krisgee
Many government owned companies actually make a profit until private industry lobbies them into ineffectiveness. The US Post Office was profitable until a change lobbied by Fed-Ex and UPS forced them to keep 100% of their pensions available at all times.
Various crown corp electric companies were profitable in Canada and SaskTel, a crown corp telecommunications company is the last bastion of non-insane cell phone plans though I'm sure Rogers and Bell are working on it.
People just hate seeing the government make money. They see that things are good, say "hey, why should the government get this money" and then shut down the system that's working and complain when everything costs more because private industry is trying to squeeze every last cent out of them.
This is one of my favourite things. It's an incredibly old, historically important text in a dead language and it's just a customer complaint.
>"You have put ingots which were not good before my messenger and said, 'If you want to take them, take them. If you do not want to take them, go away'.
3750 years ago some dude was still showing up and trying to rip people off and pull the "cash in hand" choosing beggar play.
It got wrecked by giant all in one factory trawlers out competing local boats, causing a feedback effect where to complete you needed trawlers as well helped along by a corrupt government that was willfully ignorant of the situation until (almost literally) one day there just weren't any fish left.
That destroyed an entire region's economy (a region I happen to be from), and has led to generational depression, joblessness and frankly hopelessness.
I think the best thing that my CS 101 prof did was always refer to the assignment operator as "gets" so you'd say "eks gets eks plus one" out loud. It really helped divorce assignment and equality in my mind.
I'd argue you have it backwards there. You start as a dictator (you and a bunch of people who agree with you take over some part of land, congrats you're the King) then the legitimacy comes from you and your family holding on to it till everyone's used to it.
If anything needs reform it's the fucking Senate. Basically the same problems as the US Supreme Court has where whoever's in charge when people die get to pack the upper house of government. I'd happily take at least term limits but I feel like it should either be elected or produced somehow via vote share during the parlimentary election.
It's MORE democratic if anything.
I gotta say that I find the rabid anti-monarchal take a lot of americans have online kinda weird. I wouldn't say I feel "ruled" in any real sense by the British crown even though it is technically true. The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legislative power rests and as much as the Governor-General is technically the commander in chief I highly doubt if she called for a revolution against the civilian government that would get any traction.
Furthermore I gotta say that given a lot of the other options I LIKE the hoky kind of odd but deeply rooted ceremony that surrounds our governmental proceedings.
Is it silly that the prime minister has to be presented to the Governor-General to get invested and leads a Privy Council (and for that matter is called a Prime Minister)? Yeah, but it's been WORKING that way for a long time and that inertia is important, especially I think nowadays with a lot of uncertainty from the largest democracy in the world.
We didn't go quite as far as this book seems to but definitly got a decent grounding in how computers actually do their thing before it was back to theory.
No because if they take time to do research they'll miss the views they could have gotten if they just slam out a piece and (basically) nobody is going to pay extra for a journalist who's also an expert on board game design.
It's the biggest problem with journalism today.
And with machine learning we're building our biases into the algorithms explicitly; see all those "resume parsers are racist" articles.
This is clearly an issue that needs to be dealth with but the problem is that it's not a problem we can engineer our way of, we need to confront the biases that we have and try and build ways to expose biases we don't even realize we have.
This is obviously quite hard and if I had a solution to it I'd probably be implementing it instead of waxing poetic on HN.
There have been a lot of hints that after he's officially out the ban hammer is in play again.
If it comes with some instructions and hints it would line up with my estimates pretty closely, that said I've done a bit of this sort of work before so I might have less unknown unknowns in my estimate.
I'm a mobile game dev and I would sacrifice a child to go back to the days when people would pay 0.99 for a game.
Yes but the cruical difference is that now, if I ask for remote work to move and the company says no I have to choose between having and income and moving. With UBI they say "no" I say "ok" and have income to fall back on.
The key thing UBI enables is the ability to meaningfully make a choice to leave your current job if you want to without destroying your ability to keep yourself alive.
This is it. Last couple of rounds of these "magic glasses" have also followed the same pattern, trying to prey on colourblind people's loved ones to buy them these expensive glasses. Everything I've read from people who've actually tried this says they're underwhelming, they work by blocking some of the spectrum around where you have issues (for instance I'm Red/Green so I have issues around those colours but especially browns and purple) so you can distinguish differences more clearly.
They do NOT let you see more colours magically, just distiguish the now reduced colour set better.
I'd love nothing more than some magical solution to cure my colourblindness, when I was a kid up till I was 15 (I got diagnosed really late) my top three careers were Astronaut, Military Pilot and Commerical pilot, if anyone remembers that one scene in Little Miss Sunshine that was very close to my reality. Unforutnatly until we start replacing eyeballs somehow it just doesn't exist.
tl;dr don't buy these, they're trying to use your impulse to do something nice for someone against you.
Is there anything legally wrong with it? No, caveat emptor but I think you have to be willfully ignoring the moral implication to not see the issue with essentially abusing someone's preconceptions.
I think this is generally true of most hobbies (jokingly it's what I use to define a hobby, something that you can, but don't have spend at least 1000 USD on).
To pick one I recently started on you can get started brewing beer for under 100 dollars. You can get perfectly acceptable, even excellent beer using basic equipment. Then, if you want you can go out and spend thousands of dollars on pressure transfer equipment, kegging tools, stainless steel fermenters and etc.
But you don't have to.
Also because of the way cask ale is dispensed it's pretty much always oxidized after the first couple of pints are pulled so that might be the change in taste you're noticing, since it's in the bottle it doesn't get oxidized.
This is the main tell of a snake oil salesman. If someone's selling something that works they don't need to load the pitch with their product's life story and "trust me" statements.
The general rule was scientific calculator only.