thawaya3113

Maybe Boris Johnson can go tell people who couldn’t mourn their loved ones, or people who got fined for mourning their loved ones, or grand parents that couldn’t meet their grand kids, etc. how him breaking the rules so he could have some parties and drinks that prevented them from doing all of that was not that bad from an absolute perspective.

There’s nothing alleged about it. The police charged him for it. And he accepted it.

I cant get over the fact that American employees are using a soon to be ending once in a lifetime opportunity where they have significant power over their employers to push for policies that make them easier to be replaced by people who will live much better lives at a quarter of their salaries.

Of course, this policy could have been achieved in the EU as well, so this does not reduce the badness of Brexit, or the current Tory leadership which is in power solely through lies.

Anything that will make people consider their Netflix subscription is gonna be a loser for Netflix.

Most people have had Netflix for so long they don’t even think about it as an expense. My family, for example, have been paying for Netflix through TMobile and we got it at a time when TMobile was offering it for free.

Over the past couple of years the subsidized price seems to have increased beyond several very decent streaming services.

The very act of looking at the bill means we will be bailing out of the Netflix subscription, the moment we’ve completed the latest season of Stranger Things.

Netflix is making a mistake by making people think about their Netflix subscription.

The free federal money existed even before the law being suggested.

It’s not clear why a minor change in mechanics would lead to such a significant change in incentives.

I’m not sure I understand.

What’s the difference in incentives colleges in lowering tuitions whether the government pays them directly or indirectly through the students?

They are getting paid either way. Unless there was a cap that was removed that I missed.

And the students are picking up the same loan amounts whether it was originally backed by the government, or originated from the government.

The chart in the figure also doesn’t line up with the claims, with college inflation deviating from before the law was passed, and then a further increase in growth starting over a decade after it passed.

Anecdotally, having been heavily involved in the student govt affairs of a major state university at the time a lot of these tuition increases happened, what we saw was:

1) A huge pullback in state govt tuition support. 2) Coinciding with a massive increase in spending on athletics and buildings 3) leading to my otherwise extremely price competitive state college becoming as expensive as the equivalent private college a few streets down the road. 4) Followed a few years later by an increase in tuition at the private college.

This was once again further entrenched after the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

I took a class that gave mindfuck questions and did not need curved grading.

It was simple. The weekly assignments contained 6 questions. One of those was the mindfuck question and wasn’t graded (if you solved it you got extra credit, but hadn’t been solved so far).

You don’t even need to hide the crazy questions. Offering them as extra credit is a simple solution that works well.

And then us engineers come in and fix education just like we did taxis (regulatory arbitrage, offloading costs to the ordinary workers in surprising ways they aren’t aware of, increasing traffic congestion throughout cities, but hooking people onto the rides with unsustainable loss making introductory prices long enough that alternatives such as regular cabs and public transport become worse).

Or the way we fixed productivity in ways that has led to no measurable increase in productivity despite nearly everyone having the most powerful device ever invented in the palm of their hands.

Or the way we fixed housing through regulatory arbitrage, once again, converting housing for residents into short term rentals for vacationers, making housing for residents more expensive globally and making their communities worse.

Or the way we fixed cable by going from bundled cable packages where we have to pay $70-$100 to get all our channels, to unbundled walled gardens where we have to pay $70-$100 to get a fraction of content plus we also have to pay internet fees in addition.

Or the way we fixed messaging and phone calls by taking something like a $1/yr WhatsApp membership that offered safe encrypted chat and converting it into a data harvesting machine.

Or the way we fixed stock investing by gamifying investing, bringing in a lot of people into active trading who have no business being in active trading and should just park their money in Fidelity, and then promising “free” trades by allowing big banks to trade against, leading to a massive wealth transfer from naive individuals to sophisticated banks at the best of times.

Or how we destroyed inflation through BTC.

Or saved art through NFTs.

The list just goes on.

No it isn’t. Because we had centuries of no consumer protection. And there were no competitive pressures to simplify agreements.

Consumer protection laws that forced companies to simplify agreements were a response to the massive increase in complexity without such laws being on the books.

But there’s an even easier, non historical, way to see how “competition” does nothing to solve the problem of complexity in agreements.

The agreements to rent an apartment, or to buy a house, both of which are among the most complicated agreements the majority of people will sign, are far more straightforward in most states than buying a $2 song off iTunes or signing up for a 1 month membership off Spotify.

There is a lot of evidence that consumer protection laws have had massive effects in making the agreements more standardized and transparent and reducing shady and fraudulent behavior.

The average enterprise also has massive competitive pressures to stay ahead of the curve.

Schools have no such pressures and in fact are better served by being conservative in how quickly they change what they do.

> Some of them found windows 10 too difficult to use

That’s probably because Windows 10 is more confusing to use than most general audience Linux distros.

People were cheating because they were expecting everyone else to cheat.

In general, cheating isn’t common in college.

This was simple game theory during the pandemic.

Isn’t Uber Eats their most profitable business.

At least that’s what Uber recruiters would tell me when trying to recruit.

The 25% take is likely only in their best markets.

Most of their markets are terrible markets.

Art is so much better when you understand it.

I don’t have much music knowledge, but I’d imagine the same is true for music as well.

What I do suspect will happen is that a lot of music you currently enjoy, because it’s played in our environments all the time, or is popular, will start sounding terrible once you start realizing how uninteresting and/or derivative many of the popular songs are.

This is what it boils down to. Systemd has been solving problems that all distros have been facing.

Unlike most Linux development, they haven’t focused on what their devs want to do (which for much of Linux is repackaging Ubuntu with uglier skins, and Ubuntu itself is a repackaging of Debian/Gnome), but rather, are solving problems that distros are actually facing.

The consequence of that is that nearly every distro goes with the systemd solution, and it’s this popularity that leads to people complaining that it’s being forced upon them.

Except systemd is almost the exact opposite of a monolith. Systemd runs just fine even without systemd-oomd and can probably be disabled by a command as simple as:

> systemctl disable --now systemd-oomd

and doesn’t need to be installed in the first place.

This could also just be Ubuntu. So many distros are based on Ubuntu and it’s pretty clear that Canonical doesn’t really care about Ubuntu on the desktop.

It’s little more than a sales funnel for them to make sure people use Ubuntu servers as well, at this point.

Long drives in SUVs are no ways better than in a decent sedan.

The real dynamic is carmakers promoting huge trucks as Patriotic and American, with super bowl ads showing these trucks moving houses around.

That leads to a significant number of people buying these massive vehicles.

And once these vehicles are on poorly designed American roads where safety is barely an afterthought, everyone driving in more normal sized cars feel even more unsafe, leading them to replace their sedans (which are already oversized compared to Sedans even a couple of decades ago) with CUVs, SUVs and trucks.

You will see this dynamic play out in household to household where people are essentially being forced into buying bigger, harder to handle, and more expensive cars because it truly feels unsafe to be driving in a normal car next to these monster trucks.

Bubbles are threats for the economic system? We had a very famous instance of this not even 15 years ago, and another about 23 years ago.

So the problem isn’t the existence of a USD digital system.

The issue would only arise if cash was eliminated.

I completely agree on the need for cash, but as long as we’re also keeping cash a digital USD would solve every problem crypto claims to solve while still allowing for a non dystopian future.

In fact, crypto is completely dystopian because there is absolutely no space for cash in it, and further, by being distributed and therefore pseudonymous at best, it actually opens massive privacy and security pandora boxes.

The big problem is people believing that there is any one such thing as inflation.

There isn’t. The word inflation represents many, including wildly divergent, ideas.

And many of the very different things represented by inflation serve very different purposes, and that’s why they’re changed, because different measures of inflation help measure different concepts. Core inflation is just one of many different measures of inflation.

Tesla’s biggest advantage is that being a newcomer, they don’t have any dealers, which means they can sell direct to the consumer.

How the traditional car companies who are legally prevented from selling directly to the consumer and therefore have a legally imposed 10-15% cost will compete will be an interesting question.

Cyber truck has 0 miles of range vs 320 on the F-150 because it doesn’t exist yet.

Remember how the presenter was able to destroy its windows while demonstrating how it would protect you from zombies?

The fact that they decided to promote cyber truck as protecting from Zombies says more about Tesla and its fanbois than anything else.

Is their IP really that strong?

I think the supercharger network might be a significant asset, but I’m not sure what about their IP is so unique. Tesla’s self driving efforts have still not recovered to the point they were about 5-6 years ago when they were forced to get rid of the 3rd party IP they were using. Their batteries are Panasonic. What else do they have? A performance mode that goes to 11?

And Toyota and Honda are interesting because they are Japanese companies who were pushed by the government to ignore EVs in favor of hydrogen vehicles.

The reason was simple. Most of the politically powerful Japanese companies are huge conglomerates who make a lot of money in heavy industry areas where until a few years ago hydrogen was an obviously better choice than electric powered motors, which meant that there was a lot of pressure on the Japanese govt to put pressure on the car industry to align in the same direction.

What, you think having no car to drive for a couple of days every few months as a Tesla salesperson takes a few days to come and repair your broken Model X that you paid 120k for is not a way to brilliant customer satisfaction?

The fact that the Tesla forums blame my cousin for this (it’s still not clear what they are blaming him for, considering they don’t offer any suggestions about what he should do…maybe they’re blaming him for posting about it and therefore being anti Tesla?) makes it hard to believe that Tesla actually has any incentive to improve. And with the abuse my cousin received online for being horrible enough to ask folks for suggestion would indicate that many simply don’t talk about the BS a they face with their Teslas.

A large part of it is a cult. It remains to be seen how much the cultish behavior can overcome the poor quality once real competitors come into play.

I wouldn’t be surprised if I have a few “anal”s lying around in veritable names I’ve written over the years.

We have a lot of “analysis” in our application and I bet I have shortened them a few times, and in my head I would have pronounced it as uh-naa-l not realizing what it also looked like.

5 people have posted about this very thing over the past 14 years and this will be searchable for decades going forward, either through Google or the way back machine, or possibly through a publicly funded way back machine like alternative.

Meanwhile the odds that your tweet or FB post will be searchable and archivable anywhere close to that is extremely low.

The open Internet is so much better. I hope we start moving back towards it.