Well, the model in the past was often that you didn't sell your house. When you retired, having a mortgage free house was an expected part of it.Renting during retirement will suck up your savings fast or you're start downgrading to smaller and smaller units. If you did sell in the past, it was to go to a smaller house now that the kids are gone, or use that money for the nursing home. In more modern times, perhaps selling the house was done because you were moving out of the expensive location to somewhere else
But overall, the return on investment for buying a housewas in actually having a home.
I'm not sure sure it is broken. If it is broken, then it was every bit as broken in the past, only in different ways. Make America great again implies it is not great now, or that it was greater in the past. I think that way of thought is about seeing the whitewashed America of the past that looks like like the Dick Van Dyke show, ignoring the ugly underbelly at the time. Economically things seem pretty tough now, but times were even worse economically in the past if you were black (north or south).
There's a big effort to make everything extremely optimized. This isn't new of course, efficiency experts were a thing before the baby boomers were around. But just-in-time style of thinking is about wringing out the last bit of efficiency, which means ability to get more work from fewer workers. It may be good for profits but it's not necessarily good for society.
It trickles up and down. Infrastructure is bad because companies have figured how to optimize their taxes. Weird ways to make up the difference in taxes gets everyone grumbling, but the infrastructure gets worse.
I think there's a seesaw effect here. Things were looking great in the 50s and 60s, there was plenty of government revenue at high and low levels, so building freeways, bridges, and such were not so difficult.
However, don't think that this was the golden era for America. Despite the seeming prosperity, it sucked if you weren't in the mainstream of white middle class society. Women were assumed to leave the workforce once they got married, there was institutionalized racism in the south and minorities were relegated to lower paying jobs, colleges were segregated, lynching was regularly in the news, you had to hide it if you were gay, etc. I'd probably still rather be around today than be in Eisenhower's America.
In parliamentary countries that have many parties, these still seem to split into two or three alliances. It does give way to have minority opinions paid attention to in order to keep the alliance, but often it still leads to polarization.
In the US because of winner-takes-all, all the alliance making is done in the party primaries. It doesn't work well, because if you know you've got the majority in the party, you can ignore the outliers and still win. The parties do NOT like having to negotiate among internal factions at the convention, and this is again driven by the winner-takes-all system. It's messed up because the primaries are all about getting the vote of the ideologically extreme members, and the general election is about appealing to everyone in the middle who's undecided.
The reform party was sort of a disaster. Perot had good ideas somewhat, but the party itself was mostly full of "we're against everything!" and sucked up the protest vote of people who were tired of it all. But without a solid platform it just sputtered after Perot. Though I do think a lot of it morphed into the tea party, as it's get the same protest vote bloc, and again the base of the tea party got away from the original leaders and took it in a different direction.
A big issue with third parties is that they tend to be extreme and ideological, bringing in the worst of what's wrong with political parties. Many are rigid on the party platform and not inclusive. What you don't see are third parties that are moderates. Maybe that's just the nature of politics - no one becomes political without having strong feelings, and to campaign you have to treat the opponent as an adversary which leads to the whole us-vs-them mentality.
I don't think she was dishonest. However the image has stuck into people's minds ever since she said she didn't like to bake cookies. She and the democratic party should have realized the sheer amount of baggage she brought with her. And add in the whole political family issue: people didn't want either Jeb or Hillary, that brings in a concern that neither party was able to field good candidates without relying on reruns.
Utilities have always used "peaker" plants. These only run during peak usage, or for unexpected demand, they are being turned on and off on a regular basis. There's experience in turning on and off these plants with short delays, and experience in estimating additional capacity is needed. These are generally the dirtiest plants also as well as being expensive. If they can use fewer peaker plants due to occasional wind power then that's a good thing.
Solar for sure reduces the need for turning on more peaker plants since solar works best during peak usage hours (ie, high demand for air conditioning). People who complain that solar is useless if you can't use it at night seem to miss the point that there's a diverse selection of power generation that can all be shuffled around, and that electricity demand in a location is not constant.
This peace through strength after Iraq war was the biggest recruitment tool for terrorism as well. It may cause governments to collapse, but it won't rebuild those governments or cause the people there to give up peacefully.
You seem to have forgotten, "socialist" doesn't mean what it used to mean. These days "socialist" means anyone who isn't a conservative, just like "fascist" means anyone who isn't a liberal.
Don't forget the non-monetary costs, because some cheaper power options are not good for the public as they pollute too much. Only feasible if you assume the fossil fuels will last forever and that you never have to pay for cleanup or mitigation. They won't last forever so alternatives MUST be found and used.
Initially, almost all major power plants were amazingly expensive, and many did use government help to get things going. Or at least they got big tax write-offs, nothing makes some utilities happier than to bitch about taxes in public and then accepting tax breaks under the table.
Every power source requires expensive maintenance. They're all extremely expensive, and clearly not viable if you think about it too much. Ie, hydro is extremely expensive to build for the first time, and they constant maintenance. Coal fired plants are not as expensive the first time but they are very hard to maintain, dangerous for the workers (unless you spend even more money on silly safety issues), they've got turbines to keep running, toxins to figure out where to dump, and these days you need to do carbon capture which is expensive.
I wouldn't be too sure. I see some guys who are absolutely nuts and impossible to get along with, and they seem happily married. I suspect part of the cause is that they don't talk about "work". She doesn't understand what a hosts file is or how it's better or worse than adblock, and she's not on slashdot, so she doesn't know about the crazy. I've also seen couples where both are bonkers. Or women who just put up with it because they were raised to always be submissive to their husband and never question anything and who didn't get any viable job skills to allow them to be independent.
QA always gets short shrift, the first place where companies try to save money. So hire someone at very low pay and have them do the on-the-road testing with minimal training (which is expensive). A quality company would have had at least two testers in the car, and it would have enabled audible and visible alerts. Now if you had two people both texting instead of testing, then you need to hire better QA.
I think they assumed (incorrectly) that the testing drivers will be alert. It was required to have an alert human beind the wheel during testing, but given that this was Uber they undoubtedly cut corners.
Um, I grew up in a very conservative area, and the conservative farmers and ranchers were the ones hiring the undocumented workers. This is not a leftist plot. No one is trying to destroy the US. No one is trying to create open borders.
You realize that not ever non-legal action does not have the same level of severity or the need for the same level of punishment. Entering the country illegally is a very low level crime. And despite this, people who are detained are being locked up without due process for years at a time. In the meantime the police can't be bothered to investigate property crimes that are under $1000.
Does Tesla have self driving cars? I thought they only have driver assistance and the accidents were because the drivers thought the car was in total control when it wasn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the model in the past was often that you didn't sell your house. When you retired, having a mortgage free house was an expected part of it.Renting during retirement will suck up your savings fast or you're start downgrading to smaller and smaller units. If you did sell in the past, it was to go to a smaller house now that the kids are gone, or use that money for the nursing home. In more modern times, perhaps selling the house was done because you were moving out of the expensive location to somewhere else
But overall, the return on investment for buying a housewas in actually having a home.
I'm not sure sure it is broken. If it is broken, then it was every bit as broken in the past, only in different ways. Make America great again implies it is not great now, or that it was greater in the past. I think that way of thought is about seeing the whitewashed America of the past that looks like like the Dick Van Dyke show, ignoring the ugly underbelly at the time. Economically things seem pretty tough now, but times were even worse economically in the past if you were black (north or south).
There's a big effort to make everything extremely optimized. This isn't new of course, efficiency experts were a thing before the baby boomers were around. But just-in-time style of thinking is about wringing out the last bit of efficiency, which means ability to get more work from fewer workers. It may be good for profits but it's not necessarily good for society.
It trickles up and down. Infrastructure is bad because companies have figured how to optimize their taxes. Weird ways to make up the difference in taxes gets everyone grumbling, but the infrastructure gets worse.
I think there's a seesaw effect here. Things were looking great in the 50s and 60s, there was plenty of government revenue at high and low levels, so building freeways, bridges, and such were not so difficult.
However, don't think that this was the golden era for America. Despite the seeming prosperity, it sucked if you weren't in the mainstream of white middle class society. Women were assumed to leave the workforce once they got married, there was institutionalized racism in the south and minorities were relegated to lower paying jobs, colleges were segregated, lynching was regularly in the news, you had to hide it if you were gay, etc. I'd probably still rather be around today than be in Eisenhower's America.
In parliamentary countries that have many parties, these still seem to split into two or three alliances. It does give way to have minority opinions paid attention to in order to keep the alliance, but often it still leads to polarization.
In the US because of winner-takes-all, all the alliance making is done in the party primaries. It doesn't work well, because if you know you've got the majority in the party, you can ignore the outliers and still win. The parties do NOT like having to negotiate among internal factions at the convention, and this is again driven by the winner-takes-all system. It's messed up because the primaries are all about getting the vote of the ideologically extreme members, and the general election is about appealing to everyone in the middle who's undecided.
The reform party was sort of a disaster. Perot had good ideas somewhat, but the party itself was mostly full of "we're against everything!" and sucked up the protest vote of people who were tired of it all. But without a solid platform it just sputtered after Perot. Though I do think a lot of it morphed into the tea party, as it's get the same protest vote bloc, and again the base of the tea party got away from the original leaders and took it in a different direction.
A big issue with third parties is that they tend to be extreme and ideological, bringing in the worst of what's wrong with political parties. Many are rigid on the party platform and not inclusive. What you don't see are third parties that are moderates. Maybe that's just the nature of politics - no one becomes political without having strong feelings, and to campaign you have to treat the opponent as an adversary which leads to the whole us-vs-them mentality.
I don't think she was dishonest. However the image has stuck into people's minds ever since she said she didn't like to bake cookies. She and the democratic party should have realized the sheer amount of baggage she brought with her. And add in the whole political family issue: people didn't want either Jeb or Hillary, that brings in a concern that neither party was able to field good candidates without relying on reruns.
Yeah, we tease him a lot
Cause we got him on the spot
Welcome back
Welcome back, welcome back
Welcome back, welcome back
Welcome back
The default firmware probably reboots itself every week anyway.
Utilities have always used "peaker" plants. These only run during peak usage, or for unexpected demand, they are being turned on and off on a regular basis. There's experience in turning on and off these plants with short delays, and experience in estimating additional capacity is needed. These are generally the dirtiest plants also as well as being expensive. If they can use fewer peaker plants due to occasional wind power then that's a good thing.
Solar for sure reduces the need for turning on more peaker plants since solar works best during peak usage hours (ie, high demand for air conditioning). People who complain that solar is useless if you can't use it at night seem to miss the point that there's a diverse selection of power generation that can all be shuffled around, and that electricity demand in a location is not constant.
This reduces the chafing.
This peace through strength after Iraq war was the biggest recruitment tool for terrorism as well. It may cause governments to collapse, but it won't rebuild those governments or cause the people there to give up peacefully.
Don't forget that the Libya model sort of implied that you get killed once you STOP working on nukes.
What, doesn't anyone sing along to Tom Jones anymore?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's also a need for more power independence in parts of Europe, to reduce reliance on Russia.
You seem to have forgotten, "socialist" doesn't mean what it used to mean. These days "socialist" means anyone who isn't a conservative, just like "fascist" means anyone who isn't a liberal.
Don't forget the non-monetary costs, because some cheaper power options are not good for the public as they pollute too much. Only feasible if you assume the fossil fuels will last forever and that you never have to pay for cleanup or mitigation. They won't last forever so alternatives MUST be found and used.
Initially, almost all major power plants were amazingly expensive, and many did use government help to get things going. Or at least they got big tax write-offs, nothing makes some utilities happier than to bitch about taxes in public and then accepting tax breaks under the table.
Every power source requires expensive maintenance. They're all extremely expensive, and clearly not viable if you think about it too much. Ie, hydro is extremely expensive to build for the first time, and they constant maintenance. Coal fired plants are not as expensive the first time but they are very hard to maintain, dangerous for the workers (unless you spend even more money on silly safety issues), they've got turbines to keep running, toxins to figure out where to dump, and these days you need to do carbon capture which is expensive.
Whale oil was good enough for great granddad, so it's good enough for me!
I wouldn't be too sure. I see some guys who are absolutely nuts and impossible to get along with, and they seem happily married. I suspect part of the cause is that they don't talk about "work". She doesn't understand what a hosts file is or how it's better or worse than adblock, and she's not on slashdot, so she doesn't know about the crazy. I've also seen couples where both are bonkers. Or women who just put up with it because they were raised to always be submissive to their husband and never question anything and who didn't get any viable job skills to allow them to be independent.
QA always gets short shrift, the first place where companies try to save money. So hire someone at very low pay and have them do the on-the-road testing with minimal training (which is expensive). A quality company would have had at least two testers in the car, and it would have enabled audible and visible alerts. Now if you had two people both texting instead of testing, then you need to hire better QA.
I think they assumed (incorrectly) that the testing drivers will be alert. It was required to have an alert human beind the wheel during testing, but given that this was Uber they undoubtedly cut corners.
Um, I grew up in a very conservative area, and the conservative farmers and ranchers were the ones hiring the undocumented workers. This is not a leftist plot. No one is trying to destroy the US. No one is trying to create open borders.
You realize that not ever non-legal action does not have the same level of severity or the need for the same level of punishment. Entering the country illegally is a very low level crime. And despite this, people who are detained are being locked up without due process for years at a time. In the meantime the police can't be bothered to investigate property crimes that are under $1000.
Does Tesla have self driving cars? I thought they only have driver assistance and the accidents were because the drivers thought the car was in total control when it wasn't.