I think you'll find the problem is not with detail-oriented obsessive nerd writing software, but with managers who yank products out of their hands when they're nowhere near done, and ship them. Make the managers sign off, not the developers.
The point of the market is that it makes mass-market products that most people want, not products that you, personally, want. However stupid you might think popular products are, doesn't matter. That's called "economic efficiency": actually producing what most people actually want to consume, not what someone thinks they should want to consume.
That being said, you can totally pay someone to kill the alarm. You might not like the price for that, but that's the nature of custom on-off goods and services.
I hate the current styles of furniture with a burning passion, and the price of custom furniture is eye-watering. How is that anyone's problem but mine?
While there's some truth in that, it's worth noting that Amazon has it's HQ, and Google and FB (and everyone else these days) have officiates in Seattle because Microsoft built an office in the middle of nowhere, vaguely close to Seattle. And Google and Facebook do have New York and London offices.
The biggest companies can just make a tech center by opening a large office somewhere. Which may the the plan for Amazon HQ2, after all. Of course, as long as it's been, I'm starting to wonder whether Amazon even knows WTF they want out of HQ2.
OP is really an economic anarchist, not a libertarian. Libertarians accept that the government has an important, if small, role in maintaining a stable market: policing, contract enforcement, fraud enforcement, standardizing weights and measures, that sort of thing. Basic product safety falls under that umbrella - it's fraud enforcement for the things everyone assumes about products even if their not printed on the label.
Why don't tech companies choose a location in the middle of nowhere and build their offices there? With such a high concentration of highly paid workers, the free market will build a city around it.
Microsoft did. Walmart did for their tech bunker (want a freaking mansion as a software dev? Work for Walmart.)
Google and Facebook and Amazon want to have offices in prestigious cities, as it helps attract young stupid talent. People who would rather live in a 400 sq foot highrise apartment "in the city!" than a large house somewhere nice. It makes sense if you're mostly hiring guys in their 20s: they don't want a house, they want someplace they can stagger to drunk after a night at the club, hopefully with company.
Now whether Amazon has been preventing competition, I can't say.
All companies that are good at what they do prevent competition from companies that suck, but beyond that Walmart and Amazon are far from monopolies. Obviously, there's two of them, but beyond that Walmart is just over 10% of retail IIRC and Amazon somewhere between 5-10%.
They have no monopoly power to abuse.
You can complain about both for many reasons, starting with the way they treat their workers. But that's just a category error if you're comparing them with the monopolies of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
What I don't get is why people put "Amazon" on that list. "X is true about a bunch of social media vertical monopolies, plus Amazon for no reason" is always a sign the speaker is full of shit.
Rant about social media, or rant about Amazon and Walmart, but there's no overlap. Amazon is still smaller than Walmart, by the way, in terms of retail market share.
Searching live camera footage is not really different from searching a crowd, except for the cost. Storing camera footage for later searching is a concern not well addressed in the Constitution. Personally I think we need a new amendment to specifically limit the ability of the government to store data (or search data stored by others) about mostly-innocent people.
s because ballast and dead weight aren't things that are well understood / sarcasm
You're going to, what, mine the counterweight for ballast? Won't work - a space elevator becomes economical when it launches payloads that collectively exceed the mass of the counterweight. So you'd be, what, dragging asteroids over to mine for ballast? Seems unlikely (well, eventually a space elevator would help enable asteroid mining, but it would be some time).
Sure, this one's in the other direction, but that doesn't really help
Conservation of angular momentum is on the phone for you.
As I said, that just means a kick to the pendulum in the other direction. Now it has twice as much energy, unless you do something very clever. But this is a chaotic system with many modes of oscillation: it's a spring pendulum, complicated by the weight of the station at GEO, that will hold massive energy in standing waves on the cable, as well as the counterweight itself rocking on the end of the cable (unless you have one amazing bearing where the cable connects, but why would you).
Given how well this would all be modeled, I could believe you could get some small damping effect from a payload going down, by timing against the pendulum swing (and only that mode), but even that's quite tricky as the pendulum period would just be a few hours, and the trip would likely take at least as long.
Actually that is exactly what it is. Very nearly Ideal and rigid. What did you think would be needed to reach from the surface of the earth to geosynchronous orbit ?
Nothing is rigid at that scale: even for the hardest materials the length is thousands of "speed of sound seconds". The cable would need to have massive tensile strength, but it has no need to be rigid at scale - it's a cable, not an I-beam - and it can't be brittle. Sure, the unobtainium might have the highest spring constant of any known material, but push on it at one end and it will take thousands of seconds for the wave to reach the other end (where, absent some really impressive shock absorbers, the wave will bounce back down the cable).
I just want to go on record that I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST guns controlling self driving cars. That way madness lies.
I'm OK with that, just don't give the self-driving cars guns! I saw that movie, and I don't want to have to think about all those time travel paradoxes.
The 4th Amendment was, when written, primarily about "no general warrants" , because that was a very real problem the Founding Fathers personally faced. It has always been meant to forbid the practice of "a liquor store was just robbed, arrest the nearest black man, I'm sure he's guilty of something".
I long for a SCOTUS that actually cares about the Constitution above their personal political preferences. If only...
You have to use newspeak terms now. When you hear about blacks committing crimes they are referred to as "youths" by the media.
Now that's just wrong. The newspeak for black people committing crimes is "urban youths". "Urban", not "youth" is the new black. Of course, most people of any race who commit crimes are young, but it is a bit racist for the media to assume that young black people are criminals.
When you lower a weight (the same weight? unlikely) you give the pendulum another kick. Sure, this one's in the other direction, but that doesn't really help - this isn't an ideal, rigid pendulum where you could actually "brake" it that way. You'll be adding energy to the system in either direction.
That experiment did not involve a centripetal pendulum. When you move a weight to the station, the pendulum must swing "backwards" to conserve angular momentum. No way around it: you've given the pendulum a kick. Of course, it will swing back to directly above the ground station, but it won't stop there, it will keep being a pendulum.
Now you talk like capitalist pigdog, not proud wolf of Mother Russia. Next you say thing like "individual consumer choice is the most efficient economy" and off to the Gulag you go.
You can call it politics and dismiss it on that basis all you want but in end science has to conform with reality. If you want to change the existing climate science you have to come up with something that explains the reality better than it does.
You can jump up and down and shout "it's science" all day, but unless you explain the science to the average voter in a persuasive way, the average voter will not vote to reduce their standard of living.
You're not going to get the change you want unless you're prepared to do that work.
Try stopping a swinging pendulum, with a flexible string, from the point it hangs from. There's no way to do that - you have to wait for the pendulum to slow down due to friction and air resistance. If your string is almost perfectly elastic, and you're in a vacuum, that pendulum will keep swinging for a long, long time.
Slashdot Mirror
usually the asshole wino survives the crash while the pedestrian he mows down does not.
Far more drunk pedestrians are killed by sober drivers than vice versa. Pick a different example.
I think you'll find the problem is not with detail-oriented obsessive nerd writing software, but with managers who yank products out of their hands when they're nowhere near done, and ship them. Make the managers sign off, not the developers.
*one-off
The point of the market is that it makes mass-market products that most people want, not products that you, personally, want. However stupid you might think popular products are, doesn't matter. That's called "economic efficiency": actually producing what most people actually want to consume, not what someone thinks they should want to consume.
That being said, you can totally pay someone to kill the alarm. You might not like the price for that, but that's the nature of custom on-off goods and services.
I hate the current styles of furniture with a burning passion, and the price of custom furniture is eye-watering. How is that anyone's problem but mine?
While there's some truth in that, it's worth noting that Amazon has it's HQ, and Google and FB (and everyone else these days) have officiates in Seattle because Microsoft built an office in the middle of nowhere, vaguely close to Seattle. And Google and Facebook do have New York and London offices.
The biggest companies can just make a tech center by opening a large office somewhere. Which may the the plan for Amazon HQ2, after all. Of course, as long as it's been, I'm starting to wonder whether Amazon even knows WTF they want out of HQ2.
a helmet for these type of activities where you are moving on concrete should be a no-brainer
It's lack of a helmet that's a no-brainer. Eventually.
You're right, Summary execution is a much better punishment.
OP is really an economic anarchist, not a libertarian. Libertarians accept that the government has an important, if small, role in maintaining a stable market: policing, contract enforcement, fraud enforcement, standardizing weights and measures, that sort of thing. Basic product safety falls under that umbrella - it's fraud enforcement for the things everyone assumes about products even if their not printed on the label.
Why don't tech companies choose a location in the middle of nowhere and build their offices there? With such a high concentration of highly paid workers, the free market will build a city around it.
Microsoft did. Walmart did for their tech bunker (want a freaking mansion as a software dev? Work for Walmart.)
Google and Facebook and Amazon want to have offices in prestigious cities, as it helps attract young stupid talent. People who would rather live in a 400 sq foot highrise apartment "in the city!" than a large house somewhere nice. It makes sense if you're mostly hiring guys in their 20s: they don't want a house, they want someplace they can stagger to drunk after a night at the club, hopefully with company.
Now whether Amazon has been preventing competition, I can't say.
All companies that are good at what they do prevent competition from companies that suck, but beyond that Walmart and Amazon are far from monopolies. Obviously, there's two of them, but beyond that Walmart is just over 10% of retail IIRC and Amazon somewhere between 5-10%.
They have no monopoly power to abuse.
You can complain about both for many reasons, starting with the way they treat their workers. But that's just a category error if you're comparing them with the monopolies of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
What I don't get is why people put "Amazon" on that list. "X is true about a bunch of social media vertical monopolies, plus Amazon for no reason" is always a sign the speaker is full of shit.
Rant about social media, or rant about Amazon and Walmart, but there's no overlap. Amazon is still smaller than Walmart, by the way, in terms of retail market share.
Yup, it always breaks, and you waste a lot of space for it.
Seems like only the highest and lowest-end fridges lack screens these days (as well as ice/water in the door, something else I could do without).
I've found a FLAT EARTH DENIER!
I bet you vaccinate your kids and don't believe in lizard people either.
The earth is not flat - that's just silly. When we ent to the moon, and we did go to the moon, we discovered the terrifying truth. The MOON is flat!
You seem to have run out of arguments, leaving only name-calling. Sad.
Searching live camera footage is not really different from searching a crowd, except for the cost. Storing camera footage for later searching is a concern not well addressed in the Constitution. Personally I think we need a new amendment to specifically limit the ability of the government to store data (or search data stored by others) about mostly-innocent people.
s because ballast and dead weight aren't things that are well understood / sarcasm
You're going to, what, mine the counterweight for ballast? Won't work - a space elevator becomes economical when it launches payloads that collectively exceed the mass of the counterweight. So you'd be, what, dragging asteroids over to mine for ballast? Seems unlikely (well, eventually a space elevator would help enable asteroid mining, but it would be some time).
Sure, this one's in the other direction, but that doesn't really help
Conservation of angular momentum is on the phone for you.
As I said, that just means a kick to the pendulum in the other direction. Now it has twice as much energy, unless you do something very clever. But this is a chaotic system with many modes of oscillation: it's a spring pendulum, complicated by the weight of the station at GEO, that will hold massive energy in standing waves on the cable, as well as the counterweight itself rocking on the end of the cable (unless you have one amazing bearing where the cable connects, but why would you).
Given how well this would all be modeled, I could believe you could get some small damping effect from a payload going down, by timing against the pendulum swing (and only that mode), but even that's quite tricky as the pendulum period would just be a few hours, and the trip would likely take at least as long.
Actually that is exactly what it is. Very nearly Ideal and rigid. What did you think would be needed to reach from the surface of the earth to geosynchronous orbit ?
Nothing is rigid at that scale: even for the hardest materials the length is thousands of "speed of sound seconds". The cable would need to have massive tensile strength, but it has no need to be rigid at scale - it's a cable, not an I-beam - and it can't be brittle. Sure, the unobtainium might have the highest spring constant of any known material, but push on it at one end and it will take thousands of seconds for the wave to reach the other end (where, absent some really impressive shock absorbers, the wave will bounce back down the cable).
I just want to go on record that I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST guns controlling self driving cars. That way madness lies.
I'm OK with that, just don't give the self-driving cars guns! I saw that movie, and I don't want to have to think about all those time travel paradoxes.
The 4th Amendment was, when written, primarily about "no general warrants" , because that was a very real problem the Founding Fathers personally faced. It has always been meant to forbid the practice of "a liquor store was just robbed, arrest the nearest black man, I'm sure he's guilty of something".
I long for a SCOTUS that actually cares about the Constitution above their personal political preferences. If only ...
You have to use newspeak terms now. When you hear about blacks committing crimes they are referred to as "youths" by the media.
Now that's just wrong. The newspeak for black people committing crimes is "urban youths". "Urban", not "youth" is the new black. Of course, most people of any race who commit crimes are young, but it is a bit racist for the media to assume that young black people are criminals.
When you lower a weight (the same weight? unlikely) you give the pendulum another kick. Sure, this one's in the other direction, but that doesn't really help - this isn't an ideal, rigid pendulum where you could actually "brake" it that way. You'll be adding energy to the system in either direction.
That experiment did not involve a centripetal pendulum. When you move a weight to the station, the pendulum must swing "backwards" to conserve angular momentum. No way around it: you've given the pendulum a kick. Of course, it will swing back to directly above the ground station, but it won't stop there, it will keep being a pendulum.
Why is that confusing?
all the benefits of well-working free markets
Now you talk like capitalist pigdog, not proud wolf of Mother Russia. Next you say thing like "individual consumer choice is the most efficient economy" and off to the Gulag you go.
Well, you've entirely missed my point.
You can call it politics and dismiss it on that basis all you want but in end science has to conform with reality. If you want to change the existing climate science you have to come up with something that explains the reality better than it does.
You can jump up and down and shout "it's science" all day, but unless you explain the science to the average voter in a persuasive way, the average voter will not vote to reduce their standard of living.
You're not going to get the change you want unless you're prepared to do that work.
Yeah, you don't understand what "damping" means.
Try stopping a swinging pendulum, with a flexible string, from the point it hangs from. There's no way to do that - you have to wait for the pendulum to slow down due to friction and air resistance. If your string is almost perfectly elastic, and you're in a vacuum, that pendulum will keep swinging for a long, long time.