Interestingly, the number of households with one or two TVs increased in 2015 to 58 percent, from 54 percent in 2009.
How is that interesting. The whole article is that the 3+ television category went down. How is it interesting, or even not tautological, that the other two categories (0, 1-2) go up?
, given his history as a politician who complained of many things of "the rich", including CEOs making exorbitant salaries and bonuses..... Doesn't that make this..... I dunno, ironic seems inadequate.
I don't get how it's hypocritical to favor economic policies that you consider moral/for-the-greater-good, even if they hurt you. Hell, the average libertarian would do worse in a libertarian state (why does it seem like libertarians I know are always the ones on unemployment?)
s an employer or an investor, you're wasting money paying people bigger salaries than you need to, and the quality of life is crummy. Investors who want you to base in the Bay Area are not looking out for the health of the business, and should be avoided.
I assume that the investors understand they are paying a premium, so you live closer to them and they have to travel less. And both the investor and the employer consider "low quality of life away from work" as a positive.
I'm not disputing government oversight is required. I'm saying I have no reason to trust Google. After all, the US Constitution is more enforceable than Terms of Service, and it is also a limit on what info they can use (e.g. they cannot use your communications with your lawyer or priest) and what they can do to collect the data). Google may value trust now, but it only takes one time when they calculate it's worth the risk x chance of being caught to overstep. And then claim they had to to maximize shareholder value.
The guards see a good looking male or female and force them to unlock the phone just to gain access to their most private moments
To focus on a small part of what you said: if you store it on your phone, it's not one of your private moments. Even if the government wasn't the one looking at your data, it's stored and monetized by, e.g. Google.
every one of those apps starts with the disclaimer "Consult your doctor before beginning any exercise or dietary regimen"
Fuck disclaimers. Stand behind your product or don't release it; I don't believe in disclaiming responsibility for harm when someone uses the product as intended.
He's someplace I wish I could be, with resources I wish I had. To me, that's pretty damn successful.
It may be successful, but that hardly says anything about him. By that same definition, you can say King George wassuccessful, but that doesn't speak to his particular merits as opposed to say, what he was born with.
I'll never understand why the people say "X uploaded it to the internet, it must be fine" when the person being filmed in a vulnerable state was Y. It was the mother's privacy being invaded, and she didn't have shit to do with the video.
Why would the Democrats help override his veto to push a conservative agenda? Maybe on the budge and certainly on the debt ceiling. But they will be in the driver's seat. Because anytime things fail... well... with thr R's controlling both houses and the white house, they're the ones people will blame.
They say that all these engineers made "Fuck You" money, so they quit working on self-driving cars.... and promptly moved to other start-ups working on self-driving cars. I would make the case that clearly Google didn't reward them enough. After all, why would you leave the huge resources Google will throw at the problem in favor of going it alone, if not for the bigger payday.
And the nice thing about UBI is it lets people opt into luxury items, e.g. the pedicure world. If you do work like that, you get more money, which can pay for work like that. If you just want to hike alone, well, you don't have to make more money to pay for that lifestyle.
But yes, all in all the "need for work" is fairly elastic - but removing the "do a job or die of starvation" motivation should help tune the amount of work done to a more socially optimal level.
Similarly, 8-bit graphics refers to color depth, not pixel size. I recently worked on an old machine that had 8-bit graphics - and the display was 1024x768.
News aggregation (including Flipboard, nice slashvertisemnet) will always show what it thinks people want to see. And as much as people "want" to be challenged when asked, in reality, it's mentally exhausting and they don't. Therefore, all new aggregation will trend towards echo chamber status. The only defense against echo chambers is actively trying to break out, and that's a difficult task.
Wait, what? I didn't know this. I'm astonished and excited.
But it looks like the sideloading is via pretending to be the developer of said application. How do I distribute a side-loaded application? Can I still use the app-store for IAPs? Any more details on how to actually deliver sideloaded apps as a developer?
What if the group is negotiating for something I don't agree with?
I suppose there are times when that's true. For instance, limiting the work-week to 40 hours, and after that time-and-a-half. You may prefer a 50 hour week or a 30 hour week. On the other hand, standardized employment packages have a huge benefit to the company (less negotiating) and to society (can make reasonable inferences about a person's work schedule). And, frankly, a lot of negotiations like that only work out better for you if most people don't do it, e.g. if everyone is willing to work 50-hours/week, we go from that earning you an extra 25%, to that being the new normal and the salary for everyone remaining the same.
But, long story short, I view that loss of freedom as similar to the loss of freedom living in a society. You miss out on some autonomy, but in return you get a range of benefits that should more than compensate you. And a voice (via elections) in what those benefits are. While occasionally you'll be screwed some, it's hard to imagine how a system could work that didn't do that to anyone, ever.
That particular right prevents anyone else from competing with them on negotiations, which in my opinion gives them an unfair amount of power.
It may be "unfair", but it is definitely the results of a free negotiation between two parties. Now, if you want to discuss limiting their freedom to enter into contracts with each other, that's fine. I don't think that freedom is absolute. But as most people professing your beliefs are fairly libertarian in outlook, I'd like to impose on you to explain why it's okay in this case. Especially since the right you think it is imposing on is your right to enter into a contract with one of those parties under your preferred conditions.
I'm certainly against any laws that would prevent them from doing that.
I believe the original intent was to try to damage unions by allowing free riders, and also make it harder to have a de facto union shop.
Maybe. Or maybe more people do less work each. UBI is predicated on the idea that thanks to automation/productivity increasing machines, there isn't a need for the work output of 40hrs/week/adult.
Unless we go to makework, but I see zero value in that.
Why isn't it a good thing if people work less? I mean, they're not dying sooner, so they'll do something to make their life better. Maybe they'll be a shitty painter. Maybe they'll go hiking a lot. Who knows. That sounds like a really good outcome to me.
Which cartoonist? I would assume you mean Scott Adams, but he didn't post about it on his blog.
That said, given his frequent complaints about shadowbanning, and the distrust that generates for the platform, I can see banning him for business reasons.
Your confusing concepts. The only freedom you lose is the freedom to get a worse deal. Technically you are less free in that dimension, but its hard for me to imagine its a valuable freedom. Especially when compared to the freedom you get from having more money.
Unions should negotiate union-only benefits
In a union shop, they do. One of the benefits they negotiate for is the right to work at that company. At non-union shops, they're not allowed to have split-benefits like that - thank (mostly republican) lawmakers.
While I agree that quality is important, this is more likely to empower scammers (who can look at the price/revenue target, and invest 5k) than new to the scenes developers.
Musk can say " screw this " and move the entire operation out of California and into another State where the cost of doing business is much lower.
He won't though. He lives in California. He's not going to fly to Texas to manage one of his three companies if he can just make his shareholders pay to keep his commute short.
Slashdot Mirror
Percentages do not work like that. Over 5 years, some people through out a TV --- and are now counted as in the 1-2 range.
FTFS:
How is that interesting. The whole article is that the 3+ television category went down. How is it interesting, or even not tautological, that the other two categories (0, 1-2) go up?
I don't get how it's hypocritical to favor economic policies that you consider moral/for-the-greater-good, even if they hurt you. Hell, the average libertarian would do worse in a libertarian state (why does it seem like libertarians I know are always the ones on unemployment?)
I assume that the investors understand they are paying a premium, so you live closer to them and they have to travel less. And both the investor and the employer consider "low quality of life away from work" as a positive.
I'm not disputing government oversight is required. I'm saying I have no reason to trust Google. After all, the US Constitution is more enforceable than Terms of Service, and it is also a limit on what info they can use (e.g. they cannot use your communications with your lawyer or priest) and what they can do to collect the data). Google may value trust now, but it only takes one time when they calculate it's worth the risk x chance of being caught to overstep. And then claim they had to to maximize shareholder value.
To focus on a small part of what you said: if you store it on your phone, it's not one of your private moments. Even if the government wasn't the one looking at your data, it's stored and monetized by, e.g. Google.
Fuck disclaimers. Stand behind your product or don't release it; I don't believe in disclaiming responsibility for harm when someone uses the product as intended.
It may be successful, but that hardly says anything about him. By that same definition, you can say King George wassuccessful, but that doesn't speak to his particular merits as opposed to say, what he was born with.
I'll never understand why the people say "X uploaded it to the internet, it must be fine" when the person being filmed in a vulnerable state was Y. It was the mother's privacy being invaded, and she didn't have shit to do with the video.
Why would the Democrats help override his veto to push a conservative agenda? Maybe on the budge and certainly on the debt ceiling. But they will be in the driver's seat. Because anytime things fail... well... with thr R's controlling both houses and the white house, they're the ones people will blame.
dw is dry weight (as opposed to lw, which is lipid weight), Apparently the two are highly correlated, but not strictly related.
They say that all these engineers made "Fuck You" money, so they quit working on self-driving cars.... and promptly moved to other start-ups working on self-driving cars. I would make the case that clearly Google didn't reward them enough. After all, why would you leave the huge resources Google will throw at the problem in favor of going it alone, if not for the bigger payday.
And the nice thing about UBI is it lets people opt into luxury items, e.g. the pedicure world. If you do work like that, you get more money, which can pay for work like that. If you just want to hike alone, well, you don't have to make more money to pay for that lifestyle.
But yes, all in all the "need for work" is fairly elastic - but removing the "do a job or die of starvation" motivation should help tune the amount of work done to a more socially optimal level.
Similarly, 8-bit graphics refers to color depth, not pixel size. I recently worked on an old machine that had 8-bit graphics - and the display was 1024x768.
News aggregation (including Flipboard, nice slashvertisemnet) will always show what it thinks people want to see. And as much as people "want" to be challenged when asked, in reality, it's mentally exhausting and they don't. Therefore, all new aggregation will trend towards echo chamber status. The only defense against echo chambers is actively trying to break out, and that's a difficult task.
Wait, what? I didn't know this. I'm astonished and excited.
But it looks like the sideloading is via pretending to be the developer of said application. How do I distribute a side-loaded application? Can I still use the app-store for IAPs? Any more details on how to actually deliver sideloaded apps as a developer?
I suppose there are times when that's true. For instance, limiting the work-week to 40 hours, and after that time-and-a-half. You may prefer a 50 hour week or a 30 hour week. On the other hand, standardized employment packages have a huge benefit to the company (less negotiating) and to society (can make reasonable inferences about a person's work schedule). And, frankly, a lot of negotiations like that only work out better for you if most people don't do it, e.g. if everyone is willing to work 50-hours/week, we go from that earning you an extra 25%, to that being the new normal and the salary for everyone remaining the same.
But, long story short, I view that loss of freedom as similar to the loss of freedom living in a society. You miss out on some autonomy, but in return you get a range of benefits that should more than compensate you. And a voice (via elections) in what those benefits are. While occasionally you'll be screwed some, it's hard to imagine how a system could work that didn't do that to anyone, ever.
It may be "unfair", but it is definitely the results of a free negotiation between two parties. Now, if you want to discuss limiting their freedom to enter into contracts with each other, that's fine. I don't think that freedom is absolute. But as most people professing your beliefs are fairly libertarian in outlook, I'd like to impose on you to explain why it's okay in this case. Especially since the right you think it is imposing on is your right to enter into a contract with one of those parties under your preferred conditions.
I believe the original intent was to try to damage unions by allowing free riders, and also make it harder to have a de facto union shop.
Maybe. Or maybe more people do less work each. UBI is predicated on the idea that thanks to automation/productivity increasing machines, there isn't a need for the work output of 40hrs/week/adult.
Unless we go to makework, but I see zero value in that.
Why isn't it a good thing if people work less? I mean, they're not dying sooner, so they'll do something to make their life better. Maybe they'll be a shitty painter. Maybe they'll go hiking a lot. Who knows. That sounds like a really good outcome to me.
Which cartoonist? I would assume you mean Scott Adams, but he didn't post about it on his blog.
That said, given his frequent complaints about shadowbanning, and the distrust that generates for the platform, I can see banning him for business reasons.
Your confusing concepts. The only freedom you lose is the freedom to get a worse deal. Technically you are less free in that dimension, but its hard for me to imagine its a valuable freedom. Especially when compared to the freedom you get from having more money.
In a union shop, they do. One of the benefits they negotiate for is the right to work at that company. At non-union shops, they're not allowed to have split-benefits like that - thank (mostly republican) lawmakers.
Unfortunately, it's hard for a game to stand on its own merits.
I've lived like that. It sucks. It's not a badge of honor.
While I agree that quality is important, this is more likely to empower scammers (who can look at the price/revenue target, and invest 5k) than new to the scenes developers.
He won't though. He lives in California. He's not going to fly to Texas to manage one of his three companies if he can just make his shareholders pay to keep his commute short.