737maxtw
At least in the US, there are more systems in place to help people who are behind. Lenders are more apt to do a modification then risk another market collapse.
And, I would be willing to bet our current administration will be happy to do what they can. A failure to contain the situation will not be good for them -or- their donors.
One thing we are already seeing; the CFPB is putting in safeguards in that will likely delay a number of foreclosures even further [0]. Another change is FHFA loans being eligible for interest rate reductions that wouldn't be possible under the LTV.
How this 'smoothing' plays out remains to be seen.
[0] https://www.housingwire.com/articles/cfpbs-roadmap-for-the-f...
- Many poles are owned by power companies, or telephone companies. You can absolutely get a JPA (joint pole attach) agreement with most of these companies in theory.
- In practice, your first problem is that most poles are horribly maintained. And if you are a new attachee, you will often find yourself having to share in the cost to make an already non-compliant pole compliant and with enough room for you to attach.
- If you are dealing with, say, Verizon poles and are trying to attach for a competing cell service, your make ready costs are oddly inflated, and they may go as far as expect you to split the cost 50/50 for a pole that is already out of spec.
- In many municipalities, the kickbacks of 'franchise agreements' cause a lot of inertia. This is mostly the case with CATV, the industry of 'how can we be minmax our monopoly'. Essentially, the cable provider pays the city X dollars per subscriber, gives them a couple public access channels, and in return gets exclusivity.
I used to do HFC design for Xfinity Fraudband, as well as fiber design/permitting for other CATV providers and cell carriers. Its a corrupt and abusive industry, the entire contractor/subcontractor system is made to shield the companies both from overall liability as well as prevent unionization.
Also, any of the SV folks speaking up about social injustice would have a heart attack in a week or two. Being in that climate for so long made me numb to a lot of injustice, and it took years to recover.
IF all of that is true (and if i misunderstood, please correct me!) It would make the most sense to give it to higher risk individuals first.
Call me cynical, but "Advertise your product for a use that your core moneymaking market doesn't do" would be a good dark pattern to avoid scrutiny/regulation.
The upshot of this however is that, if you are being honest in your profile, these things are things that you want to do anyway.
If you still take the effort to talk to the person before going on a booked trip, it should be an experience you will enjoy.
Of course, things can go wrong. But part of any relationship is taking that risk.
I don't think this is a silver bullet, no, but I think it is a pretty good framework for people who are in a good place to find in a healthy relationship. I.e. comfortable and honest with themselves and looking for a partner to enrich their lives rather than just seeking 'a relationship' (i.e. trying to fill some other void in themselves).
Because in the past, some courts have ruled that ADTS systems are in violation even if their qualifying functions are unused.
Iow even id a dependent manually entered numbers, it would still be illegal to make the call.
And yes, this has made TCPA rulings a subject worthy of its own blog, the situation is such a mess.
The main reason their monopolistic practices have been tolerated is the sheer number of employees they have. If they reduce that number too much, no amount of campaign contributions will keep them safe.
They do, however this behavior has gone underchecked for so long; what we see today is often companies violating the spirit, but not the letter of the laws that stopped or were a result of practices of companies like Pullman, USS, etc
I remember KQ6 being a big bit of pomp and circumstance with its production values etc, more promotion than you would see for a computer game at the time.
And then KQ7 happened. A victim of a bit of overhypeing and a LOT of WinG pain. Could never get it running on a pc our family owned, even proper pentiums.
I've seen low code vendors claim you can do reviews in git... but its an experience not unlike reviewing changes to a generated hibernate or entity framework xml. Its not really reviewable
Teams is the Discord of integrated business chat from a usability perspective, at least if you want an integrated experience. Cisco's system last I was aware was a hodgepodge of applications, i.e. we had to have two separate Cisco chat applications running at all times.
Other players, its either one or both of: - a solution less kludgy than Cisco but still a hodgepodge of applications - a system that can't scale on one or more important axes - too specialized for a general use case
Remember, on one hand, Telcom uses erlang a lot. On the other hand THEY USE ERLANG A LOT. The sorts of stuff you see in phone systems is brilliant but archaic. And I bring that up because the voice integration in teams is really freaking nice and honestly the users are happier because its less integration hassle when moving numbers around, and that's a win for both IT and users.
Would I prefer discord had a competitive solution or Teams had a competitive UI? Yes. Or that Avaya would come blow everyone away with something amazing.
But part of me is also asking if teams has gotten so crappy lately because this year has likely resulted in them having to scramble on bugs and scaling issues in a way they didn't expect.
These are questions we possibly should have asked in the 60s or 70s with the Automakers.
Heck, let's think about THAT for a moment. When we look back at history we see that the big 3 took a number of anticompetitive actions over the years while managing to usually avoid government action through careful planning. (GM at times would hold back products in those decades, knowing if they went over a magic number of market share it was bad news.)
But look at the RESULT. Look at 2008. Look at the future of self driving cars and the future of the trucking industry.
By letting large monopolies run unchecked, they embed their ways of dependence into society such that impacts can be felt for generations.
Maybe its not about the number but what the damage is.
Edit: hit reply early, sorry.
The big 3 managed to get taken down by the factors of the oil embargo and the growing Asian auto industry, but we still felt the effects I listed above.
And, to that end, its worth restating that GM specifically tried to 'avoid' fitting the government definition.
Should have gone with "Friendship!" VS "Friendship?"
Sometimes I do wonder how much better we could all get along if some substances had relaxed or dropped restrictions.
When you think about it, there's the mental toll on users about public disapproval amplified by the legal status. On top of that, the divide on the non user side about someone being a "lawbreaker".
Just seems to cause a lot of division. On top of the illegality of harder drugs leading to the rise of cartels and gangs.
Just thinking out loud. What if the US said 'screw it', try making everything legal for 5-10 years, produce what it can locally, and just see what happens. The hope with this idea is that one could starve out the cartels while perhaps providing a path to rehabilitation.
All of that said, I am still a believer in the Rat Park experiment. If we solved some of our more real problems people perhaps wouldn't need to turn to such substances, as examples by the reports of drug use increasing under lockdown conditions. Reality seems to match the experiment. The thing about that experiment, they found if the rat's other needs were met (food, shelter, socialization) they actually would start to prefer normal water to drugged water again.
Hmmmmm
In my experience you will more likely see it if you are in a shop that is paying below market. I.e. Devs there make 10k less than other local shops.
We wound up with some interesting folks. Got to see what someone going through methadone withdrawals looks like. On the other hand, a few people got some really meaningful second chances at a career there.
(Of course, this is ignoring the idea that UBI would possibly let them do something better with their lives, but humans are gonna human, right?)
Spending that extra 150-200 can make a huge difference in longevity.
As a very real example, my family was not very well off growing up. My parents could typically only afford used Chrysler cars. The result was invariably getting stuck with vehicles that quite frankly were at least as expensive as the competition after repair costs and extra insurance.
And, speaking as someone who thankfully doesn't have to worry nearly as much about such things thanks to the sacrifices my parents made...
The DIFFERENCE in quality of life changes too. Its not just the cost of buying the cheap stuff every time, it is also that frustration of watching it break over and over.
Also, dare I say. One of the biggest silent accelerators of our class divide (financially) is this dilemma.
In the 40s-60s stuff was built to last. Lower income families could save and buy an expensive appliance but know it would last or at least be repairable. A fridge was a real investment. A set of silverware had the extra couple mm of thickness or even a square handle so it wouldn't bend at the first sign of trouble.
Now? Its all disposable, so those who have money to keep up with planned obsolescence will pull ahead. Consumers save 5-10$ on a 100$ tool, but now it lasts 3-5 years instead of 30-50