The notion that a smartphone app can do this test doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I don't think even the operating system could do it in most cases.
Both of the techniques described require the testing tool to be able to measure the effects of wiping or rewriting a given page. But modern flash hardware doesn't provide any way to operate on a specific physical page, only on logical pages which the hardware reallocates to different physical locations. Pretty much any time you try to erase a block of flash, what the hardware will really do is give you an already-erased block.
And, of course, apps don't have access even to logical blocks, they have to work through the file system. File systems designed for flash add another layer of shuffling, and even general-purpose file systems often do some amount of reallocation.
Because there is no tactile feedback when all you have to control your car's functions is a piece of glass to mash your hands up against. That interface SUCKS on tablets, and on phones.
It sucks, and how badly it sucks will be coming out over time. Right now it would be way too uncool to be the Tesla 3 driver making noise about it, but Tesla has to sell these things to actual non-zealots eventually if they hope to stay in business.
I don't have a lot of experience with it yet, since I've only had a Tesla for three weeks (I recently bought a 2014 Model S), but so far I don't find the lack of tactile feedback to be a problem at all. Or, rather, what problem it might be is more than offset by the fact that the on-screen controls are much larger and require less looking than traditional controls.
Have you actually tried it yourself or are you just guessing?
A better solution, and one that gets right to the heart of the market distortion that makes AirBnB rentals more economical than hotels is to permanently remove rent controls from any apartment that is used for short-term rentals. Landlords will be incented to turn in anyone using their rent-controlled apartment for AirBnB.
An even better solution is to abandon rent controls entirely, but that's politically infeasible.
. So you flood an area with tourists and the rents go up?
There's no reason to think there are more tourists visiting NYC. Occupancy rates in hotels are down, year-over-year.
Clearly, tourists are choosing cheaper AirBnB stays over hotels. I can see two reasons that the AirBnBs are cheaper, one the hotels can do something about, one they cannot. The one they can do something about is the fact that AirBnB is cheaper in part because it doesn't provide all of the same amenities. When you stay at an AirBnB you do not get daily maid service, and in most cases you're expected to leave the place roughly as clean as you found it. In addition, you don't get room service, concierge service, checkin is a little more complicated and less convenient, etc. Hotels can choose to make these amenities optional or simply stop offering them, if that's what tourists prefer (business travelers and wealthier tourists will continue wanting them).
The other is regulation, and that's harder for hotels to do anything about. Many people in this thread have talked about taxes, but the real issue is rent control. Renters of rent-controlled apartments are paying below-market rates for the space, so they can rent them out for below-market rates and still make a profit.
So my guess is that this is a direct result of the market-distorting effects of rent controls. Differences in taxation and amenities offered are part of it, but I'll bet they have much less effect than rent control.
What NYC should really do is abolish rent controls. Failing that, they should probably remove rent controls from apartments that are sub-let.
I live in Vancouver, the second most unaffordable city in the world. Because the city is so unaffordable, the hospitals have shut down wards due to the inability to attract staff. The situation is far too complicated to resolve with "Let the market sort it out" because of the constraints and illiquid nature of the medical system.
Are these hospitals free to set their own prices? I suspect not. Healthcare in areas with expensive real estate should naturally cost more than healthcare elsewhere, due to the increased cost of space for the facilities and increased pay to providers (since they need to be able to live in the area).
In general, price caps create shortages, and this sounds like an example of that fact in operation.
When your "freedom" means poverty for the masses just so some robber baron can buy his 4th Porche to leave at his third vacation home over the summer - yeah, it is.
We are dedicated to transparency in our operations and in the certificates we issue. We submit all certificates to Certificate Transparency logs as we issue them. You can view all issued Let’s Encrypt certificates via these links:...
There are plenty of floating reactors in warships.
True, though most of them don't generate much electricity, nor are they set up to pump waste heat off to use to heat buildings. They primarily generate steam which is used to turn turbines directly connected to screws.
In 1961 US Army converted an old Liberty ship called the SS Charles H Cugle into a floating power plant back in 1961, pretty much with exactly the purpose: to provide a mobile electricity generation station for remote areas.
Too bad we don't have a few of these in operation. It would be really helpful to have them to park off of Puerto Rico.
"Comcast gives new speed boost only to Internet users who also buy TV service"
Or "Comcast boosts Internet speed for TV service customers"
The thing about these versions, though is that they sound more reasonable. The double-negative version focuses on how Comcast is screwing Internet-only subscribers, while the positive versions focus on how Comcast is giving a benefit to TV subscribers. Gotta rouse the rabble, y'know.
And I think you have a problem with "aspersion" and "assertion". Easy to throw around the word systematic. Remember that the assertion requires proof on the part of the asserter, not disproof by everyone else.
Systemic, not systematic. They are very different. Perhaps you don't understand the difference, either.
If you're not insulting and annoying about it then sure.
Was I insulting or annoying? In general, I try not to be. If I was, I apologize, and ask you to please point out what I said so I can do better in the future.
But how do you propose fixing it? You can't even figure out who has been disadvantaged just by looking in their pants.
I already described the fix that has been implemented in the example case. Solutions will vary depending on the root cause. Identifying the root cause is crucial.
Actually, if it affects 51% of women and 49% of men, it's a systemic bias against women, by definition.
Or maybe its the fire & rescue situation all over again. If a job requirement is to be able to carry an unconscious person of average weight out of a burning building. Then it is inherent in the requirements to favor physically stronger candidates. But that's not bias against women, per se.
And if the job actually requires aggressive negotiation, then most women may be less qualified, and that's just how it is. There's a difference between a bias that derives from an actual job requirement and a bias that derives from incidental systemic process.
Though the former seems like a larger issue.
Why? Because it's easy to check what's in people's pants and calculate their average pay?
Because women have been historically oppressed, and it's important to root out and fix any remnants of that historic oppression, to place them on equal footing with men. This is pretty straightforward and it's not an attempt to "right past wrongs", just an attempt to avoid continuing to foolishly limit the options of half of the human population.
By kicking up 'women's' compensation by any means necessary
I would in no way suggest this. I only suggest noting where unequal outcomes suggest that there may be a systemic bias, then trying to identify the root cause and if it's due to some issue that isn't crucial to ability to do the job, find a way to fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
The notion that a smartphone app can do this test doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I don't think even the operating system could do it in most cases.
Both of the techniques described require the testing tool to be able to measure the effects of wiping or rewriting a given page. But modern flash hardware doesn't provide any way to operate on a specific physical page, only on logical pages which the hardware reallocates to different physical locations. Pretty much any time you try to erase a block of flash, what the hardware will really do is give you an already-erased block.
And, of course, apps don't have access even to logical blocks, they have to work through the file system. File systems designed for flash add another layer of shuffling, and even general-purpose file systems often do some amount of reallocation.
Because there is no tactile feedback when all you have to control your car's functions is a piece of glass to mash your hands up against. That interface SUCKS on tablets, and on phones.
It sucks, and how badly it sucks will be coming out over time. Right now it would be way too uncool to be the Tesla 3 driver making noise about it, but Tesla has to sell these things to actual non-zealots eventually if they hope to stay in business.
I don't have a lot of experience with it yet, since I've only had a Tesla for three weeks (I recently bought a 2014 Model S), but so far I don't find the lack of tactile feedback to be a problem at all. Or, rather, what problem it might be is more than offset by the fact that the on-screen controls are much larger and require less looking than traditional controls.
Have you actually tried it yourself or are you just guessing?
a car whose instrument panel is an oversized iPad probably won't cut it in the long term
Why not?
A better solution, and one that gets right to the heart of the market distortion that makes AirBnB rentals more economical than hotels is to permanently remove rent controls from any apartment that is used for short-term rentals. Landlords will be incented to turn in anyone using their rent-controlled apartment for AirBnB.
An even better solution is to abandon rent controls entirely, but that's politically infeasible.
There's no reason to think there are more tourists visiting NYC. Occupancy rates in hotels are down, year-over-year.
Clearly, tourists are choosing cheaper AirBnB stays over hotels. I can see two reasons that the AirBnBs are cheaper, one the hotels can do something about, one they cannot. The one they can do something about is the fact that AirBnB is cheaper in part because it doesn't provide all of the same amenities. When you stay at an AirBnB you do not get daily maid service, and in most cases you're expected to leave the place roughly as clean as you found it. In addition, you don't get room service, concierge service, checkin is a little more complicated and less convenient, etc. Hotels can choose to make these amenities optional or simply stop offering them, if that's what tourists prefer (business travelers and wealthier tourists will continue wanting them).
The other is regulation, and that's harder for hotels to do anything about. Many people in this thread have talked about taxes, but the real issue is rent control. Renters of rent-controlled apartments are paying below-market rates for the space, so they can rent them out for below-market rates and still make a profit.
So my guess is that this is a direct result of the market-distorting effects of rent controls. Differences in taxation and amenities offered are part of it, but I'll bet they have much less effect than rent control.
What NYC should really do is abolish rent controls. Failing that, they should probably remove rent controls from apartments that are sub-let.
I live in Vancouver, the second most unaffordable city in the world. Because the city is so unaffordable, the hospitals have shut down wards due to the inability to attract staff. The situation is far too complicated to resolve with "Let the market sort it out" because of the constraints and illiquid nature of the medical system.
Are these hospitals free to set their own prices? I suspect not. Healthcare in areas with expensive real estate should naturally cost more than healthcare elsewhere, due to the increased cost of space for the facilities and increased pay to providers (since they need to be able to live in the area).
In general, price caps create shortages, and this sounds like an example of that fact in operation.
Sigh, how /. has fallen. Questioning why people would use Windows gets you a Troll moderation. I could understand Offtopic, sort of, but Troll?
Hasn't had any effect at all on my Debian boxen, AFAICT.
I do continue to wonder why anyone uses Windows, though. My kids use it for gaming; I get that, sort of.
Your son really doesn't want to make $15 an hour working some part time job? Riiiiiiiiiight.
My son is smart enough to realize that a $15 minimum wage would simply make him completely unemployable.
When your "freedom" means poverty for the masses just so some robber baron can buy his 4th Porche to leave at his third vacation home over the summer - yeah, it is.
That's the mother of all false dichotomies.
One could say, you are forcing everyone into this kind of job market where no one pays a living wage
Freedom is force, got it. Is war also peace?
for a bad job. It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
My teenage son strongly disagrees and so do the two in college.
something like GoDaddy to provide high level of trust
I turned my head just in time. So now I have a mess to wipe up, but don't need a new keyboard. It was a near thing.
In answer to your subject, from https://letsencrypt.org/certif...:
So LetsEncrypt certs will work fine with Chrome.
There are plenty of floating reactors in warships.
True, though most of them don't generate much electricity, nor are they set up to pump waste heat off to use to heat buildings. They primarily generate steam which is used to turn turbines directly connected to screws.
In 1961 US Army converted an old Liberty ship called the SS Charles H Cugle into a floating power plant back in 1961, pretty much with exactly the purpose: to provide a mobile electricity generation station for remote areas.
Too bad we don't have a few of these in operation. It would be really helpful to have them to park off of Puerto Rico.
"Comcast gives new speed boost only to Internet users who also buy TV service"
Or "Comcast boosts Internet speed for TV service customers"
The thing about these versions, though is that they sound more reasonable. The double-negative version focuses on how Comcast is screwing Internet-only subscribers, while the positive versions focus on how Comcast is giving a benefit to TV subscribers. Gotta rouse the rabble, y'know.
But just as people do not really care about online privacy, they also do not actually care about Network Neutrality
I don't care much about online privacy (at least, not in the way you do), but I care a lot about net neutrality.
Thanks.
And I think you have a problem with "aspersion" and "assertion". Easy to throw around the word systematic. Remember that the assertion requires proof on the part of the asserter, not disproof by everyone else.
Systemic, not systematic. They are very different. Perhaps you don't understand the difference, either.
Here's a lengthy explanation, with a specific example, of how systemic bias can work: https://slashdot.org/comments....
If you're not insulting and annoying about it then sure.
Was I insulting or annoying? In general, I try not to be. If I was, I apologize, and ask you to please point out what I said so I can do better in the future.
"It's not fair, and seems worthwhile to fix."
But how do you propose fixing it? You can't even figure out who has been disadvantaged just by looking in their pants.
I already described the fix that has been implemented in the example case. Solutions will vary depending on the root cause. Identifying the root cause is crucial.
Actually, if it affects 51% of women and 49% of men, it's a systemic bias against women, by definition.
Or maybe its the fire & rescue situation all over again. If a job requirement is to be able to carry an unconscious person of average weight out of a burning building. Then it is inherent in the requirements to favor physically stronger candidates. But that's not bias against women, per se.
And if the job actually requires aggressive negotiation, then most women may be less qualified, and that's just how it is. There's a difference between a bias that derives from an actual job requirement and a bias that derives from incidental systemic process.
Though the former seems like a larger issue.
Why? Because it's easy to check what's in people's pants and calculate their average pay?
Because women have been historically oppressed, and it's important to root out and fix any remnants of that historic oppression, to place them on equal footing with men. This is pretty straightforward and it's not an attempt to "right past wrongs", just an attempt to avoid continuing to foolishly limit the options of half of the human population.
By kicking up 'women's' compensation by any means necessary
I would in no way suggest this. I only suggest noting where unequal outcomes suggest that there may be a systemic bias, then trying to identify the root cause and if it's due to some issue that isn't crucial to ability to do the job, find a way to fix it.
I'm sure the numbers refer to total compensation: salary, bonus and equity grants.
Yeah ide like to see more numbers. Im sure there are some WAAAY HIGH outliers pushing that number up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median
California will take 9%, plus some city, muni bonds, association fees. etc. It will add up to around half when all is accounted for.
No way that is going to add up to another $50K