Sometimes I talk socially with local "entrepreneurs" building various (mostly useless) applications with 100% outsourced dirt cheap labor. Often they will often tell me about some problem they're having with the software or the "coders", expecting a sympathetic ear or useful advice.
I literally laugh out loud at them. "Hahahaha - pay peanuts, get monkeys!"
The lower the inflation-adjusted pay goes in our industry, the more skilled and knowledgeable people who are going to sit back and just laugh while everything breaks.
My company has no QA testers, no spec to test against, no leadership motivation to get either of those things, and no financial resources to spend on them even if there was desire. We do have some unit tests but they are not a priority. As you might imagine, the quality of the end product is less than stellar.
Yet despite some serious usability issues tons of people use the system. That's considered validation of the business model.:)
What greater symbol of the courts' brutal power-drunk overreach than the habit of sentencing the condemned to multiple life sentences. It recalls the image of a deranged killer, shooting his victim's lifeless body over and over again, all the while maniacally cackling.
Everyone knows the Pentagon is not going to get gutted to pay for National Healthcare. Everyone knows that you can't pay for National Healthcare with the current budget.
The policy question is, do we want socialized medical care for everyone, paid for through taxation? Or do we prefer to continue the current system of very expensive, low quality healthcare that
excludes part of the population?
It's not an academic debate about socialism vs free market. Our current medical system has the dubious distinction of being both unfathomably expensive and quite shitty. It's unlikely that even the most spectacularly mismanaged National Healthcare program would be worse.
Many other large, civilized countries are able to provide healthcare for their entire populations. America can too.
It's probably better to find a different term than "tort reform". Reform is a nebulous concept. "Cap on punitive damages in malpractice suits" would probably have pretty high popularity. However it's a mouthful. Maybe in the spirit of brexit we can call it "punicap".
Not saying I agree it's a good policy. I haven't thought about it enough. But I think phrased that way it would be a lot more palatable to most people than "tort reform".
On one side you have notoriously partisan and incompetent mandarins who will surely use their control over the internet to silence dissent. On the other hand you have notoriously partisan and exploitative plutocrats who will surely use their control over the internet to silence dissent.
But... Isn't it pretty much standard for governments to try to socially destabilize their geopolitical rivals? Are there governments that *don't* do that?
I'm shocked - shocked I say! - that an organization devoted to the euthanasia of homeless animals showed something less than charitable Christian kindness to homeless people.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you know the majority of WhatsApp users use WhatsApp?
Oh the wit and insight!
Sometimes I talk socially with local "entrepreneurs" building various (mostly useless) applications with 100% outsourced dirt cheap labor. Often they will often tell me about some problem they're having with the software or the "coders", expecting a sympathetic ear or useful advice.
I literally laugh out loud at them. "Hahahaha - pay peanuts, get monkeys!"
The lower the inflation-adjusted pay goes in our industry, the more skilled and knowledgeable people who are going to sit back and just laugh while everything breaks.
My company has no QA testers, no spec to test against, no leadership motivation to get either of those things, and no financial resources to spend on them even if there was desire. We do have some unit tests but they are not a priority. As you might imagine, the quality of the end product is less than stellar.
Yet despite some serious usability issues tons of people use the system. That's considered validation of the business model. :)
Yup. Both of the Google "bugs" sure do look a lot like features. User-hostile features, sure, but planned intentional features all the same.
Google is always watching. (And listening, too, it seems.)
Stop Google now before it's too late.
You sound like an agnostic. All the dedicated atheists I've known - I used to be in their club - believed with great certainty that there is no God.
That's some hardcore "number of angels who can dance on a pinhead" stuff right there.
"Googlers" is deprecated. The new official term for Google employees is "Googledouches".
At this point I think we all recognize that one can't really trust anything Google says.
Far more interesting than what's on the list, would be to know what Google censored from it.
All terrorists breathe air. All criminals breathe air. All lawyers breathe air. Therefore we need to BAN AIR NOW!!!!!!1!!1!!
Fake progressives sure do hate freedom.
So basically they just ignore that part of the Constitution. Awesome.
What greater symbol of the courts' brutal power-drunk overreach than the habit of sentencing the condemned to multiple life sentences. It recalls the image of a deranged killer, shooting his victim's lifeless body over and over again, all the while maniacally cackling.
In Soviet America, everyone has the right to a speedy trial.
Everyone knows the Pentagon is not going to get gutted to pay for National Healthcare. Everyone knows that you can't pay for National Healthcare with the current budget.
The policy question is, do we want socialized medical care for everyone, paid for through taxation? Or do we prefer to continue the current system of very expensive, low quality healthcare that
excludes part of the population?
It's not an academic debate about socialism vs free market. Our current medical system has the dubious distinction of being both unfathomably expensive and quite shitty. It's unlikely that even the most spectacularly mismanaged National Healthcare program would be worse.
Many other large, civilized countries are able to provide healthcare for their entire populations. America can too.
It's probably better to find a different term than "tort reform". Reform is a nebulous concept. "Cap on punitive damages in malpractice suits" would probably have pretty high popularity. However it's a mouthful. Maybe in the spirit of brexit we can call it "punicap".
Not saying I agree it's a good policy. I haven't thought about it enough. But I think phrased that way it would be a lot more palatable to most people than "tort reform".
To be really valuable it needs to *exceed* Visa's transaction rate capacity. The population gets bigger every single day.
Increase in money supply != price inflation.
Clinton outspent Trump 2 to 1. She *deserves* to be President! What about her donors - don't they deserve a good return on their bribes?
On one side you have notoriously partisan and incompetent mandarins who will surely use their control over the internet to silence dissent. On the other hand you have notoriously partisan and exploitative plutocrats who will surely use their control over the internet to silence dissent.
Vladimir Putin dropped his trousers and took a shit on my front lawn! There are witnesses!
I haven't (yet!) read that book.
But... Isn't it pretty much standard for governments to try to socially destabilize their geopolitical rivals? Are there governments that *don't* do that?
I'm shocked - shocked I say! - that an organization devoted to the euthanasia of homeless animals showed something less than charitable Christian kindness to homeless people.
Candidate for public office
Yay for state sponsored anal rape! Yay for coerced false confession! Three cheers for the American Gulag!