Are there any other kind of titles with crypto involved?
The NYSE is doing no such thing. Not even close. The company that holds a lot of global Exchanges, Clearinghouses, and Trading houses... ONE of which is the NYSE is thinking of opening a new exchange that will trade in crypto currencies or securities & vehicles with such high exposure.
The ONLY link to the NYSE, which is a heavily regulated market, is that the sibling link may lend credibility to the new offspring. And if the crypto market gets new rules or classification that activate regulations, then the current Exchanges might just jump in and this independent Exchange will die off, having no purpose.
Its just a what if piece to drum up speculation & rumors.
Its not an "utterly basic rule" of grammar. Its not even a grammar rule. Its an inheritance from early typewriters that had fixed width letters and double space increased legibility. Its a rule based on "This is how we did it." The research above was probably done many times over in defining the double space on typewriters 100+ years ago.
If you go back to typesetters, they don't use double space because they always had variable width letters (think Ben Franklin times). Double space in a book also ends up wasting paper.
On a typewriter, it's fixed width font. And double space works there because you have varying amounts of spaces between letters. ie: more space between two l's than two m's. So having a longer pronounced space between sentences makes sense for visual categorization.
But in a variable width font (computers) the amount of space between letters is the same; words have a slightly longer standard. A period + single space between sentences is enough to differentiate itself from those between words. So why have double?
Yup, this is totally not news. Wow, journalist discovers how stuff works... since the dawn of man. This happens all the time and no one really cares. And no one should. If it's not public, then let it be. People gamble and lose money in many other more distructive ways.
Since it is all private monies, then the public's pensions and retirement funds shouldn't have any intended exposure. So... who cares. Let people with lots of money pass it back and forth to other such people.
And as for the initial buyers' profit taking... that is normal too and the way it should be. Early on an investment, there is a LOT of risk and that risk comes down as time goes on. So there is an expectation of higher reward for that higher risk taking. So high risk/reward people cash out after a time and move onto other similar investments. The medium risk/reward people replace them and will be replaced later on as the risk/reward changes. The flip side is that the higher the risk, the greater the failure. For this profit taking, there are probably 9 others which were total or near so losses.
A mother who cherishes her children also "accepts" their bad with their good. That doesn't mean she approves, supports, nor condones their bad aspects. That doesn't mean she ignores those aspects nor never tries to right them.
Dictionary.com: Cherish -to hold or treat as dear; feel love for -to care for tenderly; nurture -to cling fondly or inveterately to
Note there isn't anything about "all" or "everything" or anything synonymous to that. Cherish doesn't mean blind love of all good and bad. That would be idiotic.
An example: A mother can cherish her children, but that doesn't mean she condones, nor approves their drug addiction or gang membership.
Sorry, but your Diversity Counselor was ill-prepared on the topic or just didn't care for your question. Your question is very common and asked all the time. She should have faced that question in almost ALL her sessions. Its not an invalid question, nor one without a simple answer. A co-worker asked a similar question and got a pretty good response.
"Of course - all cultures are valid and must be cherished" "What about...?"
Just because we say all cultures should be cherished doesn't mean we must accept all aspects of their cultures. The statement appears extreme because the alternative is more dangerous. With the statement, there is an attempt to understand the other culture. With the goal, one culture can more effectively compare & assess their own practices/norms. This leads to an evolution where we incorporate the highlights of the other culture. Eventually, with open doors, both cultures benefit by influencing the other with the best of what they have and removing their worst practices.
The alternative is to easily dismiss the entire culture based on a few known horrible practices. This is very natural for humans. But it results in siloed societies where each thinks they are the best there is and the rest are barbarians. There is no will nor reason to objectively assess each other and themselves. This results in misunderstandings, and conflicts that only hurt the standard of living of all involved.
For Saudi Arabia, its a cultural norm to wash your hands before eating (even at restaurants). Families are very important and very big. Their country really puts their citizenry first and well in front of all others. Of course they have a ton of bad practices, but those don't devalue the good. Some of which we can use in the US.
I would argue that if there was clear signage, you entered into a good faith contract when you sat down and ordered. The expectation is that you had means to pay when you ordered.
You can't just change the terms of the contract after the fact. Imagine if you changed the good faith contract's implied timely terms."I will come back and pay you next week?" won't work.
Also, since you changed the terms, the restaurant can too. Can they not Uber your cash payment to their bank and charge you the service cost?
The article is bogus! Basically what it should say is that an Amazon warehouse worker isn't equivalent to a Walmart or Target warehouse worker because they get paid less (but still get health)! However, that Amazon warehouse worker makes 30% more than the average retail worker! So still better than the job it potentially replaced.
The retail position clearly isn't meant to raise a family on and apparently neither is the AW position. Maybe in the near future... the average warehouse position isn't enough to raise a family on? Maybe we should be looking at what we can do to prepare society for this.
Yeah, I don't understand how people believe stuff like that. I think they have lofty ideas about what supply, demand, and the observation is and/or are highly selection biased in looking at the discussion.
I am not even sure where to start the discussion for such cases. The position and its axioms are so utterly out there and upstream against the torrent of general consensus of great minds that it's almost better to just leave them be in their fantasy world.
Internal Audit: "Internal auditing departments are led by a Chief Audit Executive ("CAE") who generally reports to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, with administrative reporting to the Chief Executive Officer (In the United States this reporting relationship is required by law for publicly traded companies)."
Audit Committee: "The chief audit executive (CAE), director of audit, director of internal audit, auditor general, or controller general is a high level independent corporate executive with overall responsibility for internal audit."
Some companies aren't big enough to have a full fledged Audit Committee and rely on the CFO. Granted for audits that are mostly legal in nature, reporting goes to the General Counsel (legal department) who does report to the CEO but also has far more Law Profession linked duties to look out for the Stakeholders rather than the CEO/company.
...telling regulators a company is ok... holding them to account to the law... regulators... require as part of the remediation plan..., precisely how PwC...build an entire industry... complies with the letter of the regulators demands...
Um ok... not sure where you are going... Violations to the law are reviewed, sentence passed, and books closed. That is a separate matter. The "remediation plan" to prevent further violations is usually proposed by the one who broke it; the regulators accept, modify, or reject the plan. Firms like PwC do usually provide consultation in creating that plan and regulators normally accept it. However, if PwC creates the plan, they aren't allowed to provide attestation (audit) of it; another firm needs to. But these firms do NOT "holding them to account to the law", they only do an attestation; provide an opinion on the matter; listing any material deviations. It is up to the regulatory body to review the opinion piece and determine if any deviations merit actions.
You may feel that PwC may "bend the truth" so that their client avoids penalties, but they do so at the cost of their brand. Too much and it hurts the PwC brand. If it falls too low, no agency nor shareholder will believe them, which case their opinions are worthless. And no client will hire them (ie: Arthur Andersen).
You should actually try to understand WHAT an audit is. Maybe actually read some Financial/Annual/Security/Legal/Operational Statements. Many people have far too high expectations for audits. They aren't what many think.
The GGP isn't talking about the Analytics team or that department. He is talking about the auditors who would be an independent department.
Internal auditors will report to the VP of Risk Management, Chief Audit Executive or similar. All such positions usually report to the CFO (in the US). The audit aspect of the CFO's job reports to the Board of Directors, Audit Committee , and/or SEC (via fiduciary duty). Basically they don't [usually] go to the CEO or any of their reports like the COO (it would be a conflict of interest). External Auditors report to the BoD/AC. CEOs/CFOs/COOs can't hire and fire external auditors. I was an auditor in a past life; internal, external, consulting (accounting, accounting systems, & tax), security, and part of it exactly what the GGP is posting on. And I been on both sides of the fence in this matter. We do not tell the "regulators" that Company A is "OK" or "holding them to account" for some unknown or self-established standard.
In the above case, the usual scenario is that the Company is responsible for telling the regulators what their policies are, what they do, where they messed up, and how they fixed their screw up. It is the regulators responsibility to make sure the Company is reporting and that these are acceptable. It is the auditor's responsibility to form & state an OPINION that within reason, the Company's policies are aligned with the regulations, and that they do what the policies say (note: not what the regulations say). This is the CORE of ALL audit work, irrelevant of the field. Even when you go to Quality Assurance of manufactured parts, this is the fundamental aspect of the work (ie: policies = defined tolerances, policies followed = sample measured within tolerances, six sigma, etc).
A secondary OPINION is what an auditor provides. And that final opinion dismisses immaterial findings/violations. This is where most IT, bean counters, InfoSec, techs, policy owners, etc (engineers not so much) guys get hung up. Especially programmers. They will scream that a failure is a failure, but from the auditor/regulator/BoD view point, if it is not material, then it doesn't do a lot of damage, then it is not serious. In the GGP example, assume that the "fuck up" actually impacted 3% of the submissions. It doesn't matter if it in theory can impact 100% of the submissions. But if actual is only 3%, this is not considered material. It would be a foot note, fixed, and people move on.
The article and post play into the usual misunderstandings of what a true external audit is. A auditor NEVER gives a clean bill of health to ANYONE.
It would be the equivalent of saying "My 14 year old daughter is incapable of lying!" Or to hit closer to this group "This networked system is totally secure for the next 10 years!" No, those are stupid! Any competent IT guy would say "This system has all the latest patches and best industry practices to remain secure." They would check a few patches and see if they were applied quickly enough to come to that conclusion.
An auditor collects enough information from a client for an owner of the firm to provide a SECONDARY agreeing or decenting OPINION of the company's financial or security or operational position. The company can say "We are going bankrupt." and the auditor will say "I think they are right!"
operating with sufficient effectiveness to provide reasonable assurance
The key words that you will find in almost all audit work is "sufficient effectiveness" and "reasonable assurance". Which is complete true in this situation. Facebook doesn't have policies that give your data out to anyone. They don't violate their policies by doing such. A partner did really go above and beyond what they should have. Facebook failed to regulate such partner but may have had reasonable measures to prevent abuse.
Also, keep in mind that auditors are not here to catch the client in lies, nor catch collusion between people (reportee buys a car, mgr approves, they sell & split profits).
Basically the article is "Auditors did their job but it wasn't enough to prevent this."
I think it's a poor enumeration. I have never had less than 15 days at any of my positions in the past 20 years. BUT, I never had sick leave. I think many companies have weeks of sick leave on top of the 0-10 PTO days.
But I agree with the general gist of the post thou. Every interview I went to said PTO was not negotiable. Even the type of businesses where the employees would mostly work during Dec/Jan, they wouldn't officially give make up or extra days.
I thought it was kind of stupid. I declined such places and I am sure their HR policy cut out a lot of good talent they could have had.
If you guys lived a bit further from the line, people may not be confused! Right now, it looks like you are just outside the US to say "We are outside the US". You guys are like the froth on top of the beer... it's still beer!!
Serious note: The above is in jest, I actually do like my Canadian coworkers and their culture. Summers up there are awesome.
From Reuters, the whole tweet: “Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record!”
The "best and safest year on record"; no one reaches as much as Trump. That's a follow up sentence to something he says he did. And he didn't actually do the first either. What he actually did earlier was say that there were too many regulations in Commercial Aviation and things should be privatized (failed in Congress). The most the Trump administration did related to airlines was up the security requirements in boarding. Which has been a continuation of what Bush started, & Obama added on.
When I bought my home a few years back, all it started with was slow DSL/dial up. Comcast said they would be in about 12 months after the community was built. Luckily I was one of the last to be built. They actually got in early at around 8 months. They dug up the entire neighborhood and laid the lines. Prices were average for the first year and then shot up. Then AT&T came in around the 36 month mark, dug up the neighborhood a 3rd time, and installed fiber. And we are in a semi-major city; almost a tech hub! There was Google Fiber being installed at the same time about 3 miles away. Called up Charter... nope, they can't operate in our location because it basically belongs to Comcast. Now thanks to finally having two providers, the pricing is average again (~$65/month).
But this is the type of crap the US puts up with. We can't even get new development to have basic internet infrastructure. AT&T already laid the phone line because they are required to. And no one will install the cable or fiber at the same time. I really wished the builder was required to put in the cable, fiber, & phone. Then the HOA can decide who gets to provide service to the community network.
It's because the system tries to treat all states equally. Otherwise those states with more resources would undermine those without.
The Senate is about the representation of the states as members of the country. The House of Reps is about representation of the people in the country.
A plant only converts about 2% of sunlight that hits it. Solar can do 15%. That means one solar panel can "feed" 7 layers of plants using only the spectrum they absorb.
A lot of water is lost through evaporation; this can be recollected in a semi-closed environment. You also won't have fertilizer loss from run off.
You won't have as many natural disasters that nature gives you for free either.
So I would think those factors would play toward the controlled environment. The only real problems I see is the potential for mold destroying the crops or that not everything will be viable in this setting.
This is true of large corporations like GE, Macy's, AT&T, Comcast, etc.
There are so many moving parts, politics, turf wars, budget maximizing, and protectionism that few, if any, can do actual cost accounting. There will be 1-2 out of 10 units that basically subsidize the others. 3 of those everyone knows are intentionally subsidized but the others appear to break even or barely profitable when they could be the worst ROI.
As long as this quarter somehow tallies to the expectations or deviations can be blamed on some event, no one cares to go look. Because looking might show a new incorrect picture where it's your BU that should be cut down.
Says one who hasn't dealt with TSA, USCIS, nor US ICE. They make the DMV seem like a well oiled, efficient, & automated machine. Yet Republicans are perfectly OK with the way these social programs operate.
Slashdot Mirror
Are there any other kind of titles with crypto involved?
The NYSE is doing no such thing. Not even close. The company that holds a lot of global Exchanges, Clearinghouses, and Trading houses... ONE of which is the NYSE is thinking of opening a new exchange that will trade in crypto currencies or securities & vehicles with such high exposure.
The ONLY link to the NYSE, which is a heavily regulated market, is that the sibling link may lend credibility to the new offspring. And if the crypto market gets new rules or classification that activate regulations, then the current Exchanges might just jump in and this independent Exchange will die off, having no purpose.
Its just a what if piece to drum up speculation & rumors.
Its not an "utterly basic rule" of grammar. Its not even a grammar rule. Its an inheritance from early typewriters that had fixed width letters and double space increased legibility. Its a rule based on "This is how we did it." The research above was probably done many times over in defining the double space on typewriters 100+ years ago.
If you go back to typesetters, they don't use double space because they always had variable width letters (think Ben Franklin times). Double space in a book also ends up wasting paper.
On a typewriter, it's fixed width font. And double space works there because you have varying amounts of spaces between letters. ie: more space between two l's than two m's. So having a longer pronounced space between sentences makes sense for visual categorization.
But in a variable width font (computers) the amount of space between letters is the same; words have a slightly longer standard. A period + single space between sentences is enough to differentiate itself from those between words. So why have double?
Yup, this is totally not news. Wow, journalist discovers how stuff works... since the dawn of man. This happens all the time and no one really cares. And no one should. If it's not public, then let it be. People gamble and lose money in many other more distructive ways.
Since it is all private monies, then the public's pensions and retirement funds shouldn't have any intended exposure. So... who cares. Let people with lots of money pass it back and forth to other such people.
And as for the initial buyers' profit taking... that is normal too and the way it should be. Early on an investment, there is a LOT of risk and that risk comes down as time goes on. So there is an expectation of higher reward for that higher risk taking. So high risk/reward people cash out after a time and move onto other similar investments. The medium risk/reward people replace them and will be replaced later on as the risk/reward changes. The flip side is that the higher the risk, the greater the failure. For this profit taking, there are probably 9 others which were total or near so losses.
A mother who cherishes her children also "accepts" their bad with their good. That doesn't mean she approves, supports, nor condones their bad aspects. That doesn't mean she ignores those aspects nor never tries to right them.
Dictionary.com: Cherish
-to hold or treat as dear; feel love for
-to care for tenderly; nurture
-to cling fondly or inveterately to
Note there isn't anything about "all" or "everything" or anything synonymous to that. Cherish doesn't mean blind love of all good and bad. That would be idiotic.
An example: A mother can cherish her children, but that doesn't mean she condones, nor approves their drug addiction or gang membership.
Sorry, but your Diversity Counselor was ill-prepared on the topic or just didn't care for your question. Your question is very common and asked all the time. She should have faced that question in almost ALL her sessions. Its not an invalid question, nor one without a simple answer. A co-worker asked a similar question and got a pretty good response.
"Of course - all cultures are valid and must be cherished" ...?"
"What about
Just because we say all cultures should be cherished doesn't mean we must accept all aspects of their cultures. The statement appears extreme because the alternative is more dangerous. With the statement, there is an attempt to understand the other culture. With the goal, one culture can more effectively compare & assess their own practices/norms. This leads to an evolution where we incorporate the highlights of the other culture. Eventually, with open doors, both cultures benefit by influencing the other with the best of what they have and removing their worst practices.
The alternative is to easily dismiss the entire culture based on a few known horrible practices. This is very natural for humans. But it results in siloed societies where each thinks they are the best there is and the rest are barbarians. There is no will nor reason to objectively assess each other and themselves. This results in misunderstandings, and conflicts that only hurt the standard of living of all involved.
For Saudi Arabia, its a cultural norm to wash your hands before eating (even at restaurants). Families are very important and very big. Their country really puts their citizenry first and well in front of all others. Of course they have a ton of bad practices, but those don't devalue the good. Some of which we can use in the US.
Can we NOW stop using FAX machines?!?
I would argue that if there was clear signage, you entered into a good faith contract when you sat down and ordered. The expectation is that you had means to pay when you ordered.
You can't just change the terms of the contract after the fact. Imagine if you changed the good faith contract's implied timely terms."I will come back and pay you next week?" won't work.
Also, since you changed the terms, the restaurant can too. Can they not Uber your cash payment to their bank and charge you the service cost?
Why is parent marked down? It's completely true.
The article is bogus! Basically what it should say is that an Amazon warehouse worker isn't equivalent to a Walmart or Target warehouse worker because they get paid less (but still get health)! However, that Amazon warehouse worker makes 30% more than the average retail worker! So still better than the job it potentially replaced.
The retail position clearly isn't meant to raise a family on and apparently neither is the AW position. Maybe in the near future... the average warehouse position isn't enough to raise a family on? Maybe we should be looking at what we can do to prepare society for this.
Yeah, I don't understand how people believe stuff like that. I think they have lofty ideas about what supply, demand, and the observation is and/or are highly selection biased in looking at the discussion.
I am not even sure where to start the discussion for such cases. The position and its axioms are so utterly out there and upstream against the torrent of general consensus of great minds that it's almost better to just leave them be in their fantasy world.
Human level? I would call it an over-arching success if we can get to the level of a fish or donkey in 50 years.
Internal Audit: "Internal auditing departments are led by a Chief Audit Executive ("CAE") who generally reports to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, with administrative reporting to the Chief Executive Officer (In the United States this reporting relationship is required by law for publicly traded companies)."
Audit Committee: "The chief audit executive (CAE), director of audit, director of internal audit, auditor general, or controller general is a high level independent corporate executive with overall responsibility for internal audit."
Some companies aren't big enough to have a full fledged Audit Committee and rely on the CFO. Granted for audits that are mostly legal in nature, reporting goes to the General Counsel (legal department) who does report to the CEO but also has far more Law Profession linked duties to look out for the Stakeholders rather than the CEO/company.
...telling regulators a company is ok ... holding them to account to the law ... regulators ... require as part of the remediation plan ..., precisely how PwC ...build an entire industry ... complies with the letter of the regulators demands ...
Um ok... not sure where you are going... Violations to the law are reviewed, sentence passed, and books closed. That is a separate matter. The "remediation plan" to prevent further violations is usually proposed by the one who broke it; the regulators accept, modify, or reject the plan. Firms like PwC do usually provide consultation in creating that plan and regulators normally accept it. However, if PwC creates the plan, they aren't allowed to provide attestation (audit) of it; another firm needs to. But these firms do NOT "holding them to account to the law", they only do an attestation; provide an opinion on the matter; listing any material deviations. It is up to the regulatory body to review the opinion piece and determine if any deviations merit actions.
You may feel that PwC may "bend the truth" so that their client avoids penalties, but they do so at the cost of their brand. Too much and it hurts the PwC brand. If it falls too low, no agency nor shareholder will believe them, which case their opinions are worthless. And no client will hire them (ie: Arthur Andersen).
You should actually try to understand WHAT an audit is. Maybe actually read some Financial/Annual/Security/Legal/Operational Statements. Many people have far too high expectations for audits. They aren't what many think.
The GGP isn't talking about the Analytics team or that department. He is talking about the auditors who would be an independent department.
Internal auditors will report to the VP of Risk Management, Chief Audit Executive or similar. All such positions usually report to the CFO (in the US). The audit aspect of the CFO's job reports to the Board of Directors, Audit Committee , and/or SEC (via fiduciary duty). Basically they don't [usually] go to the CEO or any of their reports like the COO (it would be a conflict of interest). External Auditors report to the BoD/AC. CEOs/CFOs/COOs can't hire and fire external auditors. I was an auditor in a past life; internal, external, consulting (accounting, accounting systems, & tax), security, and part of it exactly what the GGP is posting on. And I been on both sides of the fence in this matter. We do not tell the "regulators" that Company A is "OK" or "holding them to account" for some unknown or self-established standard.
In the above case, the usual scenario is that the Company is responsible for telling the regulators what their policies are, what they do, where they messed up, and how they fixed their screw up. It is the regulators responsibility to make sure the Company is reporting and that these are acceptable. It is the auditor's responsibility to form & state an OPINION that within reason, the Company's policies are aligned with the regulations, and that they do what the policies say (note: not what the regulations say). This is the CORE of ALL audit work, irrelevant of the field. Even when you go to Quality Assurance of manufactured parts, this is the fundamental aspect of the work (ie: policies = defined tolerances, policies followed = sample measured within tolerances, six sigma, etc).
A secondary OPINION is what an auditor provides. And that final opinion dismisses immaterial findings/violations. This is where most IT, bean counters, InfoSec, techs, policy owners, etc (engineers not so much) guys get hung up. Especially programmers. They will scream that a failure is a failure, but from the auditor/regulator/BoD view point, if it is not material, then it doesn't do a lot of damage, then it is not serious. In the GGP example, assume that the "fuck up" actually impacted 3% of the submissions. It doesn't matter if it in theory can impact 100% of the submissions. But if actual is only 3%, this is not considered material. It would be a foot note, fixed, and people move on.
The article and post play into the usual misunderstandings of what a true external audit is. A auditor NEVER gives a clean bill of health to ANYONE.
It would be the equivalent of saying "My 14 year old daughter is incapable of lying!" Or to hit closer to this group "This networked system is totally secure for the next 10 years!" No, those are stupid! Any competent IT guy would say "This system has all the latest patches and best industry practices to remain secure." They would check a few patches and see if they were applied quickly enough to come to that conclusion.
An auditor collects enough information from a client for an owner of the firm to provide a SECONDARY agreeing or decenting OPINION of the company's financial or security or operational position. The company can say "We are going bankrupt." and the auditor will say "I think they are right!"
operating with sufficient effectiveness to provide reasonable assurance
The key words that you will find in almost all audit work is "sufficient effectiveness" and "reasonable assurance". Which is complete true in this situation. Facebook doesn't have policies that give your data out to anyone. They don't violate their policies by doing such. A partner did really go above and beyond what they should have. Facebook failed to regulate such partner but may have had reasonable measures to prevent abuse.
Also, keep in mind that auditors are not here to catch the client in lies, nor catch collusion between people (reportee buys a car, mgr approves, they sell & split profits).
Basically the article is "Auditors did their job but it wasn't enough to prevent this."
Nothing of what you said is considered external auditing. That's closer to "IT consultation" or at best internal auditing.
Internal Auditiors report directly to the CFO. External Auditors report to the auditing firm's partners and clients shareholders.
I think it's a poor enumeration. I have never had less than 15 days at any of my positions in the past 20 years. BUT, I never had sick leave. I think many companies have weeks of sick leave on top of the 0-10 PTO days.
But I agree with the general gist of the post thou. Every interview I went to said PTO was not negotiable. Even the type of businesses where the employees would mostly work during Dec/Jan, they wouldn't officially give make up or extra days.
I thought it was kind of stupid. I declined such places and I am sure their HR policy cut out a lot of good talent they could have had.
If you guys lived a bit further from the line, people may not be confused! Right now, it looks like you are just outside the US to say "We are outside the US". You guys are like the froth on top of the beer... it's still beer!!
Serious note: The above is in jest, I actually do like my Canadian coworkers and their culture. Summers up there are awesome.
From Reuters, the whole tweet:
“Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record!”
The "best and safest year on record"; no one reaches as much as Trump. That's a follow up sentence to something he says he did. And he didn't actually do the first either. What he actually did earlier was say that there were too many regulations in Commercial Aviation and things should be privatized (failed in Congress). The most the Trump administration did related to airlines was up the security requirements in boarding. Which has been a continuation of what Bush started, & Obama added on.
When I bought my home a few years back, all it started with was slow DSL/dial up. Comcast said they would be in about 12 months after the community was built. Luckily I was one of the last to be built. They actually got in early at around 8 months. They dug up the entire neighborhood and laid the lines. Prices were average for the first year and then shot up. Then AT&T came in around the 36 month mark, dug up the neighborhood a 3rd time, and installed fiber. And we are in a semi-major city; almost a tech hub! There was Google Fiber being installed at the same time about 3 miles away. Called up Charter... nope, they can't operate in our location because it basically belongs to Comcast. Now thanks to finally having two providers, the pricing is average again (~$65/month).
But this is the type of crap the US puts up with. We can't even get new development to have basic internet infrastructure. AT&T already laid the phone line because they are required to. And no one will install the cable or fiber at the same time. I really wished the builder was required to put in the cable, fiber, & phone. Then the HOA can decide who gets to provide service to the community network.
It's because the system tries to treat all states equally. Otherwise those states with more resources would undermine those without.
The Senate is about the representation of the states as members of the country. The House of Reps is about representation of the people in the country.
A plant only converts about 2% of sunlight that hits it. Solar can do 15%. That means one solar panel can "feed" 7 layers of plants using only the spectrum they absorb.
A lot of water is lost through evaporation; this can be recollected in a semi-closed environment. You also won't have fertilizer loss from run off.
You won't have as many natural disasters that nature gives you for free either.
So I would think those factors would play toward the controlled environment. The only real problems I see is the potential for mold destroying the crops or that not everything will be viable in this setting.
The huge greenhouses in Canada have very few pests in comparison to traditional farms. Their pesticide and water usage is very little too.
This is true of large corporations like GE, Macy's, AT&T, Comcast, etc.
There are so many moving parts, politics, turf wars, budget maximizing, and protectionism that few, if any, can do actual cost accounting. There will be 1-2 out of 10 units that basically subsidize the others. 3 of those everyone knows are intentionally subsidized but the others appear to break even or barely profitable when they could be the worst ROI.
As long as this quarter somehow tallies to the expectations or deviations can be blamed on some event, no one cares to go look. Because looking might show a new incorrect picture where it's your BU that should be cut down.
Says one who hasn't dealt with TSA, USCIS, nor US ICE. They make the DMV seem like a well oiled, efficient, & automated machine. Yet Republicans are perfectly OK with the way these social programs operate.