biomene

From the article:

> Tesla’s drop came as the German EV market in January grew more than 50 per cent year on year, pushing its market share down from 14 to 4 per cent.

So to answer your question, it seems like people don't mind buying new electric vehicles. They just have a problem with Tesla in particular.

The reason for these accidents to happen more frequently is explained in the WaPo article linked by the parent: Russia is smuggling oil out via the Baltic to fund the war, and it's hard to find experienced crews for these smuggling operations:

> A Nordic official briefed on the investigation said conditions on the tanker were abysmal. “We’ve always gone out with the assumption that shadow fleet vessels are in bad shape,” the official said. “But this was even worse than we thought.”

The last thing Russia wants is to draw attention to the boats it's using to keep its economy afloat. These seamen really didn't know what they were doing.

That would be mudchute farm. But Canary Wharf is not considered part of central London, which is what the author is concerned with.

It's the escape tunnel for a tram tunnel with an extra coat of paint: https://www.lifeinnorway.net/bergen-cycle-tunnel/

This article also inadvertently shows what I think is a big drawback of the inversion of control pattern.

Imagine you are trying to debug an issue with user creation.

In the last example, you would have to look up everywhere `createUser` is being called, and follow the code path through several different scattered files until you find your issue.

In the original code, you can simply look up `createUser` and you have the complete code flow in front of you.

There’s a proposal for new units to solve this problem: https://twitter.com/argyleink/status/1407026742460440577

I built this website, nearly 10 years ago. Crazy to see it's still up and running, without any maintenance. Got to give it to WordPress, it doesn't die easy.

Thank you for bringing up the point that Capitalists aren't evil, or that Capitalism should be rejected for moral reasons, I think many people miss that.

But I'm not sure we can talk about a central point in Capital. Capital is a description of a system based on private commodity production, for exchange. It has many points, and one of them is the one you mention about the inevitable replacement of the capitalist mode of production with communism, and it comes at the end of Vol 1. Funnily enough, I believe it's the only point he asserts without arguments, and it's, as we know, thoroughly wrong.

If I had to highlight one important point from Capital, I think Marx's explanation for why the mass poverty of workers is an inescapable necessity for the capitalist mode of production would get my vote (chapters 4, 5, 6 of volume 1). It's an argument he was the first to develop, and that many people still refuse to acknowledge.

You are very right to point out that Capital does indeed predict many phenomena that we see today. In general, Capital holds up as a description of how the capitalist mode of production works.

Came here to upvote typescript with jsdocs too. We use it in our project and it’s been really helpful. No overhead and you get the nice dev experience of typed code. Been doing it for 2 years, have yet to encounter a situation that would be solved by using ts compilation.

Not sure you can still call Spiked a Marxist outlet these days. They have more in common with /pol than Marx.

I’ve switched to MailMate after years of thunderbird and am very happy with it. It ticks all the boxes you mention.

The financial crisis was not a result of bad mathematics. Investments are made because they promise to return dividends. But there is always a chance that they might return lower than expected dividends, or none at all. This can be because the market didn't grow as expected, wages rose above expectations, a tsunami wiped out your factory or an array of other factors completely beyond your control. The best mathematicians in the world cannot predict how many coca cola bottles will be sold in a year.

Assuming the article is correctly summarising his argument, this is the same critique that Hegel put forward of the distinction of Force and Expression:

> It is often said that the nature of Force itself is unknown and only its manifestation apprehended. But, in the first place, it may be replied, every article in the import of Force is the same as what is specified in the Expression: and the explanation of a phenomenon by a Force is a mere tautology. What is supposed to remain unknown, therefore, is really nothing but the empty form of reflection-into-self, by which alone the Force is distinguished from the Expression — and that form too is something familiar. It is a form that does not make the slightest addition to the content and to the law, which have to be discovered from the phenomenon alone. Another assurance always given is that to speak of forces implies no theory as to their nature: and that being so, it is impossible to see why the form of Force has been introduced into the sciences at all. In the second place the nature of Force is undoubtedly unknown: we are still without any necessity binding and connecting its content together in itself, as we are without necessity in the content, in so far as it is expressly limited and hence has its character by means of another thing outside it.

- G.W.F. Hegel, Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences, § 136

> personal data is any information relating to an individual, whether it relates to his or her private, professional or public life. It can be anything from a name, a home address, a photo, an email address, bank details, posts on social networking websites, medical information, or a computer’s IP address.

From the Wikipedia article about GDPR [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...

Do you reckon the increase in restores has anything to do with APFS? I also lost my computer and Time Machine this week after upgrading to High Sierra, had to restore from backblaze.

Btw, unlike parent comment, I had a great experience with the restore and couldn't be happier with the decision to go with backblaze.

That depends on what you mean by "richest". Measured in GDP, Germany is the richest country in Europe, by a big margin [1].

I think that the point of the article is to demonstrate that a country's power and wealth doesn't translate into good lives or more wealth for its citizens. The statistics you brought up demonstrate that very nicely too.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...

Do you have a source for this? I'm interested in reading more.

London has a proud tradition of failed festivals. See:

OktoberFest London 2015 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consumer-news/1...

Jabberwocky (I had tickets to this) http://www.nme.com/news/music/various-artists-2392-1244501

I remember at least another one which was cancelled on the day due to overcrowding which I can't seem to find right now.

I've tried to use org mode several times. Its functionality is truly great, but having to use emacs to use it is too much of a hurdle for me. I struggle to remember all the emacs key combinations, so in the end I just give up and revert to text files.

It would be great if someone ported org mode out of emacs. I've tried the Sublime Text org mode package[0] but it's still too bare to be useful. Does anyone know of an alternative way to use it?

[0]: https://github.com/danielmagnussons/orgmode

> so forgive me if I'm not willing to throw them under the bus for at least trying to help

It's not Amazon I want to throw under the bus. They did what any rational player would do in their situation. What I want to throw under the bus is the situation itself, aka, how we organise our world.

> Working for an employer has nothing to do with the extravagantly wealthy.

You're very right about this, it was wrong of me to describe the purpose of the operation as being that of making someone rich. The purpose is to maximise profits for the employer – which can lead to extreme wealth or poverty, depending on your success. Besides, in order to appreciate how shit a situation is for someone it is irrelevant to know whether someone else is profiting from it. So thanks for pointing that out.

> Working a job tends to make people better off [...] It's strictly better for the homeless to have one more job opportunity, than one fewer.

I think this is wishful thinking. The article actually points out that this is not true: getting this job actually made the situation worse for a lot of them.

> but are you prepared to provide them yourself?

As a pauper myself, I am not. I don't have the resources to do so.

> to criticize those who do something positive

As I tried to show before, good intentions was not what motivated Amazon to offer jobs to these people. Also, leaving someone worse off than before is not what I would call a positive outcome. So this cannot be my position.

> By demonizing companies that offer jobs to poor people or the homeless,

I definitely did not mean to demonise Amazon. I pointed out in my last comment that this was a feature of our world, not a feature of a particular company. That's the saddest thing of this whole story: Amazon acted completely rationally, and it's easy to see how it almost had no choice but to use up these homeless people and then throw them away. Not because it's evil, but because that's what's required of it as a company. If Amazon stops churning out profits, it won't be a company for much longer.

> you're committing the fallacy called the Copenhagen Interpreation of Ethics.

Nitpick: what you call the Copenhagen Interpreation of Ethics is not a fallacy, there's no logic involved here since it relates to people's moral values. It's a phenomenon at best. But once again, the point was not to say that Amazon is evil; the point is to say this world is broken.

> What it were proved that Amazon was offering jobs to the homeless at the exact same rate and conditions that it offered to all its seasonal workers, thereby not treating the homeless any worse than others

The reason Amazon hires any worker, homeless or not, is to extract a profit from their work. It's entirely possible that it offers the exact same conditions as other workers, but to describe it as benevolence is naive at best.

Amazon has a huge surge in orders during the christmas period, and it struggles to find enough workers to keep up with demand. This article makes it clear that this was a scheme aimed at coping with the seasonal surge. It has nothing to do with Amazon wanting to see homeless people better off.

I think that what you are saying is that these people are so miserable that they have no other choice but to take the rare jobs that they are offered, no matter how terrible. If so, I totally agree with you.

I would just like to take a moment to wonder at the shitness of our world where the best we can do for those who have been deprived of everything is to ask them to break their backs so the extravagantly wealthy can make a bit more money.