judemelancon

This requires a magically flexible definition of "market" at very best.

The smallest number of competitors that can split market share such that none exceed 15% is 7, and that cuts it absurdly close for an existential risk.

Do non-profit organizations count for this rule? If not, how would corporate structures that intentionally obfuscate these distinctions, e.g. IKEA, be handled?

If there's not some extremely tricky qualifiers, these markets seem likely to be a problem, just for starters: medicines†, operating systems, utilities to a specific house or even city, spy satellites, chemicals that are difficult or dangerous to synthesize, combat aircraft, crewed spacecraft, EUV lithography, armored fighting vehicles, cellular telecommunications services, samples of organisms restricted to high biosafety level labs, and literally any new product category. † Imagine a serious condition getting its first drug treatment approved and the company saying "Only every seventh patient is eligible." Also, no one could offer a specific specialized surgical procedure until seven or more independent organizations in the same geographic area have qualified staff and equipment, which would be especially hard for any novel techniques; if the problem it addressed was rare, they'd also effectively be forced into a cartel to allocate the patients evenly.

There's also separately and unavoidably the massive problem of transitioning from the current situation to one compliant with these restrictions.

Edit: Switch to using a dagger for the footnote to avoid a formatting issue.

Having established that, are you saying that you can't even conceptualize a conflict of interest potentially clouding someone's judgement any more if the amount of money and the person's perceived status and skill level all get increased?

Disagreeing about the significance of the conflict of interest is one thing, but claiming not to understand how it could make sense is a drastically stronger claim.

What is the confusion here?

None of the rest of your reply is actually a response to what I said, though some of it is interesting. You also notably didn't respond to what I said about politicians.

Regarding Fortran programmers' contracts being honored, I would certainly hope any business would meet its contractual obligations (when they are moral and legal). Surely you aren't actually suggesting they shouldn't? Whether signing such a contract was a good idea or not, the very concept of a contract is founded on actually executing the terms of the agreement afterward.

I have never encountered a business that consistently swiftly dropped the underperforming parts of the team. I know that stack ranking firms supposedly exist, but they are far from typical. Even if your employment history is atypical, surely you've encountered less than efficient employees at clients, at vendors, and just out in the world in retail or restaurants; have you never happened to observe some of them staying in those positions at length? If you have seen private enterprise up close, it's hard to fathom the idea that it runs lean operations without waste.

Furthermore, many businesses have employees, sometimes many of them, who don't have the kind of clear work products that would make "the underperforming 25% of the team" potentially conceptually coherent. Plenty have employees with as little to do as a TBM oiler or an elevator operator. The market isn't just taking its time in pushing them to be more efficient, either. Actual markets and actual managers don't work like in an entry-level economics class.

The idea that US politicians never cross the public sector unions isn't compatible with the facts. The Taft-Hartley Act is law, and PATCO was destroyed.

In any case, I wouldn't use an IDE that was so glitchy unless I was forced by necessity; I certainly wouldn't adopt a coping mechanism for it into other languages. Also, for a typical compiled language, deleting the declaration gives you all usages as long as you can (attempt to) build.

Are there any other reasons? Edit: Is this advice perhaps intended to be specific to a particular context?

Also, that line of thinking is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember the most likely outcome before was recognizing the cost of acquiring the knowledge exceeded the benefit of having it; there would have been no learning at all.

Your doctor directory makes no reference at all to where they are licensed to practice medicine more specifically than a country. There's no way you're going to get a pass on this.

Even if you disagree, preventing corporate liability is a component of competence in the law's opinion. That is, if the company is found liable, that's saying the employees responsible did something wrong, even if it's not holding them individually accountable.

To actually comprehend this function requires storing those 14 names in short-term memory, reading through the over 300 lines of remaining code, filling in bits of the meaning of those names as they become clear, and only then reading the code again with that mental map. That's the case where none of the 14 have slipped my mind by the time I get back around. That just seems like an awful lot of overhead to net something that could be as easy as reading names if they were better chosen.

Just as a demonstration, why don't you time how long it takes you to figure out what j actually is and then report back?

Before someone provides the standard "submit a patch" retort, I'll note that the variable naming is in full compliance with https://www.openssl.org/about/codingstyle.txt even if the function length isn't. A quick sample of other files suggests the function length matches actual practice elsewhere, too.

In any case, typical interstate highways certainly have numerous interchanges, which are the other kind of junction.