Wait until you hear about the demo scene!
375 karma · joined August 16, 2016
If only it was 2018, we could do this as a startup and make a mint.
Food got cheap, people got rich, and humans are designed to eat whatever they can see.
200,000 years of living feast to famine tells you "if can get calorically dense food, eat as much as you can, you'll need it later", except your lizard brain never gets the "there's no famine later" message because it's dumb.
The article says the mud bath participants were lining up for gigs. I don't understand the videos, but how is this morally different than criminalizing begging?
Medical software dev in the US is a dumping ground for the under-qualified or people looking to coast the balance of their career.
The rest of the article then follows a false syllogism.
If you kill someone as part of your job, you are criminally liable and the corp is civilly liable.
People who are obese or grossly obese often aren't just eating a "little extra" here and there. Imagine more like "extra pizza a day" or "eat a cake once a week because that seems like a good idea".
Synth V is extremely fast and the output is shockingly good with some tweaking - good enough to be indistinguishable for many people.
So you set them low the first time you run into a DNS issue where you had to wait an hour or a day to resolve some bad configuration and your "fuck this" meter went from 0 to 100.
I signed up, but their product kept crashing - it never worked.
I called to cancel, they asked for 50%. I said, I don't owe it because the product didn't work - contracts require consideration by both parties. CSR said I would pay. I got his contact info and told him that not only I wouldn't pay, but that Adobe would cancel my contract for free before a year.
Anyways, I blocked the transaction. Within 2 months, they cancelled my subscription. I sent a screenshot to the CSR email. Never heard back.
First claim: The publisher rakes in 100 percent of the subscription fees, and access to what is meant to be a public good is restricted thanks to intellectual property laws.
This is the exact same issue with the "right to repair crowd."
Step 1. There's something wrong with the market.
Step 2: Analysis: because of IP law.
Why isn't the argument made against the actual cause? Bad intellectual property law has been a major issue in the US for decades now. Indefinite copyright, extortionate liabilities, patent trolling, and the farce of the DMCA.
It seems to me that "the market" isn't even getting a chance here.
Like, the ENTIRETY of the "right-to-repair" issue could be resolved by repealing the worst parts (or all of) the DMCA and updating copyright law with respect to machine code or object code to make it fair for buyers.
If I buy a book, cut it up and make a collage, the original author can't claim copyright.
Do the same with some object code, you break the law.
Find a hole in the ground, buy salt in the off-years, sell at peak.
Only two reasons are being given. One is that there is going to be excess demand after coronavirus. The other is that there will be a shortage of supply of goods and services in the economy to meet that demand. My argument in this thread is that neither is likely."
I like how neither of these addresses really shit monetary policy, like over-production of currency. This entire analysis assumes the Fed doesn't end up forced to monetize several trillion in debt over a couple years.
OK. Then why is your licensee going to such great lengths to publish to a platform you contractually agreed to support?
Something smells here.
While there has certainly been some poor husbandry of the earth's resources, there have been and continue to be significant efforts to improve resource utilization in environmentally friendly ways - not the least of which is increased costs of basic resources leading to self-imposed limitations by consumers.
Basically, on net, people choose more luxury over more children. They economize when presented with prices that reflect the reality of underlying scarcity. They make choices that often result in improved environmental stewardship, either implicitly or explicitly.
Papers sit at about flip of a coin repeatability.
In either case, if there's no change in net productivity, why spend the money to do it?
"What they often found was discriminatory high rents. Rent was exorbitant for black New Yorkers in the 1920s: A study by the New York Urban League in 1927 found that rent for black New Yorkers had doubled since 1919 while increasing only 10 percent for white residents. Black residents had to pay far more than white residents for virtually identical apartments."
New York passed rent control in April 1920, as a result of skyrocketing rents due to a housing shortage caused by WW 1. It had provisions for control for renters with tenure.
Meanwhile, this period saw an enormous influx of black people to specifically Harlem.
Additionally, there was significant inflation beginning on 1920 on the heels of monetary policy used to address the War (resulting, ultimately in the Depression of 1920-21).
So, supply is low, demand is high, including inflationary pressures. The legislatures pass laws to curtail rents on existing tenants, leaving only new tenants to suffer the burdens of rent increases.
So, while it may be easy to say "black people paid higher rent, must be discrimination" - and some of that might be true - it is probably more fair to say that a poorly-considered rent-control scheme coupled with the results of monetary policy during WW1 and an accident of demographic change, resulted in a coincidence.
New renters paid significantly more rent that tenured renters. New renters happened to be black, because that demographic was shifting.
It is notable that the principal region - Harlem - had been a traditionally Jewish area, and whatever discrimination looks like today, it's not like Jewish New Yorkers were getting a free pass on discrimination in the 1920s. It is much more likely that delta in demographics was largely coincidental.
Costs are not a significant factor in the prices of market goods - that is dominated by supply and demand.
I love it. My professional career moved to .NET and Python over the last decade, but if I'm building for myself, I build in PHP.
Whatever foibles people claim are in PHP are really just personal gripes about features they don't like, while ignoring all the other pieces that are ideal for web API development. Frankly, I believe first-class duck-typing and nearly-zero impedance with JSON make PHP a first-class citizen of the web. Duck-typing pairs so well with dynamic typing that I don't know why so many languages abuse themselves with the alternatives.
I remember the Docker switchover being very confusing. Why do all these people need such elaborate instrumentation around their development environments? With PHP, the kitchen sink is always there, and always consistent (we'll ignore money_format() for now). Once I really started using other language environments, the pain points that necessitated Docker cropped up, and of course the deployment benefits are excellent. It was just a very confusing couple years trying to figure out why the Node and Python guys were living like animals.
Anyways, cheers to another 20.
Cut off data at 2.3 sigmas, apply shocking result to catchy headline!
I mean, if we're going to defund the police, you can't pick a better target than the DEA. Just get rid of them. They represent everything that's wrong with moral policing.
In an ideal world, they would be defunded, the department's charter revoked by congress, and every employee investigated for criminal activity. See if they like a taste of the same bullshit they dish out to the rest of the country.