We have all of these in the U.S.:
Medicare
Medicade (sic)
Progressive Income Tax
Social Security
Social Security Disability
Unemployment Insurance
SNAP (Food Stamps)
WIC
What world do you live in where this doesn't resemble socialism?
None of these even close to socialism. I'm not sure why you would say they were.
SNAP, WIC and Medicaid keep poor people from dying. It has nothing to do with the ownership of corporations, capital or other assets. I suppose you may want to claim that a redistribution somehow makes things socialist. But they make up a small fraction of a percent of the budget. Even if they were socialist, it would be a very small amount in an otherwise very capitalist society..
SS, SSD, Unemployment and Medicare Part A aren't even redistributive... they're mandatory personal retirement savings and insurance planning (SS/Medicare) and insurance (SSD/unemployment.)
So, in what way are any of those things even close to socialism??
I think this was intended as a joke, but yes. We need government at least paying attention to why the number of browsers continues to shrink. We have anti-trust laws, and should enforce them.
It's possible Google didn't intentionally do this. It seems more likely to me that they did. But we should find out, because monopolies* are bad. And even if they didn't do so intentionally, it probably is worth splitting up Google (and Amazon, and probably MS although that seems less important now.)
The thing is I cannot think of anyway a platform migration doesn't impose costs that will feel like lock in
There is one obvious way: Microsoft or Google builds a tool that imports from AWS as a way to snipe customers. But they don't want to start that war. Right now they're all making too much money.
What's amazing is that AWS Lambda (and the API Gateway you need to make it functional) should be a fairly simple clone. I mean, for Google/MS/Other Cloud Provider.
Heck, even as an OSS clone, my guess is that a drop in replacement could be done pretty easily. You know, ignoring all the scaling concerns which take the bulk of the effort.
Which is too bad, the Lambda stuff is pretty interesting. I've done a few smallish projects in it, when using other AWS services.
Does the UK have a presumption of innocence? Because I seem to recall that maybe it doesn't. And that changes that whole "viewed with suspicion" thing a lot.
AWS is incredibly hard to get off once you start, and can get quite expensive. It's the worst solution out there. Except for hosting the server yourself and needing to maintain it. Or using Oracle. Or...
But the lock-in is pretty scary from a business point of view. I mean, if AWS raises prices by 20%, how are you going to move it to another provider? How are you going to move your data? Are you going to have to switch DB engines? Are you using the Lambda service, cause where are you going to run that code? Or with the various other services?
I think you misunderstood. I took objection to the "except a fully planned economy" part of your statement. I should have highlighted it.
I mean, that exception is obviously true when it comes to toasters, or luxury items or even most normal items. But I was saying a for profit company with a monopoly on internet, energy or social media, that may actually be even worse than a fully planned economy. I'm really not sure which is worse.
It's literally the first line of the article (or the caption under the picture at the top of the article.) If it's going to be copied, at least be honest enough to put it in blockquotes.
But Google's better at being an evil empire than MS ever was. And I mean that two ways: They're more evil, because they want all the data not just buckets of user's cash, and they've been more effective in maintaining and growing monopoly power throughout all the internet.
oes not, somehow, 'phone home to Google or otherwise enable tracking of what I am looking at then all that I am worried about is Google implementing its own web standards.
Google implements its own web standards to enable Google tracking. They don't have to have the browser spy on you if every website, to render properly, includes Google supplied elements.
despite a monopoly is more damaging to a market than any government regulation short of a full planned economy could be.
I'm not even sure if this statement is true. I mean, if the monopoly is on toasters or something, sure. If the monopoly is on the internet or social networking or energy?
Technically, the Edge team was adhering to layering standards. And they fixed this issue in the next update. But it's not hard to imagine a strange edge case in any browser that can be exploited to run slower.
Well, Google is cementing it's ownership of the internet.
It's not that "you cannot use Google search well" if you don't use Chrome. That would be not nearly as bad. Now, it's "optimize your website for Chrome, or get downgraded in Google's search". Therefore, they've forced all the popular sites into helping them. Which is not as powerful as Microsoft's IE6. That was "you'll render wrong if you don't adhere to our non-standards". This is "you don't exist if you don't adhere to our non-standards"
Can we go back to one sentence summaries (or maybe even multisentence summaries) that aren't just verbatum pulled from the article. For instance, "Blippar, once valued at the unicorn level of over a billion dollars, is bankrupt because they couldn't get more VC funding". You could even go on "Two hypothesized causes are that AR is no longer a technology VCs believe will be exciting, and Blippar hopped on every bandwagon tangentially related to AR because they lacked direction."
Cement is part of concrete, and the aggregate isn't what contributes CO2. So, the cement is the cause, even if concrete is the most common use for cement.
The only people I hear bring her up are Republicans who keep going "Lock Her Up". Whether Trump worked Russia seems important because, you know, if he keeps working with Russia, that's really bad.
On the one hand, taxing SMS texting is stupid. On the other, it's hard for me to imagine anything good coming out of this FCC. Is there some virtue to taxing SMS texting that I am missing?
Total averages like that are pretty silly. After all, hunters are going to go where the hogs are. So, it doesn't take into account the vast ignored areas that are desert, or cities or whatever.
I mean, you want to figure out the HDperSM on areas that are likely to be hunted. And if all 1.5 million hogs live in Hog Forest in the center of the state, it doesn't matter how big the state is, it matters how bi Hog Forest is.
Why not proactiely call the pool company, ask them not to cash the check, and don't look like a dick. "My boss didn't give me the bonus he promised, I'm going to have to hold off a year" is one thing. "This asshole didn't have the cash to cover his check" is another. I mean, they're not going to start work either way, but they'll take your calls in a year.
There is no difference between these two scenarios:
There completely is. To start, there's prospect theory in economics. Also, in your first example (the company pays), by federal law, you have to pay more than y when you quit to keep you insurance, because it's more paperwork for the company. And, as a third fuck you, the insurance company (prior to the ACA) could drop your ass when you quit. You know, if you happened to be sick or like you would get sick soon.
Slashdot Mirror
None of these even close to socialism. I'm not sure why you would say they were.
SNAP, WIC and Medicaid keep poor people from dying. It has nothing to do with the ownership of corporations, capital or other assets. I suppose you may want to claim that a redistribution somehow makes things socialist. But they make up a small fraction of a percent of the budget. Even if they were socialist, it would be a very small amount in an otherwise very capitalist society..
SS, SSD, Unemployment and Medicare Part A aren't even redistributive... they're mandatory personal retirement savings and insurance planning (SS/Medicare) and insurance (SSD/unemployment.)
So, in what way are any of those things even close to socialism??
I think this was intended as a joke, but yes. We need government at least paying attention to why the number of browsers continues to shrink. We have anti-trust laws, and should enforce them.
It's possible Google didn't intentionally do this. It seems more likely to me that they did. But we should find out, because monopolies* are bad. And even if they didn't do so intentionally, it probably is worth splitting up Google (and Amazon, and probably MS although that seems less important now.)
* And so are close-to-monopolies.
There is one obvious way: Microsoft or Google builds a tool that imports from AWS as a way to snipe customers. But they don't want to start that war. Right now they're all making too much money.
What's amazing is that AWS Lambda (and the API Gateway you need to make it functional) should be a fairly simple clone. I mean, for Google/MS/Other Cloud Provider.
Heck, even as an OSS clone, my guess is that a drop in replacement could be done pretty easily. You know, ignoring all the scaling concerns which take the bulk of the effort.
Which is too bad, the Lambda stuff is pretty interesting. I've done a few smallish projects in it, when using other AWS services.
The app may have some reliance on cloud communication if features were offloaded, but the actual communication with the toy is via bluetooth.
Does the UK have a presumption of innocence? Because I seem to recall that maybe it doesn't. And that changes that whole "viewed with suspicion" thing a lot.
That quote is pretty stupid. I mean, sometimes they laugh at you, then they keep laughing while you keep doing stupid shit. Or they fight you and win.
I mean, compare it to:
First you're born
Then you get drunk and gamble in Vegas
Then you hit the multimillion dollar slots jackpot.
I mean, sure, it's a chain of events, and each step seems to precede the next, but there's no reason to assume each next step will occur.
AWS is incredibly hard to get off once you start, and can get quite expensive. It's the worst solution out there. Except for hosting the server yourself and needing to maintain it. Or using Oracle. Or...
But the lock-in is pretty scary from a business point of view. I mean, if AWS raises prices by 20%, how are you going to move it to another provider? How are you going to move your data? Are you going to have to switch DB engines? Are you using the Lambda service, cause where are you going to run that code? Or with the various other services?
Supported means downloadable from the app stores. So probably recompiled with new APIs as required to maintain store presence.
I think you misunderstood. I took objection to the "except a fully planned economy" part of your statement. I should have highlighted it.
I mean, that exception is obviously true when it comes to toasters, or luxury items or even most normal items. But I was saying a for profit company with a monopoly on internet, energy or social media, that may actually be even worse than a fully planned economy. I'm really not sure which is worse.
It's literally the first line of the article (or the caption under the picture at the top of the article.) If it's going to be copied, at least be honest enough to put it in blockquotes.
But Google's better at being an evil empire than MS ever was. And I mean that two ways: They're more evil, because they want all the data not just buckets of user's cash, and they've been more effective in maintaining and growing monopoly power throughout all the internet.
Google implements its own web standards to enable Google tracking. They don't have to have the browser spy on you if every website, to render properly, includes Google supplied elements.
I'm not even sure if this statement is true. I mean, if the monopoly is on toasters or something, sure. If the monopoly is on the internet or social networking or energy?
Technically, the Edge team was adhering to layering standards. And they fixed this issue in the next update. But it's not hard to imagine a strange edge case in any browser that can be exploited to run slower.
Well, Google is cementing it's ownership of the internet.
It's not that "you cannot use Google search well" if you don't use Chrome. That would be not nearly as bad. Now, it's "optimize your website for Chrome, or get downgraded in Google's search". Therefore, they've forced all the popular sites into helping them. Which is not as powerful as Microsoft's IE6. That was "you'll render wrong if you don't adhere to our non-standards". This is "you don't exist if you don't adhere to our non-standards"
Can we go back to one sentence summaries (or maybe even multisentence summaries) that aren't just verbatum pulled from the article. For instance, "Blippar, once valued at the unicorn level of over a billion dollars, is bankrupt because they couldn't get more VC funding". You could even go on "Two hypothesized causes are that AR is no longer a technology VCs believe will be exciting, and Blippar hopped on every bandwagon tangentially related to AR because they lacked direction."
How hard is that?
Cement is part of concrete, and the aggregate isn't what contributes CO2. So, the cement is the cause, even if concrete is the most common use for cement.
I just wanted to point out that TFS, and not just the long blockquote but the sentence at the beginning, makes this exact point.
But my point is that Python has a bunch of existing libraries you can use, and Webassembly doesn't. At least not yet.
The only people I hear bring her up are Republicans who keep going "Lock Her Up". Whether Trump worked Russia seems important because, you know, if he keeps working with Russia, that's really bad.
On the one hand, taxing SMS texting is stupid. On the other, it's hard for me to imagine anything good coming out of this FCC. Is there some virtue to taxing SMS texting that I am missing?
Total averages like that are pretty silly. After all, hunters are going to go where the hogs are. So, it doesn't take into account the vast ignored areas that are desert, or cities or whatever.
I mean, you want to figure out the HDperSM on areas that are likely to be hunted. And if all 1.5 million hogs live in Hog Forest in the center of the state, it doesn't matter how big the state is, it matters how bi Hog Forest is.
Why not proactiely call the pool company, ask them not to cash the check, and don't look like a dick. "My boss didn't give me the bonus he promised, I'm going to have to hold off a year" is one thing. "This asshole didn't have the cash to cover his check" is another. I mean, they're not going to start work either way, but they'll take your calls in a year.
There completely is. To start, there's prospect theory in economics. Also, in your first example (the company pays), by federal law, you have to pay more than y when you quit to keep you insurance, because it's more paperwork for the company. And, as a third fuck you, the insurance company (prior to the ACA) could drop your ass when you quit. You know, if you happened to be sick or like you would get sick soon.