Yeah, tens of millions of people who where born and raised educated and have all their friends and family and jobs in more-expensive places should just uproot their entire lives and move thousands of miles away. That's a reasonable solution.
Also, all the poor in England should be deported to Russia if they can't afford English homes. That's about a comparable distance and population size between say California and the midwest.
If you OWN A HOME ALREADY you are not IN a cycle of poverty. Most people spend their entire lives trying (and largely failing) to achieve that kind of wealth and security.
The implementation details are a long discussion I don’t want have with you (in particular), but I aim for a world where people can make reasonably small monthly payments and deposits comparable to what it costs to rent now, but that money goes to actually owning something some day instead of down a bottomless pit depleting peoples ability to pay for a home they actually own.
As to your second paragraph, economic systems are all about allocating scarce resources. ao saying “except in circumstances where this resource is limited...” just goes to show how the system is broken. Of course in places where land is plentiful and cheap it’s not a problem: there’s plenty to go around there. It’s the really tight markets that are the test, and we’re failing miserably there.
Not that it affects your overall point, but to be pedantic, encyclopedias like Wikipedia are tertiary sources. WP policy prefers citations to secondary sources, and over-reliance on primary sources can veer into a kind of original research deemed "synthesis".
Also, as others have pointed out upthread, you can cite a specific version of a Wikipedia page to solve the change problem.
I expect this is a language difference between US and UK, but can you explain what that means? In my experience here in the US, the "campus" of a university (or for that matter of a large business or really any large institution) is just the grounds on which their buildings are located and their activities conducted. The only way I can conceive of a university without a campus would be if the university activities (classes, etc) were carried out in a distributed collection of random private offices all over the place or something, but I imagine that that is probably not what you mean?
That sounds like an interesting story, but it makes me wonder why out here on a densely populated part of the southern California coast, we also only have one insurance company available to us. (The one we had through last year just pulled out, and a new one moved in this year). It's certainly not because there aren't enough customers...
I don't see how. If you just looked up "Charismatic leaders" without knowing what to expect, you'd land on a page titled "Charismatic authority" which is all about charismatic leaders, and seems a perfectly reasonable thing to expect that title to lead to. If you already know that there used to be something else at the title "Charismatic leaders" and you want to know what happened to it, well then you need to know how to look up the history of an article in any case, and if you do know that, it's only two clicks away to find out that the old content just got moved to a different title.
As someone who has desperately scoured the central coast for affordable housing, I'm going to say you live in Lompoc, since that's the only remotely affordable place around. And yeah, it's the fucking sticks.
Oh, and there was an article List of charismatic leaders that got removed from the main article space and is now in the draft article space after being renamed and userified and such, so the original article title now shows up as "deleted" in main article space. But that all happened in 2010, and doesn't have any connection to Obama's election.
Shortly after Obama was elected the wiki article on Charismatic Leaders was deleted.
Funny, an article on pretty much just that, Charismatic authority, currently exists; an article at the exact title "Charismatic Leaders" (capitalized thus) has never existed, nor has its singular; an article titled "Charismatic leaders" (with that capitalization) now redirects to the preceding link after the article that used to be there got moved to Populist leaders of Latin America in the 20th century (which has since been merged into the article on Populism generally); and the article "Charismatic leader" (singular, capitalized thus) has only ever been a redirect to the first link above. So I'm going to call bullshit on this.
- The UK is also a representative democracy, but not a republic. - North Korea is a republic, but not a democracy (despite its name). - Saudi Arabia is neither a democracy nor a republic.
I think it's easiest to understand by analogy with a corporation: - A republic is a state where its people are the shareholders: everything the state does is on behalf of the people and in their name. - A democracy is a state where its people are the management: they decide somehow or another what it is that the state will do.
People from large well-known urban areas are always like this. They say "The City", and mean whatever their city is, like that's the only city in the world. New Yorkers do that. San Franciscans do that. I don't like Los Angelinos do that, at least.
Two twins orbit around each other and then meet. They are both older than each other.
Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand relativity.
Two twins are set into motion relative to each other, and then left to coast inertially like that. Time passes. Each twin thinks more time has passed for the other than for themselves since they were set into motion. Neither is objectively correct; a third observer could find the same amount of time to have passed for both, or any different ratio of time to have passed for either, depending on how that observer is moving.
But then the twins are set back into motion toward each other. Again, after being set into motion like that, they disagree about how much time is passing for each other, but then, so does every other observer, and about everything else in the universe too. Observers in different states of motion disagree about how much time is passing how quickly where.
The twins come back together and are brought to a stop relative to each other. They have definitive ages relative to each other that they both agree on, as does every other observer in the universe.
The trick is that when they're being set into motion apart, turned around and sent back together, and stopped at the end, time is also passing differently for each of them not just because of their different states of motion, which nobody can agree upon, but depending on whose motion is being changed how much, which is something that every observer can agree upon even if they can't agree on the absolute measure of that motion. (That is, while observers may disagree about which twin is stationary and which is moving, they will all agree that one twin is moving more [or less] now than it was before).
If one twin stayed in the same state of motion the whole time, while the other got sped away, turned around, and then stopped when he got back, then the one who stayed behind is older, and everybody agrees.
In your scenario, it sounds like they both underwent the same acceleration, just mirrored from each other, so both would be the same age when they came back together, and both would agree on that, as would every other observer in the universe.
Other observers moving differently than the twins would disagree on what age they are, but they'd all agree that they're the same age as each other, whatever that age is.
I'm not sure that training for that purpose is necessarily the cause behind such things. I've had a weird kind of reflex-response since I was a child: if I accidentally drop or bang something, I say "ow" before I can even think about it, even if it didn't hurt me at all (e.g. dropped something that didn't land on my toes, banged something I was carrying into some other inanimate thing, etc). It feels very similar to the "excuse me" reflex you describe.
No, software needs to not rely on installers / uninstallers. I'm automatically suspicious of any bit of software that comes with an installer (on a Mac OS system), because most software doesn't need it: you copy the app to your applications folder (or, for that matter, anywhere you want) and that's it. That's all normal user applications should need. Anything that wants to "install" itself makes me wonder what kind of wonky shit it's doing to my system besides just putting an app into the applications folder.
I think we agree that if there is an empty lane to the right of someone, they should already be over there. For instance, if it is possible to pass someone (safely) on the right, it should not be necessary; if there's space to pass them (safely) on the right, then there's space for them to already be over to the right, and they should already be.
But, though maybe you don't encounter this in driving where you live, there are often (in places where I've lived) circumstances where merging right to let someone behind me go faster would mean having to pull into too small a space, slow down so as not to close the space in front of me, requiring the car behind me to slow down to reopen a safe space in front of them, sending a compression wave back through all of traffic; only for me to then have to speed back up again, and merge back over again, because now I'm stuck in traffic going slower than I was before. That slows me down, slows the rest of traffic down, wastes fuel stopping and accelerating, and opens more incidents for potential accidents (every tight lane change like that comes with risks). And then you want me to do that every single time any car comes up behind me going faster than me? To dangerously weave back and forth through traffic making it worse for everyone else, just to let some other people go even faster? No. If I'm in the left lane and the next-to-left lane is full of traffic going slower than me, then I am passing them and have a right to be there, and the fact that you would also like to pass me but can't is irrelevant. Sometimes there is just traffic. Deal with it, and don't insist that others make the traffic worse just so that you don't have to deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I'm not just going to accept a right-wing think tank's definition of poverty, thanks.
Yeah, tens of millions of people who where born and raised educated and have all their friends and family and jobs in more-expensive places should just uproot their entire lives and move thousands of miles away. That's a reasonable solution.
Also, all the poor in England should be deported to Russia if they can't afford English homes. That's about a comparable distance and population size between say California and the midwest.
If you OWN A HOME ALREADY you are not IN a cycle of poverty. Most people spend their entire lives trying (and largely failing) to achieve that kind of wealth and security.
The implementation details are a long discussion I don’t want have with you (in particular), but I aim for a world where people can make reasonably small monthly payments and deposits comparable to what it costs to rent now, but that money goes to actually owning something some day instead of down a bottomless pit depleting peoples ability to pay for a home they actually own.
As to your second paragraph, economic systems are all about allocating scarce resources. ao saying “except in circumstances where this resource is limited...” just goes to show how the system is broken. Of course in places where land is plentiful and cheap it’s not a problem: there’s plenty to go around there. It’s the really tight markets that are the test, and we’re failing miserably there.
The exact same thing is true of rent in general. Which isn't an argument for AirBnB, it's an argument against rent in general.
If you own property to rent out, you are not poor.
Not that it affects your overall point, but to be pedantic, encyclopedias like Wikipedia are tertiary sources. WP policy prefers citations to secondary sources, and over-reliance on primary sources can veer into a kind of original research deemed "synthesis".
Also, as others have pointed out upthread, you can cite a specific version of a Wikipedia page to solve the change problem.
Thank you, that explanation was quite informative!
Oxford is not a campus university
I expect this is a language difference between US and UK, but can you explain what that means? In my experience here in the US, the "campus" of a university (or for that matter of a large business or really any large institution) is just the grounds on which their buildings are located and their activities conducted. The only way I can conceive of a university without a campus would be if the university activities (classes, etc) were carried out in a distributed collection of random private offices all over the place or something, but I imagine that that is probably not what you mean?
Europe is being overrun by all-female blue mutants?
Do they look like Jennifer Lawrence?
Heinlein was not conservative.
That sounds like an interesting story, but it makes me wonder why out here on a densely populated part of the southern California coast, we also only have one insurance company available to us. (The one we had through last year just pulled out, and a new one moved in this year). It's certainly not because there aren't enough customers...
Wait what? Is there some connection between Elon Musk's name and an old story by von BrauN?
I don't see how. If you just looked up "Charismatic leaders" without knowing what to expect, you'd land on a page titled "Charismatic authority" which is all about charismatic leaders, and seems a perfectly reasonable thing to expect that title to lead to. If you already know that there used to be something else at the title "Charismatic leaders" and you want to know what happened to it, well then you need to know how to look up the history of an article in any case, and if you do know that, it's only two clicks away to find out that the old content just got moved to a different title.
You misspelled "athiest".
What distinction are you drawing between AI and automation? AI is what's driving the next wave of automation.
As someone who has desperately scoured the central coast for affordable housing, I'm going to say you live in Lompoc, since that's the only remotely affordable place around. And yeah, it's the fucking sticks.
Oh, and there was an article List of charismatic leaders that got removed from the main article space and is now in the draft article space after being renamed and userified and such, so the original article title now shows up as "deleted" in main article space. But that all happened in 2010, and doesn't have any connection to Obama's election.
Shortly after Obama was elected the wiki article on Charismatic Leaders was deleted.
Funny, an article on pretty much just that, Charismatic authority, currently exists; an article at the exact title "Charismatic Leaders" (capitalized thus) has never existed, nor has its singular; an article titled "Charismatic leaders" (with that capitalization) now redirects to the preceding link after the article that used to be there got moved to Populist leaders of Latin America in the 20th century (which has since been merged into the article on Populism generally); and the article "Charismatic leader" (singular, capitalized thus) has only ever been a redirect to the first link above. So I'm going to call bullshit on this.
Thank you, and to elaborate with more examples:
- The UK is also a representative democracy, but not a republic.
- North Korea is a republic, but not a democracy (despite its name).
- Saudi Arabia is neither a democracy nor a republic.
I think it's easiest to understand by analogy with a corporation:
- A republic is a state where its people are the shareholders: everything the state does is on behalf of the people and in their name.
- A democracy is a state where its people are the management: they decide somehow or another what it is that the state will do.
People from large well-known urban areas are always like this. They say "The City", and mean whatever their city is, like that's the only city in the world. New Yorkers do that. San Franciscans do that. I don't like Los Angelinos do that, at least.
Two twins orbit around each other and then meet. They are both older than each other.
Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand relativity.
Two twins are set into motion relative to each other, and then left to coast inertially like that. Time passes. Each twin thinks more time has passed for the other than for themselves since they were set into motion. Neither is objectively correct; a third observer could find the same amount of time to have passed for both, or any different ratio of time to have passed for either, depending on how that observer is moving.
But then the twins are set back into motion toward each other. Again, after being set into motion like that, they disagree about how much time is passing for each other, but then, so does every other observer, and about everything else in the universe too. Observers in different states of motion disagree about how much time is passing how quickly where.
The twins come back together and are brought to a stop relative to each other. They have definitive ages relative to each other that they both agree on, as does every other observer in the universe.
The trick is that when they're being set into motion apart, turned around and sent back together, and stopped at the end, time is also passing differently for each of them not just because of their different states of motion, which nobody can agree upon, but depending on whose motion is being changed how much, which is something that every observer can agree upon even if they can't agree on the absolute measure of that motion. (That is, while observers may disagree about which twin is stationary and which is moving, they will all agree that one twin is moving more [or less] now than it was before).
If one twin stayed in the same state of motion the whole time, while the other got sped away, turned around, and then stopped when he got back, then the one who stayed behind is older, and everybody agrees.
In your scenario, it sounds like they both underwent the same acceleration, just mirrored from each other, so both would be the same age when they came back together, and both would agree on that, as would every other observer in the universe.
Other observers moving differently than the twins would disagree on what age they are, but they'd all agree that they're the same age as each other, whatever that age is.
I'm not sure that training for that purpose is necessarily the cause behind such things. I've had a weird kind of reflex-response since I was a child: if I accidentally drop or bang something, I say "ow" before I can even think about it, even if it didn't hurt me at all (e.g. dropped something that didn't land on my toes, banged something I was carrying into some other inanimate thing, etc). It feels very similar to the "excuse me" reflex you describe.
No, software needs to not rely on installers / uninstallers. I'm automatically suspicious of any bit of software that comes with an installer (on a Mac OS system), because most software doesn't need it: you copy the app to your applications folder (or, for that matter, anywhere you want) and that's it. That's all normal user applications should need. Anything that wants to "install" itself makes me wonder what kind of wonky shit it's doing to my system besides just putting an app into the applications folder.
I think we agree that if there is an empty lane to the right of someone, they should already be over there. For instance, if it is possible to pass someone (safely) on the right, it should not be necessary; if there's space to pass them (safely) on the right, then there's space for them to already be over to the right, and they should already be.
But, though maybe you don't encounter this in driving where you live, there are often (in places where I've lived) circumstances where merging right to let someone behind me go faster would mean having to pull into too small a space, slow down so as not to close the space in front of me, requiring the car behind me to slow down to reopen a safe space in front of them, sending a compression wave back through all of traffic; only for me to then have to speed back up again, and merge back over again, because now I'm stuck in traffic going slower than I was before. That slows me down, slows the rest of traffic down, wastes fuel stopping and accelerating, and opens more incidents for potential accidents (every tight lane change like that comes with risks). And then you want me to do that every single time any car comes up behind me going faster than me? To dangerously weave back and forth through traffic making it worse for everyone else, just to let some other people go even faster? No. If I'm in the left lane and the next-to-left lane is full of traffic going slower than me, then I am passing them and have a right to be there, and the fact that you would also like to pass me but can't is irrelevant. Sometimes there is just traffic. Deal with it, and don't insist that others make the traffic worse just so that you don't have to deal with it.