jomamaxx

A corporation cannot sue a government for getting into a specific business normally.

It's a tricky thing: company ABC invests $1B in some industry in some country - and then that country comes along and invests $2B in a national company so that national company can 'stay alive' ... and that money is used to undercut the foreign competitor.

A lot of trade happens in traditionally protected sectors - so it's a hairy thing when foreign entities come along.

Many countries - such as China - claim 'fair trade' (i.e. WTO) but specifically use all sorts of games to protect industries, just not obvious tactics like tariffs.

This issue is almost at the hart of 'free trade' because it's all about opening traditionally protected sectors - and local actors often won't like that and will lobby their governments to 'save them' in roundabout ways.

So it's a tricky thing.

If anything, this shows that the EU is basically inept when it comes to trade deals. They will get nowhere with anyone because there will always be some little state the size of a city that doesn't like something.

Imagine if all US states and major cities had to individually approve US trade deals!

There's a difference between liability in causing accidents - and support/warranty.

Think about it: some guy changes the suspension on his car, making it super tight, puts racing wheels on - and then claims an issue on 'warranty' when something happens due to his modifications?

It's definitely within reason to forfeit a warranty if someone hacks up the product with their customizations.

There's no way an auto-manufacturer can provide warranties for parts, which depend on other parts - that have been altered.

That's actually a brilliant point.

But I'll bet their response would be to protect themselves and nobody else 'in the name of national security'.

"It's our responsibility to choose and support products that respect our rights and empower us. Vote with your feet."

I think you mean 'wallet'.

But it's hard for consumers when as individuals they have little choice.

Mobile OSs come in 2 flavours. Wherein there is lack of competition, it's nary impossible for consumers to 'vote with their wallets' because there's few other places they can go.

I think this might call for some intelligent regulation.

"Now they come with software and a prohibition against customer modification or repair."

This is not entirely unreasonable, they can probably justify it some way, of course it's probably just a away go guarantee their service contracts.

You don't own your iPhone, your music, your car, your house ...

Even though you paid for them ...

I have a new toaster for sale. Must use my electricity, nobody else's :)

Back in the day, comedy and art had a lot of curmudgeon, sardonic characters, losers etc..

Try reading 'Andy Capp'.

They just don't allow such zaniness anymore.

Everyone has to be happy and PC.

Think Annie Potts in Ghostbusters: "Ghostbusters, waddya want?"

The Fed is technically a privately owned entity, which is really a caba of banks (banks in the US 'own shares' in the Fed and basically run the show). It's at arms length form congress - as it should be - for monetary operations.

But for regulatory issues?

The US let's a group of banks 'self regulate' - moreover regulate other industries?

The seems kind of crazy to me.

I see the need for 'smart regulation' esp. by bodies that are as 'independent' as possible, but in this case 'independent' could mean 'conflict of interest' which is kind of the opposite of what we would want, no?

Sure - but it's rare.

Think about all the big companies you know.

None of them - except banks/insurance are really in the city.

Look at Twitter, they almost got there, now dwindling.

I've worked at a few startups, and visited a zillion.

Though Goog/FB do have a cool/trendy vibe ... I can't help but feel that most of them wouldn't fit city life very well.

I knew some Engs. in the Valley - super smart dudes who never heard of ISIS. I mean, man. They don't even watch the news. Work -> kids -> geeky projects -> riding. That's it. I don't blame them at all ... But I really do think that the culture out in the burbs is more amenable to 'Empire Building' and getting loyal, normal, predictable folks.

BTW - banks have a lot of job hoppers - because their career paths are so formalized, it's not a big deal for people to hope from one building to the next. Some of the systems are identical, if not entirely the cultures. And many forms of banking are intensely social, which is not like tech.

I also think most banking types tend to be 'upper urban' type people - or at least aspire to that. Tech people are more low key about things.

Anyhow, just my observation.

I'm not sure if that's it.

Google employees are worth much more per-capita than most bank employees - and banks stay in the city - due to the networking (and prestige?) nature of the industry.

I think it also has to do with isolation and creating culture.

Urban areas have a lot of distractions, and individuality is encouraged.

There is 'not that much to do' in Palo Alto, at least, compared to the city ... people live in pretty normal homes, doing pretty normal things in the little time they have outside of work.

Also consider: how many truly innovative companies were ever created in the city and grew to be quite large?

I mean - 'cost' would be a factor, but why is it almost never the case?

If you need 10K employees, you need a lot of 'regular folks' - grinders, who show up every day - and who aren't the fleeting, company-hopping, types.

Obviously it's just a thought.

A lot of great Universities seem to be out in nowhere-land as well. I think there's something to be said for being out of the social centrifuge.

"Conscientious" is one of the 'big five' character traits, somewhat different than attention to detail.

Though I think I understand exactly what you are trying to say an wholeheartedly agree.

"Conscientious" people are probably naturally more inclined to detail to make sure that their work is good.

But I would point out a small delineation point: some things are just a matter of focus.

Typists, some kinds of accountants - it's a matter of 'process focus' - that they are focused and attentive to their work, and make few procedural errors. This I think is a behaviour and can hardly be learned - and is often not very well correlated with 'creativity' or 'big picture thinking' at all.

But I really do agree - the 'overall more conscientious' types - no matter the trade - are the best people, unless you need star talent, but even then ... They care about outcomes, not just 'handing off' some thing, or 'fulfilling their narrow duties' etc..

You know what's paradox: older people tend to be far more conscientious: they pay their bills on time, more likely to do the things they say, less averse to going off topic with hyperbole, get along with others, punctual, they vote, they volunteer, etc. etc. - and yet there is a strong bias against them in some workplaces. Though it could be related to the idea they may not want to learn new things, or 'keep pace' etc..

I know otherwise highly conscientious people who miss emails, are are a little absent minded at times. You can't have that for someone who is managing your schedule. :)

A production is only as good as it's training and docs.

I would go a step further: 'Training and Docs ARE the Product'.

Having bad docs is like selling a car without wheels -> It's not a car :), rather, not a thing that 'solves the problem of getting people from point A to point B'.

My experience with Scala has generally led me to concur with the overall assessment that Scala information and communication is pretty weak.

Hope they can improve it, it's a pretty cool language.

" than to simply cop to the fact that they are aggressively and overly supporting Donald Trump."

This is hard to swallow.

There is nothing in Wiki/Assange past behaviour that would indicate they would like to support Trump.

Unless: They like 'whoever is against Hillary'

OR

Wiki is getting a lot of support from Russia, and they may be indirectly leaning towards conspiring with them for political favour etc..

Putin just might have enough pull to eventually get Assange out of his prison.

He may have a vendetta against Clinton, but it's not a thing against 'Democrats' per-sey.

And despite his 'vendetta' I have no doubt that he would release anti-Trump bits if he had them.

Wikipedia - whatever it's credibility - is headed by a dude with somewhat demagogic and self-glorifying tendencies himself.

'a rich history of corruption'.

I agree cops can be corrupt, but they are just people.

There are a lot of police officers in America, I suggest they are a lot less corrupt than almost any other institution. The problem I guess is oversight, and trying to really assess the degree of the problem.

For example, when we see headlines of cops abusing Black potential criminals, we get upset, but the study by African America prof at Harvard revealed that cops were less likely to use weapons when dealing with Black people, though more likely to physically touch.

It's hard to take the headlines and put them into context.

Though they have a 'special place' in the sense that they are the front-line of the law and obviously a much higher standard of comportment that others ... I still believe that abuse is pretty rare.

Even if this cop was 'out of hand' ... I still don't see it as hugely problematic: a guy got kicked out of a session for doing some fairly controversial things - he was not asking a question so much as making a directly challenging political statement ... and it was likely his confrontation with the cop that got him the boot. It seems like he should not have gotten the boot. Fine. But it can be a confusing situation for security involved as well - and when it's like that, they're going to remove people from the situation. I seriously doubt the guy will be charged with anything. In the end - you have an individual antagonist / rabble-rouser who got kicked out of a lecture - when probably he shouldn't have. Big ff-ing deal. This is not high on the spectrum of 'problems'.

Cops rough-handling otherwise peaceful assailants etc., possibly being racist - this is possibly a very serious problem. But again, hard to put into context.

In terms of demonstrating 'police abuse' - this case simply doesn't register.

I think issues like police departments that get paid through their issuance of traffic tickets and seizures is probably a bigger problem than most other things.

I've never in my life witness a cop do anything that he really shouldn't and as far as I'm aware - nobody I know really has either, at least to the point wherein they feel it's important enough to share with me.

Anyhow - when it comes to this kind of stuff we need studies that can put things into context - not confusing anecdotal examples.

I am not a cop, I don't know any cops, and none are in my family.

I just don't hate cops.

But I do know that 99.999% of being a cop is boring, difficult and they put up with idiots and crazy people - and often 'actual mentally ill people' all day, every day, in often complex situations, and they almost overwhelmingly do a good job.

If you 'have a concern about free speech' - you should be far more concerned about the vast number of people who are 'banned form campus' for having relatively normal views, but which are inconsistent with those of the 'safe zone' generation of totalitarians.

The 'totalitarianism' is not in some random guy getting ejected - maybe on wrongful terms - out of a discussion for making frankly offensive statements - but the limits on who can speak and why, largely driven by zealot students and faculty on campus, who usually represent a tiny minority of students and yet get their way anyhow.

When there is agitation and confrontation - a cops natural response is to 'can it' - and I don't mind this at all - though I would hope that if there is no crime committed that no charges are validated. A judge will eventually look at this, and if there's no validity to the charges, then they will likely be tossed.

"Cops don't act in anyone's interest, they act to enforce the law. Because they are bound by the law, they have a monopoly on the use of force. At least that's the theory. If you're the mafia and want someone to do the bone breaking for you, you can't hire a cop, you hire a thug. Such as this man."

Repugnant.

The police don't have a monopoly on anything and are not a 'mafia' any more than Barack Obama is the head of a giant 'mafia'.

" And he appeared thoroughly confused about what he was doing and on whose behalf. " - this is the fault of the Library and the Speaker - not the cop.

"The library clearly isn't pressing charges for "resisting arrest"" - the Library can't 'press or not' for this kind of charge. It's not an offence against them, i.e. robbery.

"and second because only the police state can press this particular kind of charge." - no - every civilized nation in the world can 'press charges' for 'resisting arrest'.

There is a lot of ambiguity in this article, it's not clear what happened, and it only serves as fodder for cop-haters and anti-government lunatics to troll.

"... is a criminal offence in England."

No, it's not, it's not a criminal offence anywhere in the Western world for security guards to do such a thing.

I read the article - I didn't miss those quotes.

I think you are missing something important:

* charges laid *

Meaning that there are legal charges against those two - indicating they had possibly done something illegal.

While I agree it's 'confusing' that one of the library staff, for whom the security guard may have ostensibly been working - implored the guard to 'not kick the man out' - I don't this resolves the question.

"as part of the agreement nobody was to be prevented from asking a controversial question and the security team would consult with library officials before ejecting any nonviolent patrons"

I get that - but was the guard acting on his own here?

It remains unclear to me - which is my point.

If this security guard was acting entirely on his own initiative, and just kicking a guy out for asking 'controversial' (and let's be fair: insulting and stupid) questions, then yes - there's obviously something crazy going on. Why were they ejected?

But I'm not sure it's clear from the article, which is my point.

"Ask me to leave [and] I will leave.” - obviously someone was asking him to leave.

I think the writer did a poor job of articulating the situation.

If a security guard was asking someone to leave at the behest of the library's staff - then this has absolutely nothing to do with police, security guards or any of it.

Thug?

He was hired and acting under the orders of the Library's staff.

Though the Library is 'owned by the government' - it is not 'public property' - for example, you can't do or say anything you want, as you could on the sidewalk.

Though it seems one of the Library's staff was interceding on behalf of the accused - the cop (effectively acting as a cop - and he's hired to do security, so let's not refer to this as some 'random cop who was off duty and saw something) was acting in the interest of the Library - it's up to them who to eject and who not to.

I think the real question here is was the cop acting on his own initiative or at the best of the people that hired him.

If the Library's staff wanted the man out, then it's likely their issue.

If the cop was kicking some guy out wherein his employers wanted the person to stay - well then that's just weird.

But if a authorized security person for a private engagement asks you to leave - you definitely have to leave, and any kerfluffle you start is your escalation.

It seems that the library is intent on pressing charges? Did I read that correctly? In which case the cop was obviously acting on their regard, and perfectly within his right to eject someone.

I think that this guy's beef should be with the Library, not the cop, if that is indeed the case.

This is false and insulting.

Though I generally agree cops are not always the most normal citizens, the idea that you'll get beat up for taking assertively to a cop is false. If you did this while pulled over, 99% chance they ask you to 'get out of the car'. And that would be the end of the escalation.

"The first amendment is meaningless if you get shot every time you speak aggressively in front of the Government." - take this to TheBlaze or whatever.

It depends largely on what you are building and the granularity (and validity) of the requirements.

" 80s synth stuff and disappointing backing vocals"

At the risk of -20 downvotes, I was going to say the same thing.

The synths I can handle.

But the backing vocals ... my god man ... I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's beyond kitsch.

You gotta take it as a 'package'.

I find that people who are more lyrical tend to like him. Musical people less so.

Often the chords make no sense, they go back and forth, there's no progression - but then you realize they are following the cadence of his prose, and then it kind of makes sense.

He's almost like a beat poet - where there's some 'muzak' in the background.

It is, and you're probably right.

By 'places' I was referring to the 'Western World' :).

If your family's women have had a 'hard time' at the hands of men, it's perfectly understandable that they would say this, that doesn't make it right.

One, probably 'very important' thing that came from their relationships was you :).

Also - having grown up mostly with my mother, who didn't have that much negative to say about my father or other men - still - it took me 30 years to process just how 'one sided' these kinds of things are. 'It takes two' to disagree. There is always another side. I've seen women psychologically abuse and harass men to their breaking point and they felt no remorse or responsibility in the matter (as well as men who were just as bad).

In most places, living with someone is basically the same thing as 'marriage' from a legal perspective.

And yes, the laws are often unfair.

Super, thanks.

Now someone will have to redo this entirely in 3 months :)

His poetry is good, his music, not so much.

There is no point in putting 'electricity usage' into the discussion.

Coal definitely was important for the industrialized revolution, but UK oil is not a hugely important ingredient today. They would be rich without it.