“perhaps Amazon is recognizing this as a real problem”
The real choices here seems to be:
- amazon is “stupid” and does not recognize it as a problem
- amazon is well aware, but does not care, since it benefits them in some way
1,439 karma · joined August 17, 2012
The real choices here seems to be:
- amazon is “stupid” and does not recognize it as a problem
- amazon is well aware, but does not care, since it benefits them in some way
Does ‘selection’ constitutes engineering in your vocabulary. And if yes, then why don’t you believe that this virus was carefully selected during the gain of function research?
Oh, no, the hardest part is to modify the poorly written complex pieces so they continue to function properly.
How about union workers call you next time they want to install a new app on their phones?
Would you prefer to be mugged or a mugger to be shot?
Are those types of exchanges still take place at the interviews? I was lucky enough to avoid them, having worked at companies that are able to afford to spend extra time training people. Those types of discussions often remind me of the Linus' quote: "Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and their relationships."
- running a service that can scale based on load
www.netmeister.org took too long to respond.
There is a word that describes this kind of merger of corporate and government power, I just don't seem to remember it.
How do we know that’s not the actual goal of those policies?
I would argue that the will of the websites is to actually allow publishing for the most amount of people. And they censor the opposing political views only because the government-aligned forces make them to. Basically if every corporation needs the government to survive they are going to do everything the government wants, even if they don’t admit to it. They would rather lose half the users than become completely defunct.
One of the main counterarguments to the universal basic income is that napkin math does not work out. You don't even need to get the "science" involved, just relatively simple algebra. Humanity does not have the resources for the majority of the population to receive benefits out of thin air. And no, $3200 AMZN is not really a resource most people would feel comfortable surviving on, unless they can exchange it for something of an actual value.
p.s. the Amazon bit is related to the "let's divide the wealth of the billionaires and we all will live happily ever after" mantra.
I mean, yeah, the "bet" is even in the name.
Of course you CAN answer further questions since you can speak. Thus you have just lied to a law enforcement officer.
Only if they issue a margin call. But what if they were the ones responsible for the conditions that lead to the margin call in the first place (blocking buys on a specific stock)?
No, I am sorry. When government forces financial institutions to give loans to everyone applying without risk analysis it IS socialism, aka “democratic control over the enterprise”. No capitalist in their right mind would give hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for underwater basket weaving degrees and expect to see the money back.
Who exactly designed the system that way? Banks (aka capitalists) were not very keen on doing this exact thing for the risk reasons, and now the government ended up backing most of the educational debt for some reason (aka socialism).
Incidentally, I personally think the limit for communist societies is around 50 people or so.
Of course, but there is very little utility to it when the vote counting is hidden behind an opaque software system, and you have no way of confirming that the vote counting is secure. So sure, go vote, but with absence of verified and secure counting it's almost pointless.