throwaway2245

You could double that number to account for the "fraud and error" spend at DWP: I would presume that further spending in this regard is dedicated to other departments.

I would count coordination here as a deep technical skill, which requires a depth of study and/or experience. You are selling your coordination skills.

It's the stick of the T.

People who have broad interests with no depth of knowledge have not identified (for themselves) where their value lies.

I would imagine that this type of engineer needs to be carefully managed to stay on tasks that add business-value.

As such, it's not unfair that they are seen as juniors. They are juniors.

Requiring "means testing", i.e. excluding people who are not in need, is often shown to cost more money than it saves.

(and allows some people who don't technically qualify to fall through the gaps)

If you receive an extra $10,000 that you say you don't need, you could receive it and be in a tax band which gets taxed an extra $10,000. That's more straightforward.

> The market price for a referral is negative. Businesses would normally pay to seek them out.

By threatening to withdraw from a national market, Google seem to be saying that its business model depends on getting its own users by this mechanism.

As such, it's reasonable to believe that the true market price won't remain negative.

I think the video evidence people wish to collect is exactly the evidence that you are wrong - that people get arrested (or perhaps brutalized, or killed) despite being wholly respectful.

I learned recently that the Food Pyramid was created by the Department of Agriculture in the US, i.e. not by the Department of Health.

So, not experts. (Not in the field they were claiming).

I would wager that "Reject All" does not, in fact, opt you out of "Legitimate Interests" - sites are using the language "Object to Legitimate Interests" for this.

If the drug is granting people willpower, then it really is miraculous.

> Security by obscurity replied to hacking

Considering that Wikipedia dates the concept and its rejection back to 1851, you have understood it wrong.

Being overweight/obese might be (and might not be) a side-effect of the things you list, but it also that causes its own further side-effects and is worth dealing with in its own right.

The principle of 'obscurity is not security' would seem to apply to anti-spam algorithms on the scale of Google.

I suspect that Google are not claiming this law would interfere with their anti-spam efforts, simply because it wouldn't - they can't justify it.

If that was a real concern, why wouldn't they mention it, for example in this lengthy blog post? It's a good public defence for them.

The fact that they don't say it, means that I infer the opposite.

This page doesn't contain the word 'spam' - is that actually Google's claim, or are you inferring it?

I am not clever enough to understand this analogy, at all.

Why would Google be opening a coffee shop? Could you please translate this analogy into the factual situation, so that I can understand your point of view?

> What the nobility had to offer peasants was safety.

The purpose of the article, as I read it, is to identify that this claim was written into history by the nobility.

This is simply wrong.

Most people are unlikely to reach top 1% for income in any one year of their lifetime.

The top 1% for wealth is even a much higher bar to reach: you need to hold over $10 million. People ain't moving in and out of that bracket very often.

London financial industry traders and London voting residents are not related.

Greater London residents voted overall ~60% to Remain, but you'd expect that traders live in the Eastern boroughs, and outside London, in Essex (both up to ~70% Leave).

> making money less able to purchase power

you could achieve this by: giving everyone a basic amount of money, so they are on a more equal footing to benefit from opportunities.

Primarily, the employer benefits - which is particularly evident in this case.

They can ask the applicant to do the work to prove themselves, with the pretence of an available job, and don't even have to consider the result of that work.

This scenario lays bare that the employer has all the power in the situation.

I say "They asked OP to do a bunch of wasted work on the off-chance that their prize candidate was not available - even though they were not (under no circumstances) interested in considering the OP against the prize candidate"

There's a simple and known solution to not have to do this - which is to conduct fleets of interviews at the same time, so that you can fairly and accurately compare the candidates.

I think it depends (similar to other comments):

Either, you are engaging the kid's own personal interest in the thing, which has the potential to grow independently of you as a parent,

or, you can demonstrate your personal interest, at a stage while they are particularly fascinated with you - this, they will grow out of.

I disagree with your statement that it was respectful.

Accepting your scenario, this suggests that they did not really want to hire the candidate and at best thought they might settle - when it came to it, they were not even willing to compare the candidate at the next stage, despite already asking them to do this work.

They strung the candidate along.

It's a legal minefield in the sense that there is legal trouble if a hiring manager says "I hired the other candidate because they were white", but there is no such trouble if they just privately think it.

They thought this candidate was worth asking to prepare an interview task, but not worth hearing the result of that preparation.

That's mightily disrespectful and sounds a lot like 'shits and giggles'.

The task is bigger than I would personally consider doing unpaid, and I think that is the problem being identified here. It's an assessment of Public Speaking skills that don't immediately seem to be related to the job - I'd judge the company harshly for this.

But, if I had agreed to do this (if it was a paid, professional task), I would find the setting out of expectations extremely useful and appreciate it.

I want to know what to expect, so I can prepare for it, i.e. spend less time preparing for the unknown elements.

I'm guessing (from your name and enthusiasm) that you live in a place where 0 approximately corresponds to midnight? :)

The excuse usually given is to match up farm work, which is dictated by dawn, with general work shift patterns.

However, I recall that farmers are very split on the issue when polled - it impacts on their work shifts as well.

This is a bit too hypothetical: the most generous estimate I can find is that Bitcoin is still using 61% non-renewable energy, in as much as farms are favourably set up in places with cheap energy (somewhat but not entirely correlated with renewable energy).

> this could mean making sure the ice is 15cms thick along the entire track, and only starting it if you are 100% sure that this is guaranteed.

I'm unable to find any official decision-making rules, let alone historical ones, but as stated elsewhere it's doubtful that the regulations have got more strict. The event has happened only 6 times in the last 70 years, in any case.

Where it is useful, there is work to control water flow via locks, ice transplantation into weak points, and legal prevention of canal navigation. So, there is also more knowledge and ability to mitigate for safety concerns.

One major thoroughfare in London changed (if I remember right) from one-way in one direction, to one-way in the other direction, to two-way, in the space of a couple of years.

People got used to it very quickly, to the extent that they would not remember the change ever happened.

If you have a broad enough roads to have two-way streets everywhere, there's little motivation for it to change. [Edited to note: at the level of individual cities, OSM's directionality was often estimated to be 100% correct]

But, with some narrower one-way streets, there becomes a clear motivation to tweak things to improve traffic flows (and also tweak the surrounding two-way streets).