If that were true, salaries would be rising significantly faster than inflation. And should have been rising since the end of the last recession (roughly 2012ish, when you account for the people who lost jobs in 2008 getting re-hired).
I was told by many people that organic molecules made from oil in a factory are different from the same molecules made by plants. No amount of explanation could convince them that that is not true.
TL:DR version: there are "left hand" and "right hand" versions of virtually every organic molecule. "Hand" refers to the orientation of the various groups of atoms in the molecule. When you make the molecule artificially, you get a 50/50 mix of left-hand and right-hand molecules. Lifeforms on Earth make 100% left-handed versions of molecules, with a few exceptions. In those exceptions, they make 100% right-handed.
So those molecules made in a factory are actually different than the same molecules made by plants.
In your defense, chirality doesn't affect the molecule's chemistry. And we have yet to scientifically demonstrate chirality affects how the molecule is processed by a living system (such as eaten and digested). There are claims that right-hand molecules can't be digested properly by humans and that makes things like HFCS bad (50% of the fructose is right-handed). But those aren't proven.
Find me someone who's worked his ass off getting licensed to practice their profession who's willing to put their livelihood, license, and professional liability insurance premiums on the line to save a couple bucks here and there.
Doctors and Lawyers exist. And they go through extremely lengthy and difficult licensing/education regimes. And they provide plenty of examples of people who did exactly what you claim they would not.
Client Side, can do a lot of work, tell you what is wrong, make sure lengths are correct get rid of bad characters... The Server Side still needs to be the last line of defense
Your server needs to run the client-side validation too. A request may not have come from your client, or your client may have been compromised such that it does not run the validation.
First, validation is not exactly a large amount of server-side processing. Assuming your server is not a 386-SX
Second, you could do validation in both places. The local rejection would speed up the responsiveness to your users since there's no round-trip involved, and you'd also block various attacks that are sent to the server from something other than your client....especially since your server validation needs to cover things your client-side does not.
But that means keeping two sets of validation code in-sync. Which is harder than just doing it on the server.
In fact, it is losing money hand-over-fist and not likely to around much longer
Uh....$200M a year is just a little bit away from "losing money hand-over-fist".
It makes no difference that MS already has it's own service
Microsoft was already using GitHub.
I'm sure the other major cloud players will be either buying up the other small guys or rolling their own soon
Actually, the trend is for the major players like Google and MS to wind down their efforts and go with...GitHub. Wonder why MS bought them.......
Currently Amazon does have a "code repository" product, but it's primarily focused on housing your private repo. It's part of their push to have to do all your coding, building, issue tracking, testing, deploying and hosting on their servers. While you could make a public repo there, it isn't their main focus.
I agree. There are already plenty of makeup-related applications out there.
That said, when ever you force people to play by the rules, chances for true innovation is loss. We all hit places where the Framework just isn't flexible enough in a particular area, so we need to go outside the box. So too much guidance from MS means we cannot create something new, because Microsoft didn't think of it.
This is where Microsoft has actually been making things easier, at least in the framework they're currently pushing. They make it pretty easy to get to the Windows C APIs and native execution from.NET so you can do anything.NET doesn't do itself. C# to C/C++ is much easier than Java or Python making native calls (to be fair to Java and Python, really being cross-platform does mean some clunkyness in your native interface)
I can purchase insurance that works for me, like a high-deductible catastrophic plan
Health insurance is not health care.
Why should we have one-size-fits-all healthcare
Because health insurance is not health care.
insurance is used when you have a larger expense, like automotive or home insurance - not for regular maintenance
Because "regular maintenance" on a 50+ human is commonly multiple thousands of dollars per year.
I cover everything up to $10K or so, and everything above that is covered 100%. Works for me
Congratulations on being young and/or healthy. However just like your car insurance subsidizes people who actually have accidents, your health insurance premium pays people who actually get sick.
And again, health insurance is not health care.
Health care is you get a pain in your chest and your doctor wants to run a large battery of tests at a particular hospital. To make that efficient, you'd have to decide if 1) your doctor is correct in his initial diagnosis, 2) those tests are actually necessary, and 3) must be run now, and 4) that hospital is the most efficient place to run those particular tests at this time.
You can't do 1, 2, 3 or 4 if you are not medical professional - you do not have the education to make reasonable assessments. You can only make guesses. If you make a guess and you're wrong, you die. So you're not going to say "nah, that's too expensive. I'll just wait for a sale at Doctor Nick's discount testing barn".
Which means it can not be an efficient market - for all practical purposes you can not say "no". Which then means adding more up-front expenses to patients can not control health care costs. And this has been demonstrated in study after study. Higher co-pays/co-insurance/deductibles do not reduce health care costs. Instead, people guess wrong and either pay more than necessary, or guess wrong and a cheap-to-treat condition becomes an expensive emergency. If 100 people guess right and 1 person guesses wrong, you've un-done the savings from the 100 correct guesses.
But let's pretend patients magically have all the knowledge they need. Would having them pay more up-front control costs? Still no. 80% of patients create 20% of costs. People age 2 to 50 are really cheap. They only get expensive in rare events. Shaving 5% off their expenses is a rounding error.
The other 20% of patients are really expensive because they are extremely sick and are going to be really expensive no matter how much you make them pay up-front.
And conflating health care with health insurance doesn't solve this problem.
And a side benefit is they employee will now be in direct control of the expenditure on their own healthcare, most likely resulting in reduced expenditures on healthcare
Unless you are a doctor, you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about what health care you actually need in order to make good decisions that reduce expenses. And this has been demonstrated in study after study.
A functional "free market" requires an efficient market, and the asymmetry of knowledge guarantees the health care market can not be efficient.
The H1B is a temporary visa with a 6-year time limit. They are not immigrants. They are "guest workers".
Yes, they can attempt to apply for a more permanent visa once they are here, but it is that more permanent visa that makes them an immigrant. But few H1B visa holders succeed in this process.
1) The Washington Post won't declare Trump the most wonderful man ever, and Bezos owns the Washington Post 2) Bexos is the rich man Trump wishes he actually was.
Trump's company doesn't own that much retail space. They're mostly in residential or mixed-use (Bottom floor retail, upper floors residential)
you're seem to be making an argument for employers being legally required to allow (both) parents some time flexibility and personal days
You seem to be constructing a strawman so you can incinerate it.
You'll note there is nothing in my post calling for any particular fix. Instead, it describes the reality that the parent poster is not familiar with: just because the kids are at school does not mean the parents are always free during school hours.
Also, that's a really stupid fix. I can see why you were trying to set it up as something to knock down.
Then maybe you were not ready or prepared for having a child?
Or maybe I'm part of a single-income household that can easily handle the situation, and I'm actually capable of empathizing with people in different situations?
Or just encourage part-time work for one or both parents. 30 hr a week can be more easily be made to coincide with time kids spend in school/pre-school/kindergarten.
You'd be surprised at the frequency at which the school assumes a parent can drop everything to do something for their child.
For example, today my daughter's kindergarten had an event for Mother's day at 10am. My son's pre-school scheduled us to take him to a farm all morning. There's plenty of similar events throughout the year. And then there's the many "your kid is a little sick, so you have to come pick them up right now".
Only the last one gets you in any sort of legal trouble, but your kid will notice if you skip any of the former. But since part-time jobs generally frown upon employees leaving at the drop of a hat or asking for time off, it's not really practical until the kid is significantly older.
It mostly comes from interacting with 50-somethings who never had children. They tend to be far more self-focused than 50-somethings who had kids. And by that age, the difference between the two groups grows rather large.
The primary reason is that we start having children later, in the last 30 years the average age of first motherhood has risen from 25 to 29 years old.
One thing that is commonly forgotten in this discussion is the time before "30 years ago". Before WWII, first motherhood over 30 was as common as it is today (US statistics here. I don't know about Norway but the "last 30 years" trends are similar)
The Baby Boom, where couples had their children fairly young, is the outlier. We're returning to trend.
Slashdot Mirror
If that were true, salaries would be rising significantly faster than inflation. And should have been rising since the end of the last recession (roughly 2012ish, when you account for the people who lost jobs in 2008 getting re-hired).
Salaries aren't doing that.
I was told by many people that organic molecules made from oil in a factory are different from the same molecules made by plants. No amount of explanation could convince them that that is not true.
That's because it is true. Because of chirality
TL:DR version: there are "left hand" and "right hand" versions of virtually every organic molecule. "Hand" refers to the orientation of the various groups of atoms in the molecule. When you make the molecule artificially, you get a 50/50 mix of left-hand and right-hand molecules. Lifeforms on Earth make 100% left-handed versions of molecules, with a few exceptions. In those exceptions, they make 100% right-handed.
So those molecules made in a factory are actually different than the same molecules made by plants.
In your defense, chirality doesn't affect the molecule's chemistry. And we have yet to scientifically demonstrate chirality affects how the molecule is processed by a living system (such as eaten and digested). There are claims that right-hand molecules can't be digested properly by humans and that makes things like HFCS bad (50% of the fructose is right-handed). But those aren't proven.
their expenses are still substantially higher than that
[Citation Required]
'Cause if 200M/year doesn't pay for 700 employees and some bandwith, they're doing something very wrong.
Maybe they should be validating in both places. That way you get responsiveness on the client and security on the server.
Find me someone who's worked his ass off getting licensed to practice their profession who's willing to put their livelihood, license, and professional liability insurance premiums on the line to save a couple bucks here and there.
Doctors and Lawyers exist. And they go through extremely lengthy and difficult licensing/education regimes. And they provide plenty of examples of people who did exactly what you claim they would not.
Client Side, can do a lot of work, tell you what is wrong, make sure lengths are correct get rid of bad characters...
The Server Side still needs to be the last line of defense
Your server needs to run the client-side validation too. A request may not have come from your client, or your client may have been compromised such that it does not run the validation.
First, validation is not exactly a large amount of server-side processing. Assuming your server is not a 386-SX
Second, you could do validation in both places. The local rejection would speed up the responsiveness to your users since there's no round-trip involved, and you'd also block various attacks that are sent to the server from something other than your client....especially since your server validation needs to cover things your client-side does not.
But that means keeping two sets of validation code in-sync. Which is harder than just doing it on the server.
In fact, it is losing money hand-over-fist and not likely to around much longer
Uh....$200M a year is just a little bit away from "losing money hand-over-fist".
It makes no difference that MS already has it's own service
Microsoft was already using GitHub.
I'm sure the other major cloud players will be either buying up the other small guys or rolling their own soon
Actually, the trend is for the major players like Google and MS to wind down their efforts and go with...GitHub. Wonder why MS bought them.......
Currently Amazon does have a "code repository" product, but it's primarily focused on housing your private repo. It's part of their push to have to do all your coding, building, issue tracking, testing, deploying and hosting on their servers. While you could make a public repo there, it isn't their main focus.
prevent too many rouge applications
I agree. There are already plenty of makeup-related applications out there.
That said, when ever you force people to play by the rules, chances for true innovation is loss. We all hit places where the Framework just isn't flexible enough in a particular area, so we need to go outside the box. So too much guidance from MS means we cannot create something new, because Microsoft didn't think of it.
This is where Microsoft has actually been making things easier, at least in the framework they're currently pushing. They make it pretty easy to get to the Windows C APIs and native execution from .NET so you can do anything .NET doesn't do itself. C# to C/C++ is much easier than Java or Python making native calls (to be fair to Java and Python, really being cross-platform does mean some clunkyness in your native interface)
I can purchase insurance that works for me, like a high-deductible catastrophic plan
Health insurance is not health care.
Why should we have one-size-fits-all healthcare
Because health insurance is not health care.
insurance is used when you have a larger expense, like automotive or home insurance - not for regular maintenance
Because "regular maintenance" on a 50+ human is commonly multiple thousands of dollars per year.
I cover everything up to $10K or so, and everything above that is covered 100%. Works for me
Congratulations on being young and/or healthy. However just like your car insurance subsidizes people who actually have accidents, your health insurance premium pays people who actually get sick.
And again, health insurance is not health care.
Health care is you get a pain in your chest and your doctor wants to run a large battery of tests at a particular hospital. To make that efficient, you'd have to decide if 1) your doctor is correct in his initial diagnosis, 2) those tests are actually necessary, and 3) must be run now, and 4) that hospital is the most efficient place to run those particular tests at this time.
You can't do 1, 2, 3 or 4 if you are not medical professional - you do not have the education to make reasonable assessments. You can only make guesses. If you make a guess and you're wrong, you die. So you're not going to say "nah, that's too expensive. I'll just wait for a sale at Doctor Nick's discount testing barn".
Which means it can not be an efficient market - for all practical purposes you can not say "no". Which then means adding more up-front expenses to patients can not control health care costs. And this has been demonstrated in study after study. Higher co-pays/co-insurance/deductibles do not reduce health care costs. Instead, people guess wrong and either pay more than necessary, or guess wrong and a cheap-to-treat condition becomes an expensive emergency. If 100 people guess right and 1 person guesses wrong, you've un-done the savings from the 100 correct guesses.
But let's pretend patients magically have all the knowledge they need. Would having them pay more up-front control costs? Still no. 80% of patients create 20% of costs. People age 2 to 50 are really cheap. They only get expensive in rare events. Shaving 5% off their expenses is a rounding error.
The other 20% of patients are really expensive because they are extremely sick and are going to be really expensive no matter how much you make them pay up-front.
And conflating health care with health insurance doesn't solve this problem.
And a side benefit is they employee will now be in direct control of the expenditure on their own healthcare, most likely resulting in reduced expenditures on healthcare
Unless you are a doctor, you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about what health care you actually need in order to make good decisions that reduce expenses. And this has been demonstrated in study after study.
A functional "free market" requires an efficient market, and the asymmetry of knowledge guarantees the health care market can not be efficient.
What's wrong with a one race matters movement?
The exclusion of other races.
Hrmm....I didn't see the word "only" in there. Why did you add it?
immigrants imported in the spirit of the H1-B
The H1B is a temporary visa with a 6-year time limit. They are not immigrants. They are "guest workers".
Yes, they can attempt to apply for a more permanent visa once they are here, but it is that more permanent visa that makes them an immigrant. But few H1B visa holders succeed in this process.
I've only had this when the top-of-the-queue disc was popular enough to be out when they were sending me a new disc. At which point I got #2.
For example, The Last Jedi was at the top of my queue, and 3 other discs got sent before it because of demand for it.
God forbid the man be right about something, even if it is motivated entirely by petty spite
This claim would require some evidence that he actually is right.
Amazon is too fucking big. It's dangerous.
And how does Amazon switching their shipping from USPS to UPS and FedEx make them smaller?
Two things:
1) The Washington Post won't declare Trump the most wonderful man ever, and Bezos owns the Washington Post
2) Bexos is the rich man Trump wishes he actually was.
Trump's company doesn't own that much retail space. They're mostly in residential or mixed-use (Bottom floor retail, upper floors residential)
he doesn't like how the WSJ reports on him
Washington Post. That's the paper Bezos owns.
The WSJ, owned by Fox, is fawning in their coverage of the Nacho.
figure out how much they are going to have to pay out over the next 50-70 years, and put away enough money to cover it
Funding the pensions of employees who have not been born yet is really, really stupid.
you're seem to be making an argument for employers being legally required to allow (both) parents some time flexibility and personal days
You seem to be constructing a strawman so you can incinerate it.
You'll note there is nothing in my post calling for any particular fix. Instead, it describes the reality that the parent poster is not familiar with: just because the kids are at school does not mean the parents are always free during school hours.
Also, that's a really stupid fix. I can see why you were trying to set it up as something to knock down.
Then maybe you were not ready or prepared for having a child?
Or maybe I'm part of a single-income household that can easily handle the situation, and I'm actually capable of empathizing with people in different situations?
Do you need me to link the definition of common law marriage?
Hint: It's not moving in with someone on a short-term basis.
Or just encourage part-time work for one or both parents. 30 hr a week can be more easily be made to coincide with time kids spend in school/pre-school/kindergarten.
You'd be surprised at the frequency at which the school assumes a parent can drop everything to do something for their child.
For example, today my daughter's kindergarten had an event for Mother's day at 10am. My son's pre-school scheduled us to take him to a farm all morning. There's plenty of similar events throughout the year. And then there's the many "your kid is a little sick, so you have to come pick them up right now".
Only the last one gets you in any sort of legal trouble, but your kid will notice if you skip any of the former. But since part-time jobs generally frown upon employees leaving at the drop of a hat or asking for time off, it's not really practical until the kid is significantly older.
It mostly comes from interacting with 50-somethings who never had children. They tend to be far more self-focused than 50-somethings who had kids. And by that age, the difference between the two groups grows rather large.
[Citation required]
The primary reason is that we start having children later, in the last 30 years the average age of first motherhood has risen from 25 to 29 years old.
One thing that is commonly forgotten in this discussion is the time before "30 years ago". Before WWII, first motherhood over 30 was as common as it is today (US statistics here. I don't know about Norway but the "last 30 years" trends are similar)
The Baby Boom, where couples had their children fairly young, is the outlier. We're returning to trend.