration >Generally means other teams / people do not recognise what an awesome thing I did. Generally implies your awesome thing was not massively awesome.

I really don't think this means what you think it means.

I think you're giving the "average American" way too much credit for subtlety.

When we want to be Xenophobic with our food, we rename French Fries to Freedom Fries. See? All obnoxious-like.

I think we just like Bacon.

> Let's go over this LOI, which is simple and straightforward and doesn't legally bind us to do anything other than...

How do you know that until you've had an attorney review it?

Yeah, what is that? "The great thing about living in Atlanta is that it's so easy to leave!"

I mean, don't get me wrong. It is an added convenience to have access to the time a bit more quickly. If I'm checking the time, there's a decent chance I'm in a rush for something.

But yeah, almost purely fashion.

I wear one all the time. It's purely fashion.

> What casual runner goes running without their phone?

Me for one. I run 2x a week for about a half-hour each time in the park near my apartment building. That's about as casual as it gets?

I used to run with my phone, but I recently bought a tiny mp3 player and a Casio wristwatch for running. I don't care about GPS since I know my park, and if someone needs me I'll talk to them in a half hour.

Needing to bring a phone with me makes this watch absolutely a no deal.

That's very much the point. The FBI can make an argument that they weren't trying to gain access (since a real attempt to gain access would have looked different from "entering miscellaneous strings"). They were trying to see what the system did when authorization attempts failed. As far as I know, there's no law against that. It's similar to going through a suspect's trash.

It's definitely 10/20/40.

Hah, totally reads like an email my boss would send.

Plants improve morale and productivity. Transparent attempts by management to manipulate their workforce do not :)

Exactly. Why, as a consumer, do I care that Comcast needs to keep its shareholders satisfied by generating profits? If that need drives them to provide better QoS at lower cost than a municipal option, then great. If it doesn't, then that's their problem.

Vermont is just about the most pragmatic state in the union that I know of, and it took them this long to finally try this approach out. Give it time.

If a five year old wants to learn how to read better, then teach them. If they don't, let them learn something else.

I don't think you read what I wrote. I could come up with all kinds of shit I want 6 years olds to do, and come up with tests for it.

The point isn't whether or not I could. The point is whether or not I should.

And that's the whole problem. They're trying to manage kindergarteners.

I find the attitude that I assume must be driving this agenda to be so presumptuous as to be infuriating. In order to test something, you must know what it is you expect that thing to be at the time of the test.

The very notion that we can codify these expectations of 6 year olds really drives me nuts. Let them be whoever the hell they want to be, without worrying about whatever society thinks it needs from them, a little longer.

I don't think that's true in and of itself. The election cycles have been 4 years since the founding of the country, but this level of short-term thinking has, I think, gotten worse over time.

Personally, I think it has to do with how quickly information can be transmitted nowadays, coupled with less trust in government than there was a generation or two ago. But maybe I'm wrong and someone with a firmer grasp of history can correct me by showing that this has always been a problem.

> But in America’s health care financing system, people tend to change commercial insurance whenever they change jobs, lose Medicaid coverage when financial circumstances change, or leave the commercial market altogether when they become eligible for Medicare at age 65. That means one company will be stuck footing the big bill, and another will probably reap the benefits of a healthy liver 20 years later.

>“If it is cost-effective from a societal standpoint, it is not necessarily going to be cost-effective from a health plan standpoint,”

/sigh. Can we have a public option for health insurance already, please?

We have a pharma company not playing by the normal, "gentlemen's rules of the game" that backload costs. Instead, they've got a great cure and are going with the "fuck you, pay me" model. Which, fine, more power to them. I really have no trouble with it. However, unfortunately, it doesn't play well with our current racket of employer-based health insurance.

> I also fundamentally disagree that removing choices is a good thing - the research says it makes (most?) people feel better, which suggests that they don't want to think about making any choices because it is somehow difficult for them and causes anxiety. Logically, this means they would be most satisfied and happy if they didn't have to make any choices or do any thinking at all, and something/someone else made all the decisions for them - the equivalent of having no freedom or control over one's life.

You're equivocating removing choices that one ultimately wouldn't make any way (i.e. "false choices") with removing all choice.

> Is this really what we want society to become?

Also slippery-sloping.

Some of us, at least, pretty much hate all social networks.

> You'd see tobacco+marijuana cigarettes too - a highly marketable combination of high and addiction.

Damn, right there's almost good enough reason to oppose legalization.

Possibly, though I imagine that tobacco companies would probably find away to be the biggest beneficiaries if it suddenly became legal.

No absolute decline, but as I assume that the larger tech space has been growing, holding steady equates to an overall mindshare decline. Unless my understanding of Google Trends is off.

Generally, Servlets were multi-use objects that would serve many requests simultaneously. Except that in the early days, you could tag a Servlet as a SingleThreadModel which would tell the container to only allow one request at a time to be served by an instance of the Servlet. Lots of requests led to lots of instantiations.

This was seen as a terrible practice, whose sole benefit was to allow lazy programmers to have state variables in their controllers, and was promptly deprecated. Only to have Rails and other similar frameworks basically pick it up!

> Can we stick to arguments not based on nationalist fervor?

We can, perhaps. The POTUS generally has a harder time winning arguments by doing so.

He's not trying to guilt companies into paying more taxes. Fairly certain he knows that would be a colossal waste of time.

He's trying to stir up support for closing the loopholes.

These things look the same even when there is an actual chance of it happening.