The professors saw an epidemic of bad grammar, and said, "Wow, this is getting bad. What gives?"
Then, someone called Mr. Jamenson "Bill," and he went, "OH HOLY SHIT NO, WE CANNOT HAVE STUDENTS CALLING TEACHERS BY THEIR FIRST NAME!!!"
The slang and other familiarity is tacked on as more justification and a larger example of overly-familiar fraternization. The key issue here is a violation of old-style etiquette, which, from the perspective of the complaining professors, is mainly about not engaging them in the way a 1920s dock yard worker would engage their boss--with the proper honorifics and deferential language.
They described bad grammar and SMS slang as "rapport building" and complained about being called by first name. There's a constant return to this ideal of professional relationships and a style of social etiquette.
Here are the parts about professional versus casual interactions:
college students have become far more casual in their interactions with faculty members. My colleagues around the country grumble about students' sloppy emails and blithe informality. "When students started calling me by my first name, I felt that was too far, and I've got to say something," Mark Tomforde, a math professor at the University of Houston said. Sociologists who surveyed undergraduate syllabuses from 2004 and 2010 found that in 2004, 14 percent addressed issues related to classroom etiquette; six years later, that number had more than doubled, to 33 percent. This phenomenon crosses socio-economic lines. My colleagues at Stanford gripe as much as the ones who teach at state schools, and students from more privileged backgrounds are often the worst offenders. [...] Insisting on traditional etiquette is also simply good pedagogy. It's a teacher's job to correct sloppy prose, whether in an essay or an email. And I suspect that most of the time, students who call faculty members by their first names and send slangy messages are not seeking a more casual rapport. They just don't know they should do otherwise -- no one has bothered to explain it to them. Explaining the rules of professional interaction is not an act of condescension; it's the first step in treating students like adults.
Here are the parts about bad grammar and prose:
college students have become far more casual in their interactions with faculty members. My colleagues around the country grumble about students' sloppy emails and blithe informality. "When students started calling me by my first name, I felt that was too far, and I've got to say something," Mark Tomforde, a math professor at the University of Houston said. Sociologists who surveyed undergraduate syllabuses from 2004 and 2010 found that in 2004, 14 percent addressed issues related to classroom etiquette; six years later, that number had more than doubled, to 33 percent. This phenomenon crosses socio-economic lines. My colleagues at Stanford gripe as much as the ones who teach at state schools, and students from more privileged backgrounds are often the worst offenders. [...] Insisting on traditional etiquette is also simply good pedagogy. It's a teacher's job to correct sloppy prose, whether in an essay or an email. And I suspect that most of the time, students who call faculty members by their first names and send slangy messages are not seeking a more casual rapport. They just don't know they should do otherwise -- no one has bothered to explain it to them. Explaining the rules of professional interaction is not an act of condescension; it's the first step in treating students like adults.
Shrug. The teachers worried about that for a while, but didn't really think it was a big enough deal until it came to being called by their first name.
You're not reading the context. You're applying your own emotional context, where you want to mock people for their bad grammar and shitty typing habits. What's happened here is the actual professors found that bad grammar to be an epidemic of bad grammar; then, somebody committed an offense by calling them by their familiar first name, which is roughly-equivalent in medieval etiquette systems to palming the teacher's wife.
Read it using the mind of the people raising the issue, not your own mind.
People in K-Mart don't call their boss Mr. anything; they call their boss Dan or Cathy or whatever their first name is. People at IBM call their boss Brian or James. People at T-Rowe Price call their boss James.
50 years ago, it was Mr. Chevrolet. Today it's Jim (Jim Chevrolet of Chevrolet Motors--yes, that Chevrolet); and even 50 years ago, people who worked directly with Mr. Chevrolet generally just called him Jim, which was odd for the time.
You went to school and learned to call your teachers by their superior honorific so you could call your boss by their superior honorific. Nobody does that; it's stupid. You go to college and you're an adult, being instructed by adults, in a setting filled with adults; you may as well address each other like adults.
They're using modern speech patterns and etiquette. They're talking casually, which means using slang and first names. The mode of slang in text is ugly grammar, and that's not the thrust of it.
"When students started calling me by my first name, I felt that was too far, and I've got to say something,"
They're upset because it's not old-style etiquette.
I don't recall ever working for an employer where I called my superior Mr. anything. Go back 100 years and you called your boss Mr. Foreman and his secretary Ms. Goodbody. Today you just call your manager by his first name, hold informal elevator meetings, and otherwise chatter about in the office.
That's the whole point. High school teachers and college professors are preparing you for the proper etiquette of formal, manicured communication with your superiors; that shit doesn't exist anymore. You call your teachers by an honorific because you call your boss by an honorific, except nobody does that anymore.
That's what this is:
They just don't know they should do otherwise -- no one has bothered to explain it to them. Explaining the rules of professional interaction is not an act of condescension; it's the first step in treating students like adults.
Nobody's explained to you that you talk up to your superiors with honorifics and formalized speech. Nobody's explained this because it's a history lesson. This is also why we didn't teach you how to make tithes to your Earldom.
I could ask why the radiology machine isn't on a trust segment with a trust relationship to another trust segment which holds things like the backing database, services, etc., and only exposes specific, necessary ports between the two networks; but of course I know it's because that requires planning and engineering nobody wants to put out.
Instead I can just ask why hospitals and broadcasters don't have the power to lean on their vendors for up-to-date systems. Porting this stuff to the new OS releases isn't hard. Running the systems on BSD or Linux isn't hard. We're talking about firms which already engineered and developed integrated hardware and software solutions; they created the completed solution and should be able to provide a fractional but significant effort to move them up along underlying software systems until they're fully EOL.
Maybe we need separate concerns. Maybe we need a hardware system that exports an industry-standard data stream, and a software system that interprets said data stream.
I remember running Linux on 400MB of RAM. I remember upgrading from 16GB because it was straining. Then, I enabled ZRAM.
Windows 10 has a memory compression system better than ZRAM now. Linux has either Zswap (compressed swap cache, requiring a backing device) or ZRAM (compressed RAM, doesn't act as a first-level cache, so won't move more-stale data to disk and less-stale data to RAM). Windows 10 has in-memory compression; if memory pressure is too high, it swaps compressed pages to disk. The difference is Windows 10 is Zswap-like if you have on-disk swap, ZRAM-like if you don't have on-disk swap, and agnostic to which configuration you're using; Linux requires you to select a strategy and configure the relevant bits.
Even server OSes on Linux need like 2GB of RAM and at least 2GB of disk; and you're going to run out of disk with all the bullshit they do day-to-day stuffing extra kernels and packages in there if you don't ritualistically clean up. Gone are the days of 256MB RAM and 800MB disk installations for a desktop OS.
We've had some pretty severe remote hacks on Linux, BSD, and MacOSX, too; just nobody took over 97% of the Internet with them.
What about an economic obligation? Someone has to do the work; that implies time, which implies wage; wage implies cost; cost implies revenue streams; and revenue streams imply consumers actually spending money. It's easy to just dismiss Microsoft with a multi-billion-dollar net profit and push the conversation down the line to every other product that gets nickels, dimes, and dollars added to the end, until 5% or 10% of our money is going to things that don't matter.
The real question is why haven't we moved on? I hear about legacy systems running XP on medical devices and broadcast hardware and have to wonder why hospitals and broadcasters don't have the sheer clout to squeeze out the much-smaller-effort of moving onto newer base systems.
Doesn't matter. Can you go forward with a treatment if you're uncertain if the treatment is safe, if the patient is in dire need, and so forth? The patient needs anesthesia; are they going to die like Monty Oum if you use one anesthetic rather than another?
The Common Intermediate Language is an ISA. For certain common operations, CIL is faster than C++; for others, it's been variable across runtime versions. Linked list and array iterations are one area that gets batted back and forth, with various implementations shown faster in C++ or in C#. Some problems are just faster to solve in C# than C++ because the runtime profiling in the CLR constantly adjusts the expected likely branch in a loop or whatnot, and so it keeps tweaking itself to run as fast as possible at the current moment while running through large data sets.
LLVM will take x86 or ARM code, convert it into an internal static single assignment tree, and run compiler optimizations. It'll then spit out x86-64 code, ARM code, m68k code, or whatnot. It's not like you can't do this stuff with real-world ISAs instead of specially-designed software ISAs.
In a depressed market, the seller can argue they paid some amount for the house some years ago. You then have the nebulous argument that the market is down some, so they give you -$20k instead of -$150k. The seller really doesn't want to take 1/3 depreciation on their asset, and can point to their purchase price as a standard; with a depressed market, you can point to a market trend and a published standard of similar properties as justification of the huge depreciation.
A buyer willing to pay will be less-willing to pay if they believe a deal is unfair. A seller willing to accept a price will be less-willing if they believe a deal is unfair. It's not just an argument you can't win; it's a modification of your emotional state altering the price point at which you feel bad about trying to rob someone.
Every seller of everything is always trying to get the highest price; every buyer of everything is always trying to get the lowest price; and the prices they end up agreeing on are based on the next-best alternatives (that they know about).
In production, the lowest price that can sustain a product's existence is the cost. That's wages and cost of risk; a supply chain piles up some wages for extra overhead and risks that wouldn't exist in a vertical monopoly, and also nudges the price up by intermediate profits, although those profit margins get slim as hell in the supply chain (e.g. GM has orders for millions of tons of steel per year; they get a much, much slimmer margin that someone buying thousands of tonnes of steel could ever hope for, and the steelmaker has negotiations with the coal supplier for similarly-slim margins, because you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars of profits every year even at those razor-thin margins).
To be clear about this: if you can't get a price above cost, you can't pay the workers, and the business making the product evaporates. This is why, for example, there aren't businesses making solid gold phones for the broad consumer market: mining gold actually costs more than most people can afford for the amount of gold that goes into phones--never mind the commodity price of gold being pushed up above the minimum viable price--so that product can't (currently) exist.
A business going out of business that still has stock on hand will sell it below cost if need be
After which point, you can't buy from that business. If an entire supply of a thing can't sell above cost, then it can't be produced.
You even acknowledged this:
If a seller can't routinely sell things for more than it takes to make (or otherwise acquire) them then they're just not going to bother doing it.
It's less a matter of "not going to bother" than "actually can't do this for very long, because they can't afford to pay the workers". The end result is still that they're just not going to make and sell it.
My problem with the ideal of an "efficient market" is that things don't have intrinsic value. Things have cost. Economists spent a long time trying to describe a theory of value because people apply valuation: a certain individual has a belief of what the value of a certain thing is. Because every person can identify that they're willing to pay some amount for something but not willing to pay some greater amount, they develop a belief that a thing is somehow inherently worth something, and thus that it must have value. This was a long-standing misidentification of an individual opinion toward something as a property of that thing itself.
That means, yes, things aren't worth what they cost to make; if you could buy a brand-new Chevy Volt for $20, you would, and it would be better than the $35,000 it costs now. A Chevy Volt doesn't have $35,000 of value. It has utility, and can be used to achieve some other goals, and may provide you the means to achieve things which result in cash-accountable figures; and all of those cash-accountable figures also come down to costs of things you want to achieve. In the end, it costs somewhere below $35,000 to make, and can't be supplied continuously at much below $35,000 until we reduce the costs. The consumers who buy it believe it's worth $35,000, while other consumers who could successfully purchase one will judge it worth less than $35,000 and so won't buy it.
Things are perceived by an individual as worth some price. Valuation.
Yes, I know we have lengthy, complicated, and very pretty ECON101 boilerplate to explain all of the market dynamics. We have a lot of rough ideals you get in school about things. Even an economics degree will teach you a bunch of rough outlines of the way economics works, and give you conceptual models and abstractions that generally help you understand the world of eco
I find it amusing that this comes to 235sqft per person, and I've taken flack for designing apartment microunits at 224sqft per single individual as part of a universal social security plan. People stopped arguing that it wasn't affordable and started arguing that I'm trying to shove people into prison cells or something (never mind that they're allowed to go anywhere outside)--to which I'd typically respond with something about cardboard boxes, bad weather, and food from dumpsters.
People don't seem to care about making the lives of others better; they just want to win a moral victory so they feel good.
The Zestimate is a 2-dimensional value. They're trying to display the market valuation of the house over time, not their valuation of the house at different points in time. A graph of the actual Zestimate history would be a one-dimensional value tracked in a two-dimensional graph.
Oh come now. It's a used car. The most-efficient mode of operation would be for it to sell based on its usable lifetime adjusted for maintenance costs relative to its passed lifetime. The rest is just imaginary valuation.
New goods sell based on their cost. Cost is wages. If you cut labor-hours required to make things by 50%, they cost half as much; add the same profit margins on top at every level of supply and you get... half the price. People are working the same hours, so they still have the same money; some people aren't working (in the long run, some people aren't working at those particular jobs), so the consumers essentially don't have to pay them anymore.
Houses and used cars sell based on what everyone else can sell for. Nobody actually works out a baseline of marginal utility; someone wants to get rid of the thing they have, someone else wants to buy a thing, and they try to economize. The seller wants to get the most, the buyer wants to get the least. The difference is the seller may actually take a loss on a house (i.e. it may have $350k of marginal utility left but sell for $250k), while a producer absolutely must sell above the actual cost.
Efficiency happens when you learn to produce cheaper.
Congressmen are basically stupid, scared children. They've got a surprising amount of shit to sift through, no bandwidth, and sheer impulse to run on; and they have to weigh in as experts on every issue, regardless of timeline or personal understanding. When national security, Internet crimes, or child pornography come up, they can't even understand what's possible and what's just nutty; they see the maximum threat, and they respond by screaming and flailing.
One day, I want to get myself voted into the House largely so I can respond to any topic that's not central to my interests with blunt detachment and input that's given on the stated condition that my understanding of the topic is limited and my interest is largely in bothering people with questions nobody's thought to ask. For most of it, I can cite firm attention to economics and risk as a primary reason to not take action for trivial things that might be real and scary, but also unlikely to happen with any frequency or to any great severity.
This isn't about facts or numbers. You are living out what you think is the optimum low-cost of lifestyle
You still haven't disclosed the total cost of your house. You claimed your house is cheaper than mine, and is in a nice, west-coast suburb. Bring the facts and numbers.
home prices and USDA food desert data
The hills of Montana or Pennsylvania, with a 10-hour walk to the grocery store and no way to drive there because you've got all of maybe $50/month of unspent cash without car insurance, gasoline, or a car payment, would count as a food desert. You suggested this is a place we could put poor people, and specifically claim that urban areas are a stupid place to put them.
Why is it stupid to put people who have no means of transport in a place where food is far, far away?
I could spend days citing cost-of-living index, home prices and USDA food desert data and it wouldn't make a difference
Yet you haven't.
How about you get rid of your car, cancel your insurance, and restrict yourself to $300 for rent, $30 for utilities, and $180 for food, personal care, and clothing? Can you still survive your middle-class suburb? Would you have been able to make your down payment on your house?
Cars are expensive. Seriously expensive. Fewer than 40% of households in my area own cars. They simply can't afford it. If you haven't factored out personal transportation, you're not living in reality. Public transit is expensive as hell, too, and small, poor suburbs generally have little of it, if any; I've never seen a public transit service anywhere with a long rural drive to the shopping center. Still, you seem to think 20 hours of wakefulness spent walking in one day is just people not being lazy, since they have "copious free time" and an epic journey cross-country on foot to fetch just enough food for a man to carry on his back should be fine--even if that journey takes more waking hours than most sleep-deprived Americans experience on a typical day.
You need to figure out how to answer a simple question in fewer than 2000 words.
You need to learn what's not a simple question.
Your answer (as best I can tell): They get $7K. But they received the USS for their entire life
That's not even quite correct in its cross-section.
That $7k grows faster than inflation. It was mathematically designed to do that. That adds a large number of considerations to long-term projections.
Even then, you ignore current retirees, who have to continue receiving the promised benefit until its natural end. Likewise, some subset of upcoming retirees must receive the promised benefit; further extension beyond that is more of a nice-to-have. That doesn't bump up the income tax cost; it slows the elimination of a payroll tax--the elimination of which more-quickly reduces costs, thus increasing the buying power of the benefit (i.e. dropping OASDI from payroll means that $7k is still $7k, but things now cost $6.6k), leading to more purchasing and a requirement for more jobs to fill the demand.
That's more than half a dozen primary and secondary considerations right there; and those aren't all the things you need to address with "what happens to social security retirement benefits?"
How do you build a stable nuclear power plant? Answer in at most 2 sentences, without assuming prior knowledge of modern designs.
Your answer (as best I can tell): Unicorns
That's because you're looking for the part of the government that's unnecessarily eating cash. The entire system of welfare involves the entire economic system. Things like low-income housing carry enormous costs of risk, which puts limits on just how low you can go; reduce those risks and you can make reliable profits at smaller scales.
Likewise, Social Security isn't inefficient; the Social Security administration and the system by which OASDI functions are some of the best-designed, most-efficient programs in human history. It's also immediate-term flow-through system targeting a subset population, and it does so by reducing that population's income until they reach retirement age, after which it redistributes everyone else's income in an unlevel manner. (no, Social Security isn't a savings account you put money into; your money pays current retirees, by design).
Do you really think that directly compares to a flow-through system that pays out to the same group of people who are paying in, with a level payout? That's not a matter of "more efficient than Social Security"; it's a matter of solving different (or expanded set of) problems. Again: Social Security was created to avoid old people losing their savings in a banking system collapse; Universal Social Security is designed to ensure lifelong stability. They're both actually the same system doing different things.
It's like using an engine to power a flying car to carry goods back and forth, and then someone says they can use that same engine and the same gas to move 10 times as much stuff by just pushing the car along the road. You're like, "Where did you make the engine more-efficient?" I didn't; constantly fighting gravity is a stupid way to transport goods when there's a road right there in front of you. Operate the same transit system, but on the ground.
It's obviously an idiot. You can tell by the premise.
Welfare programs are expensive. An undeveloped economy can't afford welfare programs; a highly-developed economy can implement more-effective welfare for lower costs than scaled-beyond-sustainable older welfare programs.
Feudalism, baronies, and serfdom allowed countries to flourish for hundreds of years. Poor houses--prisons amounting to forced labor camps for the poor, reducing the cost of feeding them by using them as cheap labor--worked for decades after the industrial revolution. Modern welfare systems are threatened by newer systems like an expanded social security.
The Internet has grown in scope. The things that worked in the past won't continue to work when the Internet is a different thing, just like governments don't continue to function when economies are different things.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem when using SMS/Twitter slang
Is irrelevant.
The professors saw an epidemic of bad grammar, and said, "Wow, this is getting bad. What gives?"
Then, someone called Mr. Jamenson "Bill," and he went, "OH HOLY SHIT NO, WE CANNOT HAVE STUDENTS CALLING TEACHERS BY THEIR FIRST NAME!!!"
The slang and other familiarity is tacked on as more justification and a larger example of overly-familiar fraternization. The key issue here is a violation of old-style etiquette, which, from the perspective of the complaining professors, is mainly about not engaging them in the way a 1920s dock yard worker would engage their boss--with the proper honorifics and deferential language.
They described bad grammar and SMS slang as "rapport building" and complained about being called by first name. There's a constant return to this ideal of professional relationships and a style of social etiquette.
Here are the parts about professional versus casual interactions:
college students have become far more casual in their interactions with faculty members. My colleagues around the country grumble about students' sloppy emails and blithe informality. "When students started calling me by my first name, I felt that was too far, and I've got to say something," Mark Tomforde, a math professor at the University of Houston said. Sociologists who surveyed undergraduate syllabuses from 2004 and 2010 found that in 2004, 14 percent addressed issues related to classroom etiquette; six years later, that number had more than doubled, to 33 percent. This phenomenon crosses socio-economic lines. My colleagues at Stanford gripe as much as the ones who teach at state schools, and students from more privileged backgrounds are often the worst offenders. [...] Insisting on traditional etiquette is also simply good pedagogy. It's a teacher's job to correct sloppy prose, whether in an essay or an email. And I suspect that most of the time, students who call faculty members by their first names and send slangy messages are not seeking a more casual rapport. They just don't know they should do otherwise -- no one has bothered to explain it to them. Explaining the rules of professional interaction is not an act of condescension; it's the first step in treating students like adults.
Here are the parts about bad grammar and prose:
college students have become far more casual in their interactions with faculty members. My colleagues around the country grumble about students' sloppy emails and blithe informality. "When students started calling me by my first name, I felt that was too far, and I've got to say something," Mark Tomforde, a math professor at the University of Houston said. Sociologists who surveyed undergraduate syllabuses from 2004 and 2010 found that in 2004, 14 percent addressed issues related to classroom etiquette; six years later, that number had more than doubled, to 33 percent. This phenomenon crosses socio-economic lines. My colleagues at Stanford gripe as much as the ones who teach at state schools, and students from more privileged backgrounds are often the worst offenders. [...] Insisting on traditional etiquette is also simply good pedagogy. It's a teacher's job to correct sloppy prose, whether in an essay or an email. And I suspect that most of the time, students who call faculty members by their first names and send slangy messages are not seeking a more casual rapport. They just don't know they should do otherwise -- no one has bothered to explain it to them. Explaining the rules of professional interaction is not an act of condescension; it's the first step in treating students like adults.
What do you see?
Shrug. The teachers worried about that for a while, but didn't really think it was a big enough deal until it came to being called by their first name.
You're not reading the context. You're applying your own emotional context, where you want to mock people for their bad grammar and shitty typing habits. What's happened here is the actual professors found that bad grammar to be an epidemic of bad grammar; then, somebody committed an offense by calling them by their familiar first name, which is roughly-equivalent in medieval etiquette systems to palming the teacher's wife.
Read it using the mind of the people raising the issue, not your own mind.
What was Mr. Slate's first name?
People in K-Mart don't call their boss Mr. anything; they call their boss Dan or Cathy or whatever their first name is. People at IBM call their boss Brian or James. People at T-Rowe Price call their boss James.
50 years ago, it was Mr. Chevrolet. Today it's Jim (Jim Chevrolet of Chevrolet Motors--yes, that Chevrolet); and even 50 years ago, people who worked directly with Mr. Chevrolet generally just called him Jim, which was odd for the time.
You went to school and learned to call your teachers by their superior honorific so you could call your boss by their superior honorific. Nobody does that; it's stupid. You go to college and you're an adult, being instructed by adults, in a setting filled with adults; you may as well address each other like adults.
We're not in the stone age anymore.
It's not about that.
They're using modern speech patterns and etiquette. They're talking casually, which means using slang and first names. The mode of slang in text is ugly grammar, and that's not the thrust of it.
"When students started calling me by my first name, I felt that was too far, and I've got to say something,"
They're upset because it's not old-style etiquette.
I don't recall ever working for an employer where I called my superior Mr. anything. Go back 100 years and you called your boss Mr. Foreman and his secretary Ms. Goodbody. Today you just call your manager by his first name, hold informal elevator meetings, and otherwise chatter about in the office.
That's the whole point. High school teachers and college professors are preparing you for the proper etiquette of formal, manicured communication with your superiors; that shit doesn't exist anymore. You call your teachers by an honorific because you call your boss by an honorific, except nobody does that anymore.
That's what this is:
They just don't know they should do otherwise -- no one has bothered to explain it to them. Explaining the rules of professional interaction is not an act of condescension; it's the first step in treating students like adults.
Nobody's explained to you that you talk up to your superiors with honorifics and formalized speech. Nobody's explained this because it's a history lesson. This is also why we didn't teach you how to make tithes to your Earldom.
I could ask why the radiology machine isn't on a trust segment with a trust relationship to another trust segment which holds things like the backing database, services, etc., and only exposes specific, necessary ports between the two networks; but of course I know it's because that requires planning and engineering nobody wants to put out.
Instead I can just ask why hospitals and broadcasters don't have the power to lean on their vendors for up-to-date systems. Porting this stuff to the new OS releases isn't hard. Running the systems on BSD or Linux isn't hard. We're talking about firms which already engineered and developed integrated hardware and software solutions; they created the completed solution and should be able to provide a fractional but significant effort to move them up along underlying software systems until they're fully EOL.
Maybe we need separate concerns. Maybe we need a hardware system that exports an industry-standard data stream, and a software system that interprets said data stream.
I remember running Linux on 400MB of RAM. I remember upgrading from 16GB because it was straining. Then, I enabled ZRAM.
Windows 10 has a memory compression system better than ZRAM now. Linux has either Zswap (compressed swap cache, requiring a backing device) or ZRAM (compressed RAM, doesn't act as a first-level cache, so won't move more-stale data to disk and less-stale data to RAM). Windows 10 has in-memory compression; if memory pressure is too high, it swaps compressed pages to disk. The difference is Windows 10 is Zswap-like if you have on-disk swap, ZRAM-like if you don't have on-disk swap, and agnostic to which configuration you're using; Linux requires you to select a strategy and configure the relevant bits.
Even server OSes on Linux need like 2GB of RAM and at least 2GB of disk; and you're going to run out of disk with all the bullshit they do day-to-day stuffing extra kernels and packages in there if you don't ritualistically clean up. Gone are the days of 256MB RAM and 800MB disk installations for a desktop OS.
We've had some pretty severe remote hacks on Linux, BSD, and MacOSX, too; just nobody took over 97% of the Internet with them.
What about an economic obligation? Someone has to do the work; that implies time, which implies wage; wage implies cost; cost implies revenue streams; and revenue streams imply consumers actually spending money. It's easy to just dismiss Microsoft with a multi-billion-dollar net profit and push the conversation down the line to every other product that gets nickels, dimes, and dollars added to the end, until 5% or 10% of our money is going to things that don't matter.
The real question is why haven't we moved on? I hear about legacy systems running XP on medical devices and broadcast hardware and have to wonder why hospitals and broadcasters don't have the sheer clout to squeeze out the much-smaller-effort of moving onto newer base systems.
Why is the radiology machine on network?
Yet Microsoft wasn't proactive because people were still running Windows XP which--like DOS 3.0--didn't get a patch.
I don't see how it's Microsoft's fault that other people didn't upgrade to Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, or 10.
Doesn't matter. Can you go forward with a treatment if you're uncertain if the treatment is safe, if the patient is in dire need, and so forth? The patient needs anesthesia; are they going to die like Monty Oum if you use one anesthetic rather than another?
Everything in a hospital is critical.
How do multi-chip x86 machines do it, then?
I'm amazed to learn that 105,840 is three times 104,508:
$ ls -l|awk '/^-/{print $1,$5,$9}'
-rw-rw-rw- 2233770 coreutils_8.13-3ubuntu3.3_amd64.deb
-rw-rw-rw- 2193296 coreutils_8.13-3ubuntu3.3_i386.deb
$ ls -l */bin/ls|awk '/^-/{print $1,$5,$9}'
-rwxr-xr-x 105840 amd64/bin/ls
-rwxr-xr-x 104508 i386/bin/ls
$ du -sh i386/ amd64/
8.0M i386/
8.3M amd64/
$ du -sh i386/bin amd64/bin
2.5M i386/bin
2.8M amd64/bin
The Common Intermediate Language is an ISA. For certain common operations, CIL is faster than C++; for others, it's been variable across runtime versions. Linked list and array iterations are one area that gets batted back and forth, with various implementations shown faster in C++ or in C#. Some problems are just faster to solve in C# than C++ because the runtime profiling in the CLR constantly adjusts the expected likely branch in a loop or whatnot, and so it keeps tweaking itself to run as fast as possible at the current moment while running through large data sets.
LLVM will take x86 or ARM code, convert it into an internal static single assignment tree, and run compiler optimizations. It'll then spit out x86-64 code, ARM code, m68k code, or whatnot. It's not like you can't do this stuff with real-world ISAs instead of specially-designed software ISAs.
In a depressed market, the seller can argue they paid some amount for the house some years ago. You then have the nebulous argument that the market is down some, so they give you -$20k instead of -$150k. The seller really doesn't want to take 1/3 depreciation on their asset, and can point to their purchase price as a standard; with a depressed market, you can point to a market trend and a published standard of similar properties as justification of the huge depreciation.
A buyer willing to pay will be less-willing to pay if they believe a deal is unfair. A seller willing to accept a price will be less-willing if they believe a deal is unfair. It's not just an argument you can't win; it's a modification of your emotional state altering the price point at which you feel bad about trying to rob someone.
Every seller of everything is always trying to get the highest price; every buyer of everything is always trying to get the lowest price; and the prices they end up agreeing on are based on the next-best alternatives (that they know about).
In production, the lowest price that can sustain a product's existence is the cost. That's wages and cost of risk; a supply chain piles up some wages for extra overhead and risks that wouldn't exist in a vertical monopoly, and also nudges the price up by intermediate profits, although those profit margins get slim as hell in the supply chain (e.g. GM has orders for millions of tons of steel per year; they get a much, much slimmer margin that someone buying thousands of tonnes of steel could ever hope for, and the steelmaker has negotiations with the coal supplier for similarly-slim margins, because you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars of profits every year even at those razor-thin margins).
To be clear about this: if you can't get a price above cost, you can't pay the workers, and the business making the product evaporates. This is why, for example, there aren't businesses making solid gold phones for the broad consumer market: mining gold actually costs more than most people can afford for the amount of gold that goes into phones--never mind the commodity price of gold being pushed up above the minimum viable price--so that product can't (currently) exist.
A business going out of business that still has stock on hand will sell it below cost if need be
After which point, you can't buy from that business. If an entire supply of a thing can't sell above cost, then it can't be produced.
You even acknowledged this:
If a seller can't routinely sell things for more than it takes to make (or otherwise acquire) them then they're just not going to bother doing it.
It's less a matter of "not going to bother" than "actually can't do this for very long, because they can't afford to pay the workers". The end result is still that they're just not going to make and sell it.
My problem with the ideal of an "efficient market" is that things don't have intrinsic value. Things have cost. Economists spent a long time trying to describe a theory of value because people apply valuation: a certain individual has a belief of what the value of a certain thing is. Because every person can identify that they're willing to pay some amount for something but not willing to pay some greater amount, they develop a belief that a thing is somehow inherently worth something, and thus that it must have value. This was a long-standing misidentification of an individual opinion toward something as a property of that thing itself.
That means, yes, things aren't worth what they cost to make; if you could buy a brand-new Chevy Volt for $20, you would, and it would be better than the $35,000 it costs now. A Chevy Volt doesn't have $35,000 of value. It has utility, and can be used to achieve some other goals, and may provide you the means to achieve things which result in cash-accountable figures; and all of those cash-accountable figures also come down to costs of things you want to achieve. In the end, it costs somewhere below $35,000 to make, and can't be supplied continuously at much below $35,000 until we reduce the costs. The consumers who buy it believe it's worth $35,000, while other consumers who could successfully purchase one will judge it worth less than $35,000 and so won't buy it.
Things are perceived by an individual as worth some price. Valuation.
Yes, I know we have lengthy, complicated, and very pretty ECON101 boilerplate to explain all of the market dynamics. We have a lot of rough ideals you get in school about things. Even an economics degree will teach you a bunch of rough outlines of the way economics works, and give you conceptual models and abstractions that generally help you understand the world of eco
Wondering if there will be any improvements to Wine this release.
I find it amusing that this comes to 235sqft per person, and I've taken flack for designing apartment microunits at 224sqft per single individual as part of a universal social security plan. People stopped arguing that it wasn't affordable and started arguing that I'm trying to shove people into prison cells or something (never mind that they're allowed to go anywhere outside)--to which I'd typically respond with something about cardboard boxes, bad weather, and food from dumpsters.
People don't seem to care about making the lives of others better; they just want to win a moral victory so they feel good.
The Zestimate is a 2-dimensional value. They're trying to display the market valuation of the house over time, not their valuation of the house at different points in time. A graph of the actual Zestimate history would be a one-dimensional value tracked in a two-dimensional graph.
Oh come now. It's a used car. The most-efficient mode of operation would be for it to sell based on its usable lifetime adjusted for maintenance costs relative to its passed lifetime. The rest is just imaginary valuation.
New goods sell based on their cost. Cost is wages. If you cut labor-hours required to make things by 50%, they cost half as much; add the same profit margins on top at every level of supply and you get ... half the price. People are working the same hours, so they still have the same money; some people aren't working (in the long run, some people aren't working at those particular jobs), so the consumers essentially don't have to pay them anymore.
Houses and used cars sell based on what everyone else can sell for. Nobody actually works out a baseline of marginal utility; someone wants to get rid of the thing they have, someone else wants to buy a thing, and they try to economize. The seller wants to get the most, the buyer wants to get the least. The difference is the seller may actually take a loss on a house (i.e. it may have $350k of marginal utility left but sell for $250k), while a producer absolutely must sell above the actual cost.
Efficiency happens when you learn to produce cheaper.
In negotiation, published standards of fairness give you a hell of a lot of weight.
Congressmen are basically stupid, scared children. They've got a surprising amount of shit to sift through, no bandwidth, and sheer impulse to run on; and they have to weigh in as experts on every issue, regardless of timeline or personal understanding. When national security, Internet crimes, or child pornography come up, they can't even understand what's possible and what's just nutty; they see the maximum threat, and they respond by screaming and flailing.
One day, I want to get myself voted into the House largely so I can respond to any topic that's not central to my interests with blunt detachment and input that's given on the stated condition that my understanding of the topic is limited and my interest is largely in bothering people with questions nobody's thought to ask. For most of it, I can cite firm attention to economics and risk as a primary reason to not take action for trivial things that might be real and scary, but also unlikely to happen with any frequency or to any great severity.
This is not a Harry Potter article.
This isn't about facts or numbers. You are living out what you think is the optimum low-cost of lifestyle
You still haven't disclosed the total cost of your house. You claimed your house is cheaper than mine, and is in a nice, west-coast suburb. Bring the facts and numbers.
home prices and USDA food desert data
The hills of Montana or Pennsylvania, with a 10-hour walk to the grocery store and no way to drive there because you've got all of maybe $50/month of unspent cash without car insurance, gasoline, or a car payment, would count as a food desert. You suggested this is a place we could put poor people, and specifically claim that urban areas are a stupid place to put them.
Why is it stupid to put people who have no means of transport in a place where food is far, far away?
I could spend days citing cost-of-living index, home prices and USDA food desert data and it wouldn't make a difference
Yet you haven't.
How about you get rid of your car, cancel your insurance, and restrict yourself to $300 for rent, $30 for utilities, and $180 for food, personal care, and clothing? Can you still survive your middle-class suburb? Would you have been able to make your down payment on your house?
Cars are expensive. Seriously expensive. Fewer than 40% of households in my area own cars. They simply can't afford it. If you haven't factored out personal transportation, you're not living in reality. Public transit is expensive as hell, too, and small, poor suburbs generally have little of it, if any; I've never seen a public transit service anywhere with a long rural drive to the shopping center. Still, you seem to think 20 hours of wakefulness spent walking in one day is just people not being lazy, since they have "copious free time" and an epic journey cross-country on foot to fetch just enough food for a man to carry on his back should be fine--even if that journey takes more waking hours than most sleep-deprived Americans experience on a typical day.
You need to figure out how to answer a simple question in fewer than 2000 words.
You need to learn what's not a simple question.
Your answer (as best I can tell): They get $7K. But they received the USS for their entire life
That's not even quite correct in its cross-section.
That $7k grows faster than inflation. It was mathematically designed to do that. That adds a large number of considerations to long-term projections.
Even then, you ignore current retirees, who have to continue receiving the promised benefit until its natural end. Likewise, some subset of upcoming retirees must receive the promised benefit; further extension beyond that is more of a nice-to-have. That doesn't bump up the income tax cost; it slows the elimination of a payroll tax--the elimination of which more-quickly reduces costs, thus increasing the buying power of the benefit (i.e. dropping OASDI from payroll means that $7k is still $7k, but things now cost $6.6k), leading to more purchasing and a requirement for more jobs to fill the demand.
That's more than half a dozen primary and secondary considerations right there; and those aren't all the things you need to address with "what happens to social security retirement benefits?"
How do you build a stable nuclear power plant? Answer in at most 2 sentences, without assuming prior knowledge of modern designs.
Your answer (as best I can tell): Unicorns
That's because you're looking for the part of the government that's unnecessarily eating cash. The entire system of welfare involves the entire economic system. Things like low-income housing carry enormous costs of risk, which puts limits on just how low you can go; reduce those risks and you can make reliable profits at smaller scales.
Likewise, Social Security isn't inefficient; the Social Security administration and the system by which OASDI functions are some of the best-designed, most-efficient programs in human history. It's also immediate-term flow-through system targeting a subset population, and it does so by reducing that population's income until they reach retirement age, after which it redistributes everyone else's income in an unlevel manner. (no, Social Security isn't a savings account you put money into; your money pays current retirees, by design).
Do you really think that directly compares to a flow-through system that pays out to the same group of people who are paying in, with a level payout? That's not a matter of "more efficient than Social Security"; it's a matter of solving different (or expanded set of) problems. Again: Social Security was created to avoid old people losing their savings in a banking system collapse; Universal Social Security is designed to ensure lifelong stability. They're both actually the same system doing different things.
It's like using an engine to power a flying car to carry goods back and forth, and then someone says they can use that same engine and the same gas to move 10 times as much stuff by just pushing the car along the road. You're like, "Where did you make the engine more-efficient?" I didn't; constantly fighting gravity is a stupid way to transport goods when there's a road right there in front of you. Operate the same transit system, but on the ground.
It's obviously an idiot. You can tell by the premise.
Welfare programs are expensive. An undeveloped economy can't afford welfare programs; a highly-developed economy can implement more-effective welfare for lower costs than scaled-beyond-sustainable older welfare programs.
Feudalism, baronies, and serfdom allowed countries to flourish for hundreds of years. Poor houses--prisons amounting to forced labor camps for the poor, reducing the cost of feeding them by using them as cheap labor--worked for decades after the industrial revolution. Modern welfare systems are threatened by newer systems like an expanded social security.
The Internet has grown in scope. The things that worked in the past won't continue to work when the Internet is a different thing, just like governments don't continue to function when economies are different things.