If you know you're being spied on (I find it hard to believe that the Times would find out before the U.S. government) wouldn't that just motivate you to feed bad information through those channels? Sure, you could try to block the spying, but that just means that the spy tries something else and you're uncertain as to whether or not they're intercepting your communication again. Also, they're faced with the difficulty of trying to determine if there's another line of communication that they don't have access to where all of the real information is being passed and have to question the value of all of the communications that they do intercept.
Where has 'curiosity' gone; especially in males!? They all seem too much into self grooming products and how they look these days.
There are probably a lot of small reasons that contribute. Here's just a few off the top of my head:
I suspect that a sizable part of it is that increases in minimum wage have resulted in higher teen unemployment. If you can't find a job (because you don't have sufficient skill to command receiving the minimum wage), what else is there to do but sit around and preen. If you can't afford to buy her flowers, you'd better damn well look good? I learned plenty of useful skills doing low wage work that I wouldn't have thought to acquire on my own. Having a job and getting paid also helps you learn some financial responsibility on top of it.
Another part is probably that parents are more loath to let their children play outside these days due to irrational fears. Part of this is that people are having fewer kids so they're unconsciously far more protective of the one or two that they do have. But when you coop kids up all day, they get sucked in by TV, video games, or other forms of escapism to find some stimulation. Parents don't seem to mind because even though they won't let little Billy outside, they don't want him bugging them all day either.
On top of that are the helicopter parents that do everything for their children to the point where it removes their ability to grow as a person. If you don't let kids start making decisions as they get older, they're not going to develop properly. Give kids some chores and responsibilities and a little bit of autonomy. Otherwise you get kids who make it college and don't even know how to do their own laundry. And worse yet, they're not really sure how to go about finding out how to do it.
A tendency to diagnose any rambunctiousness (probably due to a lack of being able to go outside and run around enough) as some form of attention deficit disorder probably kills curiosity in some children. There are kids that are just zombified on medication that they don't really need. Put more physical education in schools and this might not be as much of a problem. It would probably help with the ballooning child obesity rates as well. Humans are still animals and we need physical activity. You'd give a pet hamster a wheel because you realize sitting in a cage all day will just make it stir crazy. Why not do the same for kids?
Maybe you could even blame some of the so-called diversity initiatives targeting getting more girls involved in subjects or fields that are traditionally male. I don't really think this actively harms boys, but there's still an opportunity cost and a lot of these programs are wasted money or effort that could be spent on expanding programs that will get more feet (regardless of whether they're male or female) naturally beating a path to their doors.
There are probably dozens of other little things that add to it as well. And it's really sad because today's world offers curiosity satisfaction on demand. The internet puts just about any information right at your finger tips. Even if it's something seemingly mundane, there's probably half a dozen YouTube videos on how to do a thing or offer how-to guides on how to get started with some hobby. You used to have to go down to the library and try to find a book (if they had one) or find someone else to take the time to teach you how. You can get a free introduction to just about anything online. You don't even need to suffer the embarrassment of asking someone else if you feel like it's something you should already know either.
Before we go around making new taxes that likely have side effects and unintended consequences that no one anticipated, wouldn't it be better to try to figure out why large groups of people (or at least large enough for it to be an issue that you would propose a tax to solve) are engaging in behavior that doesn't make much sense for a person to engage in and try to address the actual underlying issue?
There aren't many good reasons for a person to buy expensive housing and leave it completely unused. Either they think it's hideously undervalued to the point that it's worth keeping and paying property taxes on because what it can eventually be sold for will be much greater, they're actually renting it out on something like Airbnb (so it's technically being occupied), someone in a foreign country purchased it as a hedge against their local economy tanking, or someone in a foreign country buying it because there's some path to citizenship available through spending a lot of money in the other country.
Ultimately though, the real issue is a lack of supply. Too many cities have made it essentially impossible to develop new housing for a variety of reasons. There's no getting around supply and demand, If you want less expensive housing, let more of it be built.
You might not have sympathy for him as an individual, but I'd still be worried about the legal precedence this sets. You might not presently live at the cliff edge yourself, but the gradual erosion of liberty will certainly ensure that you eventually do.
They did look at a lot of other common factors. The full study is available to read. Here are some of the caveats:
When considering different subgroups, the results herein were no longer statistically significant in younger adults, men, participants with only a high school diploma and with no family history of cancer, never smokers and current smokers, and participants with a high overall dietary quality, while the strongest association was observed among obese individuals (although the 95% CI was large). The absence of significant results in certain strata may be associated with limited statistical power. Regarding the latter association, previous occupational data have indicated a potential interaction between obesity and pesticide use on cancer risk. It can be hypothesized that obese individuals with metabolic disorders may be more sensitive to potential chemical disruptors, such as pesticides.
Negative associations were observed herein between the risk of cancer and combining both low to medium diet quality and high frequency of organic food consumption. The association between cancer risk and combining both a high-quality diet and high frequency of organic food consumption approached statistical significance. One hypothesis may be that higher intake of pesticide-contaminated products may partly counterbalance the beneficial role of high-quality foods among individuals with a high dietary quality.
Some limitations of our study should be noted. First, our analyses were based on volunteers who were likely particularly health-conscious individuals, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings. NutriNet-Santé participants are more often female, are well educated, and exhibit healthier behaviors compared with the French general population. These factors may may have led to a lower cancer incidence herein than the national estimates, as well as higher levels of organic food consumption in our sample.
One of the things that stands out the most is that if you already have a high quality diet, the results are no longer statistically significant. It's not a bad study, but of course the reporting on it jumps to conclusions that might not be true.
This guy doesn't merely write crap code, he has a track record of not playing well with others, refusing to acknowledge bugs, expecting other software projects to work around and make up for his mistakes, and so on, and so forth.
All of that's a valid reason for not liking SystemD, and touches on my own dislike for it as well. However, the fact that it had a vulnerability in it isn't a good reason to dislike it for the sake of that reason alone, unless you're willing to dislike any other software that has had a vulnerability equally much. Don't conflate dislike of a thing for valid reasons with reasons that you wouldn't use or apply in other cases.
To put it another way, if you found out that a person you already disliked once ran over someone's dog, you might use that act itself to condemn them as a terrible person. However, it's unlikely that if your friend ran over someone's dog that you'd think using that act to condemn them as a terrible person would be justified. If you want to think less of a person for running over a dog, do it in equal amounts irrespective of how you felt about that person prior to them running over someone's dog.
That's the thing, isn't it? The millionth windows vulnerability and still saying "well any code has bugs". Sure it does. But the rebuttal is essentially saying that all code is created equal.
It obviously isn't, and I don't think anyone would honestly argue that all code (or designs, or programmers, etc.) is equal with a straight face. No one's forcing anyone to use crap code, especially in the open source community. If this were Windows, you'd just be stuck with it like all of the other crap that Microsoft has shoved off on people over the years.
I'm not a fan of SystemD, but this really isn't that much different than vulnerabilities in other popular packages that almost everyone uses. No one writes perfect code, but at least with any open source software, there's usually a patch out relatively quickly.
He might not have wanted anyone to die, but you'd have to be pretty naive to argue that he attached a 0% probability to that actually happening. I did plenty of stupid shit in my youth that could have resulted in my death, but I don't think I ever thought there wasn't a chance of it happening, merely that it was just incredibly low or just an acceptable risk for the enjoyment and thrill I might get out of it.
Even then, I don't think I could have jumped through the mental hoops necessary to rationalize calling a swat team on someone would have no chance at all of ending with someone being unjustly killed. Maybe you could argue that someone could be pissed off enough to do it as an act of exceptionally poor judgement in the heat of the moment, but this person was a dispassionate third party.
I think you really need to rethink what you're writing as this makes no sense at all. Sure, there's no incentive for extra profit at 100% tax rate, but no countries are even close to 100% corporate tax rates and up until recently the U.S. had one of the world's highest corporate tax rates.
Thus, having higher salaries lowers a businesses tax bill (see above).
It also potentially lowers their profits. But according to your logic, businesses don't want those. Think of it this way. If what you wrote were in any way true, you wouldn't need a minimum wage. Businesses would already be trying to pay workers more to lower their tax bill. Since we don't see this happening, we can conclude that your reasoning is incorrect.
You also seem to think that poor people spend more money than rich. Rich people don't hoard money in mattresses, they invest it. That means other people borrow money to expand existing businesses or create new ones which necessitates new jobs, which pay workers. Generally investment occurs in ventures that expect to be able to make profit because their use of labor will be more productive. This is what actually causes economic expansion. Simply moving money around does nothing in and of itself.
This in turn increases overall economic activity. Exactly as the Seattle experiment has so far shown.
Overall economic activity is up everywhere in the U.S. though, not just in Seattle. If it were simply a matter of giving people more money to spend, we would just run the printing presses in the mint non-stop. We can look at historical example to see that this doesn't work because money is just a commodity itself and subject to the same laws of supply and demand.
From what I've seen, prices haven't been going up, but this event is apparently from several decades ago, so things may have been different back then. More recently, what you get for that price has been decreasing. For example, you might pay the same amount as you always did, but get a smaller burger or fewer chicken meat wads.
That aside, you're ignoring that the other costs incurred by a business aren't also tied to the cost of labor for their respective suppliers. You have to look at how increases in minimum wage increase the cost of other goods or services (i.e., the non-labor portion of their costs) that the business purchases. While it isn't going to be an increase for everything, it's not going to be nothing either. In the event where every input is based entirely on the cost of minimum wage, then it really is a 15% increase in cost since every one else had to raise prices.
Finally, you may not necessarily get an additional 15% revenue for a 15% price hike because the demand curves are almost never linear. If a business raised prices by 100%, they'd probably lose more than 50% of their customers which means that increasing prices results in lower revenue. It's likely that increasing prices by 25% means that you lose enough business that you only get a 15% increase in revenue from doing so. If you only raised prices 15%, maybe you'd only get a 10% increase in revenue which isn't enough to offset the costs.
Their cost of living would be tied to whatever the cheapest rent, food, etc. that they could procure would be. That doesn't necessarily mean that those options are provided by businesses where labor is a majority of costs, in turn mandating a raise in prices in response to increases in wage as well. Over the long term, I would expect those costs to decrease, or at least remain stable, even if the way in which services are procured (i.e., people buying from Amazon instead of locally) changes.
I think the more fucked up part was that he only charged $10. When it comes down to it, everyone eventually sets a dollar amount (whether they consciously believe they do or not) for the value of human life, but $10 is really lowballing it.
Though, I suppose the guy who paid the $10 for the swatting over losing a $1.50 wager is even worse.
I think you're overlooking something fairly important. It really doesn't matter what your wages are if you don't factor in what your costs are. Otherwise, by your logic you could conclude that expensive rent raises your wages because it makes it impossible for employers to hire anyone who can't afford to live in the expensive apartments. This is true in a way, but it doesn't mean that you're financially better off. Does it matter if you make $150,000 and pay $100,000 for your various expenses as opposed to only making $75,000, but paying $25,000 in expenses? Your wages are twice as much in the first case, but in the end you have the same left over after expenses.
You would want to look at how much extra cost you end up paying as a result of minimum wages, as opposed to how much your wages are increased as a result of reduced labor supply. I doubt that this works out favorably for you, particularly because minimum wage jobs are not high skill positions. Anyone your age who's working in a minimum wage position is unlikely to compete for your position. That we don't see a lot of dish washers becoming computer programmers should show the fault in that reasoning. Instead, companies are importing skilled labor from outside of the country to drive down labor costs. Incidentally, this actually benefits the dish washer since products that require programming labor now become less expensive for him.
In fact, giving people a raise not only gives them more money to spend, it also raises the amount of taxes taken in.
How does that even work out mathematically? If they weren't being paid more, then the business (or the customers of the business) would have that money instead. If the business keeps all of it, they pay more taxes on the extra profit. If the customers have it, they spend it elsewhere in which case it's tax neutral. If you wanted to look at the more complex reality, the people getting a minimum wage raise don't pay much in the way of taxes, so you probably collect more from taxing additional business profits than you do from minimum wage workers. Otherwise you have to assume that the businesses or customers who would otherwise have the extra money are better at avoiding taxes.
Also, the argument for cutting taxes isn't quite that people have more money to spend, it's that they have more money to invest. Pointless spending and consumerism doesn't grow the economy. It's investment in new businesses, technology, etc. that expands the economy. If everyone who had extra money as a result of a tax cut decided to spend it on wall-mounted talking bass, it wouldn't do anything for the economy's long term benefit. If instead it was invested in more efficient ways to design, produce, or ship wall-mounted talking bass, then you'd have economic growth.
Companies certainly don't mind a captive audience, but typically when the government hands you a government granted monopoly, they set caps on the amount of profit that can be generated as a public utility. I suspect that the cable companies don't want this because they already have a product that most people want (or maybe even need) and some already have a captive audience through exclusivity contracts with various municipalities. The don't get too many additional customers even if they're given a government granted monopoly, and they can't fleece the ones they already have like they've been doing for years now.
It would be difficult to actually succeed with a lawsuit, as they would first have to demonstrate that they've suffered some material harm from this. Realistically, if anyone had a chance of doing that, it would be Super Micro as opposed to Apple or Amazon. Neither Apple or Amazon have seen their stock fluctuate wildly enough that it would be easy to point to this story as the only (or even primary) cause. Super Micro on the other hand had their price drop to about half of what it was prior to the announcement.
I think companies are also a little reluctant to sue mainstream press, even when they think they've been hit with a hatchet job. Like any group, the press don't like attacks against their own from outside. They might call each other left/right wing mouthpieces, but they'll put that aside if anyone starts going after the freedom of the press as a whole. A big company is better off just dragging the news agencies name through the mud. The competing news agencies won't mind too much (or might even join in) and a lawsuit is going to be difficult to win and cost the company more than they get.
It's not a particularly huge issue for them as their 14 nm process is very mature and highly performant. Even on Intel's own marketing slides, they indicated that their 10 nm would not initially have as good of performance characteristics as their 14 nm process.
The real problem for Intel is that they anticipated moving several product lines off of 14 nm by this point, but since that hasn't happened they're unable to supply all markets adequately. AMD can't take all that much advantage of the situation as they're selling Ryzen products about as quickly as they can make them as well. The biggest issue for Intel will probably be in the server market as that's where AMD's 7 nm products will launch first and likely have a massive core advantage over Intel parts given AMD's multi-chip module approach when compared to Intel's monolithic die.
Given the number of other threads that devolve into shit flinging in one direction or the other over Trump (or just politics in general), maybe it's not a bad idea to have one of these stories every now and again with some thinly veiled connection to technology so that everyone who wants to argue about has a place to do so and the other comment sections can be free of their off-topic discussion.
Maybe it could get it's own special little section with some other features. Moderation can be changed so that he only options are "+1 Validates My Beliefs" and "-1 Fuck You I Disagree" or something along those lines. Anyone who wants to, is free to join in, but if they don't even want to observe the trash fire, they can just skip over the story entirely. Maybe even feel a little bit smug about doing so.
Given the amount of schemes and scams surrounding crypto-currencies, I think the real surprise is that it's only ~50% of sites being willing to publish advertisements as content.
If you already know one programming language, why do you need a course or a book to learn another? Just take any program you would have done in C++ and try doing it in Java if you need a problem to solve. Or just pick something that might be interesting to build as a toy project, like a proxy server. You'll probably learn best by doing something and running into problems. Then you can start asking specific questions that are well covered by the disjointed tutorials.
Almost any book or course on Java is going to be targeted at novices who have little or no programming experience. If you've got multiple decades of experience, these resources are not for you. I'm not even sure if there are any books or courses that would be targeted at someone like you, simply because there aren't a lot of people like you to consume such a resource or who would be interested in paying for it.
If you can get everyone to make AIs that don't value competition you might have a point, but now there's a whole lot of incentive for one person to make a hyper-competitive AI, because it's going to stomp the crap out of the ones that don't know any better. You're either missing the prisoner's dilemma aspect of this, or just wishing that it didn't exist.
The simple fact is that an AI which will utilize strategies which are more successful in the real world is going to do better than anything that refuses to employ those strategies. Even if you could get the humans creating them to agree to make them without those strategies, if you given the AIs any actual capacity to learn, as soon as one accidentally discovers a better strategy, it will win because it's using a more optimal strategy that produces better results. The others will immediately start adopting that strategy in response (even if it didn't originate with them), or if they've been artificially crippled in a way that makes it impossible, they'll be completely supplanted.
Competition just happens to be a really good strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
The sister ship of the Titanic had a long and safe career for 20 years after the sinking.
That's one hell of a ship that it stays in operation for up to 20 years after sinking. Are you sure it wasn't a sister submarine?
If you know you're being spied on (I find it hard to believe that the Times would find out before the U.S. government) wouldn't that just motivate you to feed bad information through those channels? Sure, you could try to block the spying, but that just means that the spy tries something else and you're uncertain as to whether or not they're intercepting your communication again. Also, they're faced with the difficulty of trying to determine if there's another line of communication that they don't have access to where all of the real information is being passed and have to question the value of all of the communications that they do intercept.
Where has 'curiosity' gone; especially in males!? They all seem too much into self grooming products and how they look these days.
There are probably a lot of small reasons that contribute. Here's just a few off the top of my head:
I suspect that a sizable part of it is that increases in minimum wage have resulted in higher teen unemployment. If you can't find a job (because you don't have sufficient skill to command receiving the minimum wage), what else is there to do but sit around and preen. If you can't afford to buy her flowers, you'd better damn well look good? I learned plenty of useful skills doing low wage work that I wouldn't have thought to acquire on my own. Having a job and getting paid also helps you learn some financial responsibility on top of it.
Another part is probably that parents are more loath to let their children play outside these days due to irrational fears. Part of this is that people are having fewer kids so they're unconsciously far more protective of the one or two that they do have. But when you coop kids up all day, they get sucked in by TV, video games, or other forms of escapism to find some stimulation. Parents don't seem to mind because even though they won't let little Billy outside, they don't want him bugging them all day either.
On top of that are the helicopter parents that do everything for their children to the point where it removes their ability to grow as a person. If you don't let kids start making decisions as they get older, they're not going to develop properly. Give kids some chores and responsibilities and a little bit of autonomy. Otherwise you get kids who make it college and don't even know how to do their own laundry. And worse yet, they're not really sure how to go about finding out how to do it.
A tendency to diagnose any rambunctiousness (probably due to a lack of being able to go outside and run around enough) as some form of attention deficit disorder probably kills curiosity in some children. There are kids that are just zombified on medication that they don't really need. Put more physical education in schools and this might not be as much of a problem. It would probably help with the ballooning child obesity rates as well. Humans are still animals and we need physical activity. You'd give a pet hamster a wheel because you realize sitting in a cage all day will just make it stir crazy. Why not do the same for kids?
Maybe you could even blame some of the so-called diversity initiatives targeting getting more girls involved in subjects or fields that are traditionally male. I don't really think this actively harms boys, but there's still an opportunity cost and a lot of these programs are wasted money or effort that could be spent on expanding programs that will get more feet (regardless of whether they're male or female) naturally beating a path to their doors.
There are probably dozens of other little things that add to it as well. And it's really sad because today's world offers curiosity satisfaction on demand. The internet puts just about any information right at your finger tips. Even if it's something seemingly mundane, there's probably half a dozen YouTube videos on how to do a thing or offer how-to guides on how to get started with some hobby. You used to have to go down to the library and try to find a book (if they had one) or find someone else to take the time to teach you how. You can get a free introduction to just about anything online. You don't even need to suffer the embarrassment of asking someone else if you feel like it's something you should already know either.
Before we go around making new taxes that likely have side effects and unintended consequences that no one anticipated, wouldn't it be better to try to figure out why large groups of people (or at least large enough for it to be an issue that you would propose a tax to solve) are engaging in behavior that doesn't make much sense for a person to engage in and try to address the actual underlying issue?
There aren't many good reasons for a person to buy expensive housing and leave it completely unused. Either they think it's hideously undervalued to the point that it's worth keeping and paying property taxes on because what it can eventually be sold for will be much greater, they're actually renting it out on something like Airbnb (so it's technically being occupied), someone in a foreign country purchased it as a hedge against their local economy tanking, or someone in a foreign country buying it because there's some path to citizenship available through spending a lot of money in the other country.
Ultimately though, the real issue is a lack of supply. Too many cities have made it essentially impossible to develop new housing for a variety of reasons. There's no getting around supply and demand, If you want less expensive housing, let more of it be built.
If the housing market returns to "normalcy", we're going into a second Great Recession and even stagflation.
I think you're going to need to explain the logic behind that.
I'm not sure what the scare quotes on normalcy are for either.
You might not have sympathy for him as an individual, but I'd still be worried about the legal precedence this sets. You might not presently live at the cliff edge yourself, but the gradual erosion of liberty will certainly ensure that you eventually do.
When considering different subgroups, the results herein were no longer statistically significant in younger adults, men, participants with only a high school diploma and with no family history of cancer, never smokers and current smokers, and participants with a high overall dietary quality, while the strongest association was observed among obese individuals (although the 95% CI was large). The absence of significant results in certain strata may be associated with limited statistical power. Regarding the latter association, previous occupational data have indicated a potential interaction between obesity and pesticide use on cancer risk. It can be hypothesized that obese individuals with metabolic disorders may be more sensitive to potential chemical disruptors, such as pesticides.
Negative associations were observed herein between the risk of cancer and combining both low to medium diet quality and high frequency of organic food consumption. The association between cancer risk and combining both a high-quality diet and high frequency of organic food consumption approached statistical significance. One hypothesis may be that higher intake of pesticide-contaminated products may partly counterbalance the beneficial role of high-quality foods among individuals with a high dietary quality.
Some limitations of our study should be noted. First, our analyses were based on volunteers who were likely particularly health-conscious individuals, thus limiting the generalizability of our findings. NutriNet-Santé participants are more often female, are well educated, and exhibit healthier behaviors compared with the French general population. These factors may may have led to a lower cancer incidence herein than the national estimates, as well as higher levels of organic food consumption in our sample.
One of the things that stands out the most is that if you already have a high quality diet, the results are no longer statistically significant. It's not a bad study, but of course the reporting on it jumps to conclusions that might not be true.
This guy doesn't merely write crap code, he has a track record of not playing well with others, refusing to acknowledge bugs, expecting other software projects to work around and make up for his mistakes, and so on, and so forth.
All of that's a valid reason for not liking SystemD, and touches on my own dislike for it as well. However, the fact that it had a vulnerability in it isn't a good reason to dislike it for the sake of that reason alone, unless you're willing to dislike any other software that has had a vulnerability equally much. Don't conflate dislike of a thing for valid reasons with reasons that you wouldn't use or apply in other cases.
To put it another way, if you found out that a person you already disliked once ran over someone's dog, you might use that act itself to condemn them as a terrible person. However, it's unlikely that if your friend ran over someone's dog that you'd think using that act to condemn them as a terrible person would be justified. If you want to think less of a person for running over a dog, do it in equal amounts irrespective of how you felt about that person prior to them running over someone's dog.
That's the thing, isn't it? The millionth windows vulnerability and still saying "well any code has bugs". Sure it does. But the rebuttal is essentially saying that all code is created equal.
It obviously isn't, and I don't think anyone would honestly argue that all code (or designs, or programmers, etc.) is equal with a straight face. No one's forcing anyone to use crap code, especially in the open source community. If this were Windows, you'd just be stuck with it like all of the other crap that Microsoft has shoved off on people over the years.
I'm not a fan of SystemD, but this really isn't that much different than vulnerabilities in other popular packages that almost everyone uses. No one writes perfect code, but at least with any open source software, there's usually a patch out relatively quickly.
He might not have wanted anyone to die, but you'd have to be pretty naive to argue that he attached a 0% probability to that actually happening. I did plenty of stupid shit in my youth that could have resulted in my death, but I don't think I ever thought there wasn't a chance of it happening, merely that it was just incredibly low or just an acceptable risk for the enjoyment and thrill I might get out of it.
Even then, I don't think I could have jumped through the mental hoops necessary to rationalize calling a swat team on someone would have no chance at all of ending with someone being unjustly killed. Maybe you could argue that someone could be pissed off enough to do it as an act of exceptionally poor judgement in the heat of the moment, but this person was a dispassionate third party.
Businesses don't want extra profit.
I think you really need to rethink what you're writing as this makes no sense at all. Sure, there's no incentive for extra profit at 100% tax rate, but no countries are even close to 100% corporate tax rates and up until recently the U.S. had one of the world's highest corporate tax rates.
Thus, having higher salaries lowers a businesses tax bill (see above).
It also potentially lowers their profits. But according to your logic, businesses don't want those. Think of it this way. If what you wrote were in any way true, you wouldn't need a minimum wage. Businesses would already be trying to pay workers more to lower their tax bill. Since we don't see this happening, we can conclude that your reasoning is incorrect.
You also seem to think that poor people spend more money than rich. Rich people don't hoard money in mattresses, they invest it. That means other people borrow money to expand existing businesses or create new ones which necessitates new jobs, which pay workers. Generally investment occurs in ventures that expect to be able to make profit because their use of labor will be more productive. This is what actually causes economic expansion. Simply moving money around does nothing in and of itself.
This in turn increases overall economic activity. Exactly as the Seattle experiment has so far shown.
Overall economic activity is up everywhere in the U.S. though, not just in Seattle. If it were simply a matter of giving people more money to spend, we would just run the printing presses in the mint non-stop. We can look at historical example to see that this doesn't work because money is just a commodity itself and subject to the same laws of supply and demand.
From what I've seen, prices haven't been going up, but this event is apparently from several decades ago, so things may have been different back then. More recently, what you get for that price has been decreasing. For example, you might pay the same amount as you always did, but get a smaller burger or fewer chicken meat wads.
That aside, you're ignoring that the other costs incurred by a business aren't also tied to the cost of labor for their respective suppliers. You have to look at how increases in minimum wage increase the cost of other goods or services (i.e., the non-labor portion of their costs) that the business purchases. While it isn't going to be an increase for everything, it's not going to be nothing either. In the event where every input is based entirely on the cost of minimum wage, then it really is a 15% increase in cost since every one else had to raise prices.
Finally, you may not necessarily get an additional 15% revenue for a 15% price hike because the demand curves are almost never linear. If a business raised prices by 100%, they'd probably lose more than 50% of their customers which means that increasing prices results in lower revenue. It's likely that increasing prices by 25% means that you lose enough business that you only get a 15% increase in revenue from doing so. If you only raised prices 15%, maybe you'd only get a 10% increase in revenue which isn't enough to offset the costs.
Their cost of living would be tied to whatever the cheapest rent, food, etc. that they could procure would be. That doesn't necessarily mean that those options are provided by businesses where labor is a majority of costs, in turn mandating a raise in prices in response to increases in wage as well. Over the long term, I would expect those costs to decrease, or at least remain stable, even if the way in which services are procured (i.e., people buying from Amazon instead of locally) changes.
I think the more fucked up part was that he only charged $10. When it comes down to it, everyone eventually sets a dollar amount (whether they consciously believe they do or not) for the value of human life, but $10 is really lowballing it.
Though, I suppose the guy who paid the $10 for the swatting over losing a $1.50 wager is even worse.
I think you're overlooking something fairly important. It really doesn't matter what your wages are if you don't factor in what your costs are. Otherwise, by your logic you could conclude that expensive rent raises your wages because it makes it impossible for employers to hire anyone who can't afford to live in the expensive apartments. This is true in a way, but it doesn't mean that you're financially better off. Does it matter if you make $150,000 and pay $100,000 for your various expenses as opposed to only making $75,000, but paying $25,000 in expenses? Your wages are twice as much in the first case, but in the end you have the same left over after expenses.
You would want to look at how much extra cost you end up paying as a result of minimum wages, as opposed to how much your wages are increased as a result of reduced labor supply. I doubt that this works out favorably for you, particularly because minimum wage jobs are not high skill positions. Anyone your age who's working in a minimum wage position is unlikely to compete for your position. That we don't see a lot of dish washers becoming computer programmers should show the fault in that reasoning. Instead, companies are importing skilled labor from outside of the country to drive down labor costs. Incidentally, this actually benefits the dish washer since products that require programming labor now become less expensive for him.
In fact, giving people a raise not only gives them more money to spend, it also raises the amount of taxes taken in.
How does that even work out mathematically? If they weren't being paid more, then the business (or the customers of the business) would have that money instead. If the business keeps all of it, they pay more taxes on the extra profit. If the customers have it, they spend it elsewhere in which case it's tax neutral. If you wanted to look at the more complex reality, the people getting a minimum wage raise don't pay much in the way of taxes, so you probably collect more from taxing additional business profits than you do from minimum wage workers. Otherwise you have to assume that the businesses or customers who would otherwise have the extra money are better at avoiding taxes.
Also, the argument for cutting taxes isn't quite that people have more money to spend, it's that they have more money to invest. Pointless spending and consumerism doesn't grow the economy. It's investment in new businesses, technology, etc. that expands the economy. If everyone who had extra money as a result of a tax cut decided to spend it on wall-mounted talking bass, it wouldn't do anything for the economy's long term benefit. If instead it was invested in more efficient ways to design, produce, or ship wall-mounted talking bass, then you'd have economic growth.
Companies certainly don't mind a captive audience, but typically when the government hands you a government granted monopoly, they set caps on the amount of profit that can be generated as a public utility. I suspect that the cable companies don't want this because they already have a product that most people want (or maybe even need) and some already have a captive audience through exclusivity contracts with various municipalities. The don't get too many additional customers even if they're given a government granted monopoly, and they can't fleece the ones they already have like they've been doing for years now.
It would be difficult to actually succeed with a lawsuit, as they would first have to demonstrate that they've suffered some material harm from this. Realistically, if anyone had a chance of doing that, it would be Super Micro as opposed to Apple or Amazon. Neither Apple or Amazon have seen their stock fluctuate wildly enough that it would be easy to point to this story as the only (or even primary) cause. Super Micro on the other hand had their price drop to about half of what it was prior to the announcement.
I think companies are also a little reluctant to sue mainstream press, even when they think they've been hit with a hatchet job. Like any group, the press don't like attacks against their own from outside. They might call each other left/right wing mouthpieces, but they'll put that aside if anyone starts going after the freedom of the press as a whole. A big company is better off just dragging the news agencies name through the mud. The competing news agencies won't mind too much (or might even join in) and a lawsuit is going to be difficult to win and cost the company more than they get.
It's not a particularly huge issue for them as their 14 nm process is very mature and highly performant. Even on Intel's own marketing slides, they indicated that their 10 nm would not initially have as good of performance characteristics as their 14 nm process.
The real problem for Intel is that they anticipated moving several product lines off of 14 nm by this point, but since that hasn't happened they're unable to supply all markets adequately. AMD can't take all that much advantage of the situation as they're selling Ryzen products about as quickly as they can make them as well. The biggest issue for Intel will probably be in the server market as that's where AMD's 7 nm products will launch first and likely have a massive core advantage over Intel parts given AMD's multi-chip module approach when compared to Intel's monolithic die.
Given the number of other threads that devolve into shit flinging in one direction or the other over Trump (or just politics in general), maybe it's not a bad idea to have one of these stories every now and again with some thinly veiled connection to technology so that everyone who wants to argue about has a place to do so and the other comment sections can be free of their off-topic discussion.
Maybe it could get it's own special little section with some other features. Moderation can be changed so that he only options are "+1 Validates My Beliefs" and "-1 Fuck You I Disagree" or something along those lines. Anyone who wants to, is free to join in, but if they don't even want to observe the trash fire, they can just skip over the story entirely. Maybe even feel a little bit smug about doing so.
He has the depth of a piece of paper.
Really? Come on now.
That's being far too generous. I think you might want to look on the far side of the Planck length instead.
Given the amount of schemes and scams surrounding crypto-currencies, I think the real surprise is that it's only ~50% of sites being willing to publish advertisements as content.
If you already know one programming language, why do you need a course or a book to learn another? Just take any program you would have done in C++ and try doing it in Java if you need a problem to solve. Or just pick something that might be interesting to build as a toy project, like a proxy server. You'll probably learn best by doing something and running into problems. Then you can start asking specific questions that are well covered by the disjointed tutorials.
Almost any book or course on Java is going to be targeted at novices who have little or no programming experience. If you've got multiple decades of experience, these resources are not for you. I'm not even sure if there are any books or courses that would be targeted at someone like you, simply because there aren't a lot of people like you to consume such a resource or who would be interested in paying for it.
Do you have a car analogy? And could you perhaps convert any units of measure into Libraries of Congress?
If you can get everyone to make AIs that don't value competition you might have a point, but now there's a whole lot of incentive for one person to make a hyper-competitive AI, because it's going to stomp the crap out of the ones that don't know any better. You're either missing the prisoner's dilemma aspect of this, or just wishing that it didn't exist.
The simple fact is that an AI which will utilize strategies which are more successful in the real world is going to do better than anything that refuses to employ those strategies. Even if you could get the humans creating them to agree to make them without those strategies, if you given the AIs any actual capacity to learn, as soon as one accidentally discovers a better strategy, it will win because it's using a more optimal strategy that produces better results. The others will immediately start adopting that strategy in response (even if it didn't originate with them), or if they've been artificially crippled in a way that makes it impossible, they'll be completely supplanted.
Competition just happens to be a really good strategy.