However unapproved and non-monitored experiments on humans is.
Ok... so who is the representative of "god" that gets to decide Yes/No whether an idea can be tested on humans, and where the heck is the proof that they've been appointed as the person that gets to decide its morally OK to inject someone with stuff that humans have never been injected with before?
Because the fact is, there's always gotta be a first time for any successful treatment.
Modifying genes so that certain aesthetic characters are artificially promoted (e.g. blue eyes, blonde hair) Eliminating diseases (sickle cell, popensity for cancers etc.)
Actually... BOTH of those things are in the same camp; I mean you could say "not having ideal beauty" is a disease that most of the population suffers, who gets to say sickle cell, etc, are the only special impediments that gene editing an be used to help with?
You intend to alter genetic material for one reason or another to do what in someone's opinion will improve the quality/longevity of life (E.G. Eye/Hair color affecting social status - people with certain appearance or traits more likely to get wealth/certain jobs and live longer as adults) - Healthy people without what we currently call a disease more likely to live longer, Etc --- in either case, something can go wrong if you administer gene editing and have not sufficiently verified/tested that it will succeed before attempting: like you cause another disease or trait that harms the embryo besides what you were trying to edit.
Besides if you fail you get sued which is a nice trade off.
I agree the government's failure to review and approve lawful applications within X days (No more than, for example, 10 days) should result in automatic forced approval.
The risk of being sued requires the courts to be funded and operating, which they probably won't be for too longer.
Netflix per month is still cheaper than a single movie in most theaters.
Netflix is not competition against going to the theater --- the movies available at theaters are not available on Netflix: only SOME movies from theaters will ever be available to stream Netflix, and for those you will have to wait.
Instead, Netflix is competition against going to Blockbuster and renting a video for $2 a night after its been released to video (and after the additional 28 day delay period Warner Bros. locked Netflix into to help bolster sales over rentals) ----- that makes sense at their traditional price of $5 a month - you could have essentially two movies for 60 days, which = $0.13 per rental day, that was a steal, but at $15 a month, Netflix looks considerably less attractive, and renting 1 videos a week at $3/Night from a retailer for a total of 5 nights a week or less would now be cheaper; It begins to look like renting videos is a more viable option again than subbing to Netflix in order to periodically watch a movie when you have spare time on a weekend.
A lot of people don't watch and never watched a movie in theaters at today's prices, except on very special occasions, such as once a year, or even less often.
All artists cooperatively adopting this strategy means that everyone gets paid more.
If they did, then the one artist that doesn't cooperate and has the longer song STILL also gets paid more, and derives a benefit that listeners spend more time hearing their music = greater familiarity = greater probability of like/favorite button getting clicked.
"other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Yes, it does have to be a high crime, which is why the word "other" appears.
No it does not, and in fact, Congress has impeached, convicted, and removed from office judges for Chronic Intoxication, a misdemeanor - judges have also been impeached for making false statements, conspiracy, and tax evasion, which do not fit the definition of a high crime. A High crime does NOT refer to a "More Severe", "Major", or "More Egregious" than normal crime --- quite the opposite - a High crime can be any offense or abuse committed by an official, "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a very deliberately vague, open, and subjective criteria - allowing the congress complete discretion regarding what charges they believe warrant an impeachment.
The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they were adopted. The phrase 'high crime' is a more vague and open term than Misdemeanor - almost anything done by an official can be a high crime - high crime refers to actions done by those in special authority that is political in character - activity by or against those who have special duties attained by taking an oath of office which are not shared with common persons; "high crimes" traditionally include offenses such as misappropriating government funds, maladministration, etc.
you seriously think that rises to the level of a "high crime" that justifies impeachment
It does NOT have to be a high crime; the constitution states clearly that the president shall also be removed from office on Impeachment and conviction for a Misdemeanor just as much so as with a high crime, here let me help you with a verbatim quotation: Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution states as follows, and I quote:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
True true true... on the other hand that doesn't necessarily mean the actions of the spam bots aren't technically illegal.
Finally, they find an admission that could technically become the subject for an article of impeachment... do you think the
dems in congress have the guts to actually formalize that, however? Especially after they failed so far to get the president's wall excluded --- they try to pass a budget without it, and so far the whole budget has languished in both houses without the support to override a veto.
Don't get me wrong.... its a fun experiment to try and come up with new experimental types of blockchains and transactional systems.
But Bitcoin already has a pragmatic solution called the Lightning Network that uses second-layer networks allowing wallets to safely transact off the chain, resulting in extremely high scalability and low fees --- as a result it is not even limited to "Thousands of transactions per second".... indeed to be a competitor in payment processing, Millions of Transactions per Second may be required --- so when you think of scaling; just making a native blockchain capable of thousands of TPS sounds impressive at first, at first, But its really not much in the grand scheme of things --- when you're talking about transitioning from experiment to real-world use.
Ultimately, layering additional peer-to-peer networks with certain safeguards and no lower bound that says a transaction takes at least X minutes, is a smart approach.
Well, its mostly the Democrats' fault. Every member of congress has a part in it --- personally, I think to dissuade this behavior, the law ought to be written so that in the event of a funding deficiency - current congress members' pay and funding of their future benefits will be the very first things that become unfunded: following that, all congressional office funding and allowances will be suspended - further office supply expenses will be paid for out of pocket with no reimbursement, next suspension of government funding for congressional aides, personal secretaries, office managers, press secretaries, legislative assistants, legislative correspondents, Pages, and other employees caring for the legislators, and the legislative chambers; in that order -- they will be paid for out of pocket by the member they work for, Or be re-assigned away from congress to more critical duties during the shortfall.
Next, the congress will be convened with mandatory attendance of all members - members of congress will be restrained to the house chambers; exiting the building is an automatic resignation from office - Security should confine members of congress to the premises, and confiscate portable communications devices such as cell phones - providing each member an opportunity to use their cell phone for 2 hours a day, with the ability to leave or communicate outside in general withdrawn until the government is no longer unfunded ---- Basic needs such as 2 Basic Meals a day and Water, Bathroom, Bedding, and Clean clothes are to be provided, but nothing luxurious.
Bullshit. 2 months ago the GOP had the House , Senate and Oval Office - yet couldn't get a budget done.
The democrats obstructed using the senate. Part of the problem is over the past two years, even when the republicans had a majority in the Senate they have been "playing nice" --- As in, they've held to old traditions and didn't change the rules of the Senate to prevent the minority party from using filibusters to obstruct business.
Although the dems have been the ones to push the line and next time they get the majority - rewrite the rules, so there's no such thing as a filibuster - the fact is, 2 months ago it was Dems in the senate obstructing business.
If only there were a way to pay for original programming by using advertising or something.
Make no mistake... advertising is coming. But what you don't realize is any price decrease when advertising is added will be temporary, and in no time, it will be back to $15 streaming with advertising.
The industry is starting to catch up.... before it was just Cable video that was expensive, now streaming video is starting to get expensive.
This is exactly how it happens.... small accretive price increases to suit the greedy publishers.
I remember.... it doesn't seem too long ago when Cable TV was $15 a month for 50 channels Basic + Expanded. Boil the frog alive.... "Boil the frog alive".
Moron shuts down the government on a tantrum-whim, consequently his "regulators" use that excuse to not do their jobs
No.... Shutting down the government - or the president refusing to sign a budget missing something he wants that the voters elected him to do has become standard. Obama did an equal shutdown, when congress wasn't giving him funds for the ACA --- now the shoe just happens to be on the other foot.
Either you blame Obama for the prior shutdown and Trump for this one, Or you blame Republicans in the house for the prior shutdown and Democrats in the house for the current shutdown: Those are your only two consistent options.
By the way: The shutdown is primarily congress' responsibility. They don't need the president's
approval to proceed --- they just need to make a budget that 2/3 of the House members and 2/3 of the Senate members can agree to, so I'd say the president is blameless for saying he won't approve a budget that doesn't provide what the president promised to provide that the voters approved him into office for: that he had put on the national agenda, which has only not been put into place yet due to Congress' failings and incompetence.
He pointed out if they called me or someone else did the solicitation then I could do the work.
Aw.... if you have clients to take with you, go visit them in person and explain -- just "Invite them to lunch", and chatter about random stuff until they effectively solicit you for the potential thing they're needing work on, since they probably will. If your services were individual skilled professional services, and the client dealt with you on a daily basis --- chances are you have the credit for any of the skill, care, and quality of your work, not your employer, who would LIKE to have credit and keep any business despite the relationship being sustained by your hard work alone, and your past employer no longer having a way to offer them the same level of service.
If sued, at least in certain states; very likely to not only win -- on basis such as "There exists no legitimate interest to be protected by non-compete", but also be awarded attorneys fees and other compensation at former employer's expense.
Um, no. Those "essential" employees who've been forced to work without a paycheck are entitled automatically.
Regardless of how "essential" an employee is thought to be --- unless they're military enlisted, they cannot actually be "forced" to work without pay. The employee can simply decline, go on strike, be a no-show, call in sick, etc.
After every shutdown; Congress consistently passes a bill providing backpay for the furloughed employees. That's what is in the works already.
I understand that we are at an all time high with multi generational homes but that is largely a separate issue.
Honestly; If you can make it work without too much of a sacrifice, and you can make it work without interpersonal conflict, then a "multi generational home", or otherwise sharing a home with as many families or people the premises will comfortably accommodate with each person or family still being able to have private areas and enough personal space is a financially efficient thing to do ---- this is one of MANY possible different strategies that can be utilized to lower costs on the expense side.
Another possibility is renting a small plot of empty land and living permanently in a tent or vehicle on your little piece of land, or squatting on random pieces of land during evenings and hope to evade discovery for as long as possible, but the quality of life is considerably lower than sharing a house; the quality of live involved in sharing a multi-gen house can be the same or better as owning one's own house, since more people can = more help with a lot of fixed per-residence necessities.
If you think workers are concerned about politics resulting in a government shutdown, consider this: If you work in private industry, you can be a victim of a mass-layoff, and you never know its coming, so you should have emergency $$$ savings to prepare for that possibility, just as you should if you work for government - in case of political issues causing funding shortfall come the end of the fiscal year.
With this US government shutdown... employees had more than 60 days' warning that this was extremely likely to happen, essentially; the coming political clash was evident from miles away immediately after the election --- this eventuality became almost certain. Unlike a mass layoff; its presumably going to be temporary, and many furloughed employees will be entitled to automatic back pay - full wages for the time they didn't work, when the deficiency is resolved.
So, not only do they have ample warning to plan and make sure to reign in unnecessary spending: nearly 60 days warning is plenty of time for the best employees to have arranged some kind of alternate work or gig for earning money while on furlough, And after the shutdown's over, they come back on, and get paid double ---- making the whole thing essentially a 20+ day paid vacation where they could amplify their pay
or avail themselves of other opportunities.
Banks do not use floating point. They use integers, with the balance in cents. So $123.03 is stored as 12303.
Naw, financial entities and applications that need to record currency entries use Fixed Point types such as NUMERIC(12,2) or NUMERIC(14,4)
As for Bezos.... the $1 Trillion is mainly the theoretical current market value of Amazon, and when they say Bezos is worth $137 billion; that's mostly a fictitious value referring to his stock holdings ---- So far, the only possible entity that could in theory have a Trillion or more of real money in a single bank account would be an entity such as the US government.
A 64-bit binary representation of hundreds of a cent seems pretty darned safe for the foreseeable future. The bank can just introduce a policy that if your balance or a deposit exceeds $1 Trillion; 9 virtual bank accounts will be created: the balance will be split between the accounts at 10% per account, and withdrawals will be taken against whichever virtual subaccount has the highest balance.
I'm fairly sure you can't buy a new Dodge, Honda, VW or Ford from a Chevrolet dealership
Amazon is not a manufacturer's car dealership franchise.
nor go to MacDonalds and ask for a Whopper and expect to get one.
Amazon is not a restaurant that sells food they prepare.
Excluding the competition from accessing your customers - in your own store - is quite standard, I understand?
Not for general retailers it is not. Amazon has made their business as a general retailer, and in that regard they have captured 49.9% of online retail sales in the US --- that percentage is not a complete monopoly, but it is close. Amazon's exclusion of products from the store solely because Amazon has made a competing product and wishes to discourage purchases or make it hard for customers to purchase a competing product could be construed as Unfair Competition in several states, and possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust act.
This should not "bother" regulators..... This is equivalent to what many large retailers do: even Walmart has their own "generic" brand of product.
This is providing a generic unbranded version against higher price named brand products. Sure it is competition against the name brand, but it is also an option that is friendly to customers' wallets ---- the public is better WITH this type of competition than not having this type of competition.
Competition is a good thing. What should bother regulators is not introducing and marketing their own alternatives, but complete exclusion.
For example: You can no longer purchase a Google Home from Amazon's store. Even if you explicitly search for the product -- it is simply no longer listed for sale, nor will they stock their store with it, nor fulfill, nor offer a sale. The product is in high demand, but is excluded from being stocked and offered, solely because Amazon has their own horse in the game and wants retail customers to Not buy into Google's smart speaker platform. That's not competition in Amazon's store though; thats excluding the competition from accessing Amazon's retail customers for no good reason other than they're competition.
Tell the regulators to worry about that --- Amazon marketing PREMIUM products and excluding competitors from being sold in their store; not "Generics" competition like AmazonBasics AA Batteries, and such.
The point is that this ad blocker will let through all compliant ads. So the scenario you're worrying about likely isn't going to happen.
Well... how the feature is explained it will block ALL ads, even Ads by Google, On websites that display ANY non-compliant ads.
I'm personally not 100% sure what a "Compliant ad" is, But this causes a few concerns.... (1) Does Google really agree with us on how much and what kind of ad placement would be "OK" ? (2) Does this include any feature where a 3rd party may be technically capable of injecting Javascript, if they wanted, or if the 3rd party's server were compromised? Malware risk reduction is a major reason I run blockers --- "Promiscuous" code injection opportunities from unrelated 3rd parties are a huge risk. (3) What about websites that USUALLY display compliant ads.... It just takes a one-off non-compliant ad getting through one time to launch a script, right?
Slashdot Mirror
However unapproved and non-monitored experiments on humans is.
Ok... so who is the representative of "god" that gets to decide Yes/No whether an idea can be tested on humans, and where the heck is the proof that they've been appointed as the person that gets to decide its morally OK to inject someone with stuff that humans have never been injected with before?
Because the fact is, there's always gotta be a first time for any successful treatment.
Modifying genes so that certain aesthetic characters are artificially promoted (e.g. blue eyes, blonde hair)
Eliminating diseases (sickle cell, popensity for cancers etc.)
Actually... BOTH of those things are in the same camp; I mean you could say "not having ideal beauty" is a disease that most of the population suffers, who gets to say sickle cell, etc, are the only special impediments that gene editing an be used to help with?
You intend to alter genetic material for one reason or another to do what in someone's opinion will improve the quality/longevity of life (E.G. Eye/Hair color affecting social status - people with certain appearance or traits more likely to get wealth/certain jobs and live longer as adults) - Healthy people without what we currently call a disease more likely to live longer, Etc --- in either case, something can go wrong if you administer gene editing and have not sufficiently verified/tested that it will succeed before attempting: like you cause another disease or trait that harms the embryo besides what you were trying to edit.
Besides if you fail you get sued which is a nice trade off.
I agree the government's failure to review and approve lawful applications within X days
(No more than, for example, 10 days) should result in automatic forced approval.
The risk of being sued requires the courts to be funded and operating, which they probably won't be for too longer.
Netflix per month is still cheaper than a single movie in most theaters.
Netflix is not competition against going to the theater --- the movies available at theaters are not available on Netflix: only SOME movies from theaters will ever be available to stream Netflix, and for those you will have to wait.
Instead, Netflix is competition against going to Blockbuster and renting a video for $2 a night after its been released to video (and after the additional 28 day delay period Warner Bros. locked Netflix into to help bolster sales over rentals) ----- that makes sense at their traditional price of $5 a month - you could have essentially two movies for 60 days, which = $0.13 per rental day, that was a steal, but at $15 a month, Netflix looks considerably less attractive, and renting 1 videos a week at $3/Night from a retailer for a total of 5 nights a week or less would now be cheaper; It begins to look like renting videos is a more viable option again than subbing to Netflix in order to periodically watch a movie when you have spare time on a weekend.
A lot of people don't watch and never watched a movie in theaters at today's prices, except on very special occasions, such as once a year, or even less often.
All artists cooperatively adopting this strategy means that everyone gets paid more.
If they did, then the one artist that doesn't cooperate and has the longer song STILL also gets paid more,
and derives a benefit that listeners spend more time hearing their music = greater familiarity = greater probability of like/favorite button getting clicked.
"other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Yes, it does have to be a high crime, which is why the word "other" appears.
No it does not, and in fact, Congress has impeached, convicted, and removed from office judges for Chronic Intoxication, a misdemeanor - judges have also been impeached for making false statements, conspiracy, and tax evasion, which do not fit the definition of a high crime.
A High crime does NOT refer to a "More Severe", "Major", or "More Egregious" than normal crime --- quite the opposite -
a High crime can be any offense or abuse committed by an official, "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a very deliberately vague, open, and subjective criteria - allowing the congress complete discretion regarding what charges they believe warrant an impeachment.
The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they were adopted. The phrase 'high crime' is a more vague and open term than Misdemeanor - almost anything done by an official can be a high crime - high crime refers to actions done by those in special authority that is political in character - activity by or against those who have special duties attained by taking an oath of office which are not shared with common persons; "high crimes" traditionally include offenses such as misappropriating government funds, maladministration, etc.
you seriously think that rises to the level of a "high crime" that justifies impeachment
It does NOT have to be a high crime; the constitution states clearly that the president shall also be removed from office on Impeachment and conviction for a Misdemeanor just as much so as with a high crime, here let me help you with a verbatim quotation: Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution states as follows, and I quote:
True true true... on the other hand that doesn't necessarily mean the actions of the spam bots aren't technically illegal.
Finally, they find an admission that could technically become the subject for an article of impeachment... do you think the
dems in congress have the guts to actually formalize that, however? Especially after they failed so far to get the president's wall excluded --- they try to pass a budget without it, and so far the whole budget has languished in both houses without the support to override a veto.
See how the poor guy can't win. If he failed to rig the online polls OMG... what an incompetent team he has.
If he succeeded in rigging the online polls OMG... election tampering... "see, that guy's definitely working for some foreign government...."
Don't get me wrong.... its a fun experiment to try and come up with new experimental types of blockchains and transactional systems.
But Bitcoin already has a pragmatic solution called the Lightning Network that uses second-layer networks allowing wallets to safely transact off the chain, resulting in extremely high scalability and low fees --- as a result it is not even limited to "Thousands of transactions per second".... indeed to be a competitor in payment processing, Millions of Transactions per Second may be required ---
so when you think of scaling; just making a native blockchain capable of thousands of TPS sounds impressive at first, at first, But its really not much in the grand scheme of things --- when you're talking about transitioning from experiment to real-world use.
Ultimately, layering additional peer-to-peer networks with certain safeguards and no lower bound that says a transaction takes at least X minutes, is a smart approach.
Well, its mostly the Democrats' fault. Every member of congress has a part in it ---
personally, I think to dissuade this behavior, the law ought to be written so that in the event of a funding deficiency -
current congress members' pay and funding of their future benefits will be the very first things that become unfunded:
following that, all congressional office funding and allowances will be suspended - further office supply expenses will be paid for out of pocket with no reimbursement, next suspension of government funding for congressional aides, personal secretaries, office managers, press secretaries, legislative assistants, legislative correspondents, Pages, and other employees caring for the legislators, and the legislative chambers; in that order -- they will be paid for out of pocket by the member they work for, Or be re-assigned away from congress to more critical duties during the shortfall.
Next, the congress will be convened with mandatory attendance of all members - members of congress will be restrained to the house chambers; exiting the building is an automatic resignation from office - Security should confine members of congress to the premises, and confiscate portable communications devices such as cell phones - providing each member an opportunity to use their cell phone for 2 hours a day, with the ability to leave or communicate outside in general withdrawn until the government is no longer unfunded ---- Basic needs such as 2 Basic Meals a day and Water, Bathroom, Bedding, and Clean clothes are to be provided, but nothing luxurious.
Bullshit. 2 months ago the GOP had the House , Senate and Oval Office - yet couldn't get a budget done.
The democrats obstructed using the senate. Part of the problem is over the past two years, even when the
republicans had a majority in the Senate they have been "playing nice" --- As in, they've held to old traditions and didn't change the rules of the Senate to
prevent the minority party from using filibusters to obstruct business.
Although the dems have been the ones to push the line and next time they get the majority - rewrite the rules, so
there's no such thing as a filibuster - the fact is, 2 months ago it was Dems in the senate obstructing business.
If only there were a way to pay for original programming by using advertising or something.
Make no mistake... advertising is coming. But what you don't realize is any price decrease when advertising is added will be temporary, and in no time, it will be back to $15 streaming with advertising.
The industry is starting to catch up.... before it was just Cable video that was expensive,
now streaming video is starting to get expensive.
This is exactly how it happens.... small accretive price increases to suit the greedy publishers.
I remember.... it doesn't seem too long ago when Cable TV was $15 a month for 50 channels Basic + Expanded.
Boil the frog alive.... "Boil the frog alive".
Moron shuts down the government on a tantrum-whim, consequently his "regulators" use that excuse to not do their jobs
No.... Shutting down the government - or the president refusing to sign a budget missing something he wants that the voters elected him to do has become standard. Obama did an equal shutdown, when congress wasn't giving him funds for the ACA --- now the shoe just happens to be on the other foot.
Either you blame Obama for the prior shutdown and Trump for this one, Or you blame Republicans in the house for the prior shutdown and Democrats in the house for the current shutdown: Those are your only two consistent options.
By the way: The shutdown is primarily congress' responsibility. They don't need the president's
approval to proceed --- they just need to make a budget that 2/3 of the House members and 2/3 of the Senate members can agree to, so I'd say the president is blameless for saying he won't approve a budget that doesn't provide what the president promised to provide that the voters approved him into office for: that he had put on the national agenda, which has only not been put into place yet due to Congress' failings and incompetence.
He pointed out if they called me or someone else did the solicitation then I could do the work.
Aw.... if you have clients to take with you, go visit them in person and explain -- just "Invite them to lunch", and chatter about random stuff until they effectively solicit you for the potential thing they're needing work on, since they probably will.
If your services were individual skilled professional services, and the client dealt with you on a daily basis --- chances are you have the credit for any of the skill, care, and quality of your work, not your employer, who would LIKE to have credit and keep any business despite the relationship being sustained by your hard work alone, and your past employer no longer having a way to offer them the same level of service.
If sued, at least in certain states; very likely to not only win -- on basis such as "There exists no legitimate interest to be protected by non-compete", but also be awarded attorneys fees and other compensation at former employer's expense.
Um, no. Those "essential" employees who've been forced to work without a paycheck are entitled automatically.
Regardless of how "essential" an employee is thought to be --- unless they're military enlisted, they cannot actually be "forced" to work without pay. The employee can simply decline, go on strike, be a no-show, call in sick, etc.
After every shutdown; Congress consistently passes a bill providing backpay for the furloughed employees.
That's what is in the works already.
I understand that we are at an all time high with multi generational homes but that is largely a separate issue.
Honestly; If you can make it work without too much of a sacrifice, and you can make it work without interpersonal conflict,
then a "multi generational home", or otherwise sharing a home with as many families or people the premises will comfortably accommodate with each person or family still being able to have private areas and enough personal space is a financially efficient thing to do ---- this is one of MANY possible different strategies that can be utilized to lower costs on the expense side.
Another possibility is renting a small plot of empty land and living permanently in a tent or vehicle on your little piece of land, or squatting on random pieces of land during evenings and hope to evade discovery for as long as possible, but the quality of life is considerably lower than sharing a house; the quality of live involved in sharing a multi-gen house can be the same or better as owning one's own house, since more people can = more help with a lot of fixed per-residence necessities.
If you think workers are concerned about politics resulting in a government shutdown, consider this:
If you work in private industry, you can be a victim of a mass-layoff, and you never know its coming, so you should have emergency $$$ savings to prepare for that possibility, just as you should if you work for government - in case of political issues causing funding shortfall come the end of the fiscal year.
With this US government shutdown... employees had more than 60 days' warning that this was extremely likely to happen, essentially; the coming political clash was evident from miles away immediately after the election --- this eventuality became almost certain. Unlike a mass layoff; its presumably going to be temporary, and many furloughed employees will be entitled to automatic back pay - full wages for the time they didn't work, when the deficiency is resolved.
So, not only do they have ample warning to plan and make sure to reign in unnecessary spending: nearly 60 days warning is plenty of time for the best employees to have arranged some kind of alternate work or gig for earning money while on furlough, And after the shutdown's over, they come back on, and get paid double ---- making the whole thing essentially a 20+ day paid vacation where they could amplify their pay
or avail themselves of other opportunities.
Now we need cameras to watch the speed cameras; in order to ticket the people who try to vandalize the cameras.
Banks do not use floating point. They use integers, with the balance in cents. So $123.03 is stored as 12303.
Naw, financial entities and applications that need to record currency entries use Fixed Point types such as NUMERIC(12,2) or NUMERIC(14,4)
As for Bezos.... the $1 Trillion is mainly the theoretical current market value of Amazon, and when they say Bezos is worth $137 billion; that's mostly a fictitious value referring to his stock holdings ---- So far, the only possible entity that could in theory have a Trillion or more of real money in a single bank account would be an entity such as the US government.
A 64-bit binary representation of hundreds of a cent seems pretty darned safe for the foreseeable future.
The bank can just introduce a policy that if your balance or a deposit exceeds $1 Trillion; 9 virtual bank accounts will be created: the balance will be split between the accounts at 10% per account, and withdrawals will be taken against whichever virtual subaccount has the highest balance.
I'm fairly sure you can't buy a new Dodge, Honda, VW or Ford from a Chevrolet dealership
Amazon is not a manufacturer's car dealership franchise.
nor go to MacDonalds and ask for a Whopper and expect to get one.
Amazon is not a restaurant that sells food they prepare.
Excluding the competition from accessing your customers - in your own store - is quite standard, I understand?
Not for general retailers it is not. Amazon has made their business as a general retailer,
and in that regard they have captured 49.9% of online retail sales in the US --- that percentage is not a complete monopoly, but it is close.
Amazon's exclusion of products from the store solely because Amazon has made a competing product and wishes to discourage purchases or make it hard for customers to purchase a competing product could be construed as Unfair Competition in several states, and possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust act.
This should not "bother" regulators..... This is equivalent to what many large retailers do: even Walmart has their own "generic" brand of product.
This is providing a generic unbranded version against higher price named brand products. Sure it is competition against the name brand, but it is also an option that is friendly to customers' wallets ---- the public is better WITH this type of competition than not having this type of competition.
Competition is a good thing. What should bother regulators is not introducing and marketing their own alternatives, but complete exclusion.
For example: You can no longer purchase a Google Home from Amazon's store. Even if you explicitly search for the product -- it is simply no longer listed for sale, nor will they stock their store with it, nor fulfill, nor offer a sale.
The product is in high demand, but is excluded from being stocked and offered, solely because Amazon has their own horse in the game and wants retail customers to Not buy into Google's smart speaker platform.
That's not competition in Amazon's store though; thats excluding the competition from accessing Amazon's retail customers for no good reason other than they're competition.
Tell the regulators to worry about that --- Amazon marketing PREMIUM products and excluding competitors from being sold in their store; not "Generics" competition like AmazonBasics AA Batteries, and such.
The point is that this ad blocker will let through all compliant ads. So the scenario you're worrying about likely isn't going to happen.
Well... how the feature is explained it will block ALL ads, even Ads by Google, On websites that display ANY non-compliant ads.
I'm personally not 100% sure what a "Compliant ad" is, But this causes a few concerns.... (1) Does Google really agree with us on how much and what kind of ad placement would be "OK" ? (2) Does this include any feature where a 3rd party may be technically capable of injecting Javascript, if they wanted, or if the 3rd party's server were compromised? Malware risk reduction is a major reason I run blockers --- "Promiscuous" code injection opportunities from unrelated 3rd parties are a huge risk. (3) What about websites that USUALLY display compliant ads.... It just takes a one-off non-compliant ad getting through one time to launch a script, right?