But since we're talking about a utility, it's not that simple. That increase unilaterally affects people who can barely afford their electric bill as is.
Because efficiency. If you have to pay some laborer to drive down to the substation to change settings, you're going to be spending a lot of money on humans.
If you can get Bob in the office to click "change", you can have one person doing dozens of them in 5 minutes.
And I don't know if you noticed during recent crises, but officially speaking, the only "critical" things according to the US government are police and military. Everything else is "non-essential". Infrastructure barely even counts for long term planning.
Sure, it's unsupported by evidence, but it's been widely supported by both parties in congress. The number of actual national electors left enough to believe capital gains maybe ought to face progressive taxation(for all the reasons progressive tax brackets are usually a good idea) is in the single digits.
No, I specifically meant through that parenthetical remark that it would draw a different brand of crazies out of the woodwork. As far as why I used it, it's perfectly valid to compare various unjustified beliefs, and note the behaviors those that distribute and profit from them.
Except in that religion is treated with more respect by deference to it's claimed state of "the most important thing" to believers.
Yeah, I know that too. But we also live in a world where we're all wrong sometimes. It seems unreasonable to pick and choose the things where you go "you can't be wrong about this anymore, it's too much" since that itself is subjective.
(Feel free to mod this and everything of mine below off topic, mods, I know I'm diverging into internet atheism here).
That's only true so long as you fail to define the term. If you define god as "A dude sitting on top of mount Olympus" for example, you've created a testable hypothesis. Any god that's not intentionally defined to be impossible to disprove, through what I can only describe as willful obtuseness is trivially failed.
"God as in what is literally described as such in the bible" as a definition tends to fail pretty hard, since there are numerous hard-and-fast rules given about what that god does. There's a difference between claiming something is beyond comprehension and something being beyond comprehension.
Yeah, but this was a dermatologist who had an official "I will never prescribe generics" position, that almost certainly was fueled by pharmaceutical sales reps.
eg. The first thing a Christian will say to you in any argument is "Prove he doesn't exist!".
You misunderstood. That's exactly what the GP was doing, and it's okay. I chose religion in my post because it's the natural comparison when it comes to "firm, but scientifically unfounded beliefs"
It's not, but the "medicines" administered by a particular depend on their beliefs about what works. If they've been indoctrinated into homeopathy, and never learned to doubt it, they're going to administer treatments that don't work. If they're a real doctor who's been fed lies about how generics don't work as well, and haven't really learned to doubt that(happens for some doctors) they're going to prescribe expensive brand-name drugs.
Human folly gets deeply intertwined in medicine, because its a high stakes game.
Sure, but the problem is that (some/many of) the people doing this aren't aware that they're affecting anyone's well being(except positively). And the rest will lie through any amount of interrogation over it, because sociopaths don't have any issue with lying, normally.
Because not all of them are intentional frauds. Just like most pastors firmly believe in god(why did I have to go there?) many homeopaths firmly believe in their system of medicine. Others of each group are intentional frauds who see dollar signs, and have no qualms with manipulating suckers.
Yes, it's correct. That's a bigoted perspective, in that it pretends your religion is the only one, then uses it to justify taking a basic human right. Your worldview being painfully simplistic shouldn't affect other people, and you shouldn't have the right to vote for laws that take others' rights(and you should also choose not exercise your vote in that way, morally speaking).
Bigots are wrong and terrible people, you're wrong and a terrible person, but that doesn't mean you should be fired(or forced to resign).
Incorrect. This is not what HFT does. I'm not going to defend those jerks, but I do suggest making a fact-based argument, because it makes my, similar, argument, look better.
The traders are the only people who gain tangible benefit from that, though. It's only their insistence that makes the spread so small, and the duration so large.
The rest of us are interested in laws that facilitate investment, you're interested in laws that let your manipulate people with less immediate knowledge of the market than you.
But neither the summary, nor the terrible overly "modern" designed marketing website, makes much attempt at explaining intent. It's like wave "we're replacing email" doesn't explain anything to anyone. "We're making modular phones" doesn't tell us, at the very least, what might actually be different, day-to-day for users.
Who takes shortcuts for code when you're developing a damned password entry system? I mean... really? When the sole purpose of the code is security, who goes "oh, whatever, we'll just match against whatever?"
I mean, it's not like hashing or string comparison are hard problems.
Slashdot Mirror
But since we're talking about a utility, it's not that simple. That increase unilaterally affects people who can barely afford their electric bill as is.
Because efficiency. If you have to pay some laborer to drive down to the substation to change settings, you're going to be spending a lot of money on humans.
If you can get Bob in the office to click "change", you can have one person doing dozens of them in 5 minutes.
And I don't know if you noticed during recent crises, but officially speaking, the only "critical" things according to the US government are police and military. Everything else is "non-essential". Infrastructure barely even counts for long term planning.
Sure, it's unsupported by evidence, but it's been widely supported by both parties in congress. The number of actual national electors left enough to believe capital gains maybe ought to face progressive taxation(for all the reasons progressive tax brackets are usually a good idea) is in the single digits.
And what, exactly, is this thing that I believe without justification
Oh come on, can't you recognize when someone's just trying to get a rise out of you.
(lots of things, and me too, and the only defense I have for myself is I try and recognize and improve on those things when I discover them)
Who said they were the crazy ones. Hint: it's you. Your the crazy one. Not them.
And I'm really sorry you're wrong, and believe in something with no credible justification. Don't take it out on me.
But I'm not about to apologize for touching your sacred cow.
No, I specifically meant through that parenthetical remark that it would draw a different brand of crazies out of the woodwork. As far as why I used it, it's perfectly valid to compare various unjustified beliefs, and note the behaviors those that distribute and profit from them.
Except in that religion is treated with more respect by deference to it's claimed state of "the most important thing" to believers.
As someone who grew up in the cohort that received that complaint plenty, do you know how many participation trophies I ever got in school?
Zero. Plus two from playing out-side-the-school-system baseball little leagues I didn't care about. And those went to the team, not me.
It's sad though. In Whole Foods stores, there's an entire placebo aisle, much like other grocery stores have a small pharmaceutical aisle.
Yeah, I know that too. But we also live in a world where we're all wrong sometimes. It seems unreasonable to pick and choose the things where you go "you can't be wrong about this anymore, it's too much" since that itself is subjective.
(Feel free to mod this and everything of mine below off topic, mods, I know I'm diverging into internet atheism here).
That's only true so long as you fail to define the term. If you define god as "A dude sitting on top of mount Olympus" for example, you've created a testable hypothesis. Any god that's not intentionally defined to be impossible to disprove, through what I can only describe as willful obtuseness is trivially failed.
"God as in what is literally described as such in the bible" as a definition tends to fail pretty hard, since there are numerous hard-and-fast rules given about what that god does. There's a difference between claiming something is beyond comprehension and something being beyond comprehension.
Yeah, but this was a dermatologist who had an official "I will never prescribe generics" position, that almost certainly was fueled by pharmaceutical sales reps.
And I'm saying that some of the people who "prescribe" homeopathic remedies really think they're helping(for money).
eg. The first thing a Christian will say to you in any argument is "Prove he doesn't exist!".
You misunderstood. That's exactly what the GP was doing, and it's okay. I chose religion in my post because it's the natural comparison when it comes to "firm, but scientifically unfounded beliefs"
They also don't understand modern medicine, by and large. I'm not endorsing quackery, just trying to understand the motives at play.
It's not, but the "medicines" administered by a particular depend on their beliefs about what works. If they've been indoctrinated into homeopathy, and never learned to doubt it, they're going to administer treatments that don't work. If they're a real doctor who's been fed lies about how generics don't work as well, and haven't really learned to doubt that(happens for some doctors) they're going to prescribe expensive brand-name drugs.
Human folly gets deeply intertwined in medicine, because its a high stakes game.
Sure, but the problem is that (some/many of) the people doing this aren't aware that they're affecting anyone's well being(except positively). And the rest will lie through any amount of interrogation over it, because sociopaths don't have any issue with lying, normally.
Because not all of them are intentional frauds. Just like most pastors firmly believe in god(why did I have to go there?) many homeopaths firmly believe in their system of medicine. Others of each group are intentional frauds who see dollar signs, and have no qualms with manipulating suckers.
even the courts have upheld that
*gasp*
I don't think you've reviewed the case law at all.
9th amendment protection has long been extended, often as a specific example, to right to marriage.
I would contend that just because your rights have been denied for a long time, does not mean they are not rights.
Yes, it's correct. That's a bigoted perspective, in that it pretends your religion is the only one, then uses it to justify taking a basic human right. Your worldview being painfully simplistic shouldn't affect other people, and you shouldn't have the right to vote for laws that take others' rights(and you should also choose not exercise your vote in that way, morally speaking).
Bigots are wrong and terrible people, you're wrong and a terrible person, but that doesn't mean you should be fired(or forced to resign).
And MS DOS.
Incorrect. This is not what HFT does. I'm not going to defend those jerks, but I do suggest making a fact-based argument, because it makes my, similar, argument, look better.
The traders are the only people who gain tangible benefit from that, though. It's only their insistence that makes the spread so small, and the duration so large.
The rest of us are interested in laws that facilitate investment, you're interested in laws that let your manipulate people with less immediate knowledge of the market than you.
But neither the summary, nor the terrible overly "modern" designed marketing website, makes much attempt at explaining intent. It's like wave "we're replacing email" doesn't explain anything to anyone. "We're making modular phones" doesn't tell us, at the very least, what might actually be different, day-to-day for users.
Who takes shortcuts for code when you're developing a damned password entry system? I mean... really? When the sole purpose of the code is security, who goes "oh, whatever, we'll just match against whatever?"
I mean, it's not like hashing or string comparison are hard problems.