So what I am curious about, is what they did actually illegal, or is it a case of private currency manipulation? There have been a few historical cases where rich individuals or companies were able to go into poor countries and warp their economy before crashing or gutting them.
When your GDP is lower than some individual's incomes, some interesting but bad things can happen.
The scary part about Hoover was that it was not just 'anyone and everyone', but targeted specifically at anyone who deviated culturally from the 'good guys'. If you were in the privileged group, you did not get watched. If you were part of any other group and were attempting to act above your station, that was a threat to national security.
I kinda wonder if it would have turned out differently if the shooters, back when they were being investigated, we black muslims rather than arab ones. The barrier to arresting and imprisoning one seems to be a bit lower than the other.
You are confusing top criminal investigators in fiction and top criminal investigators in the real world. In the real world, promotions and office are based off prosecuting the 'right' people and not being caught at being 'wrong'. The most effect (and rewarded) way of accomplishing this is to make sure your conviction record matches 'what everyone knows' regarding who commits crimes.
I love how they use awards by law enforcement as an example of them being good actors. One of the old and scary problems in our legal system has always been law enforcement working with really shady companies and protecting them. The fraternal atmosphere tends to leave police departments particularly vulnerable to being scammed, esp when those scams result in things that benefit the department like cash, 'evidence', or validation of existing prejudice.
Well, it does not have to be reliable, one generally only has to demonstrate that they are making a legitimate effort to prevent foreign downloaders from using the site.
Both deal with limitations on 1st amendment protection. While the two acts are not equivalent, any discussion where proponents of free speech take a hardline view have to be able to defend their beliefs against the other consequences of them. If they drop to 'well, some things should be stopped and some do not' then they have to provide a better argument than 'free speech' alone.
Granted the burden on arguments for exceptions is really on the side pushing the exception, but the other side still needs to address the issue.
Unfortunately, what does not work tends to become trendy again as newer developers relearn old mistakes.
This is pretty human in general, people tend to connect with problems from their lifetime and thus have a different perspective on the solutions than people who grew u with those solutions mitigating the original problems. So take those solutions away and the old issues come back, needing to be re-solved. We are starting to really see that with agile development, people have forgotten about the issues that lead to waterfall in the first place, so a lot of developers are jumping to the bad old days with a new shine.
Arguing morality in economics is critical for understanding real world systems though. It is only the simplified toy systems where morality is dropped in order to make the models easier to work with.
It is the other way around. If you believe a free system has such benefits, you are playing with a toy system that exists in a vacuum free of other influences. In other words, ignoring reality.
Uber has an interesting tradeoff in that they can sacrifice small markets and use the outrage to drive sales in larger markets. Drop kansas, watch people in LA circle the wagons and use Uber more.
There will probably always be some consumers who balance things this way, but they tend to be too small of a group for the most mass of mass markets. They also tend to be middle to upper middle class (thus have more disposable income) so that alone makes a smaller percentage to start with.
The places where you see this segment still hold sway tend to be smaller, more 'lifestyle' type markets. For instance, sewing machines. As a hobby it is something generally only people with decent amounts of disposable income engage in, and within that the number of people who do more than make drapes is even more niche. Consequently there is still a thriving demand for purely mechanical 'will survive a bomb blast' sewing machines in addition to the more common electronic and computerized offerings. But you pay a premium AND get less functionality.
People tend to overestimate how powerful POTUS actually is. The bulk of the political power lies in various institutions, even within the executive branch, and the relationship between them and POTUS is much more like peers engaged in diplomacy than a leader giving commands.
That is where 'politely and calmly' comes in. While it is not a panacea, it does improve one's chances. Calm disagreement where one does not give the impression of directly challenging the officer's authority can sometimes stop a situation from escalating and gives the officer a greater opportunity to save face. If the officer feels challenged or concerned about an appearance of authority being questioned in an active situation, it give them fewer face saving options, which can lead to escalation pretty quickly.
Consumer expectations have also changed, with people more reluctant to invest in quality equipment and more likely to buy larger amounts of cheaper products.
Interesting. Last physics project I worked on standardized on f77 across the project, but it was one of those 'decade to build the device' ones that kinda encouraged using older standards simply by virtue of not changing what they started with.
You mean them flouncing from other states? They were not 'kicked out' of Kansas, they were held to the same standards in terms of liability and safety as other services, and rather than follow the rules they skipped out. Very different.
Well, yes. Having existing laws applied to you is generally a 'lose' when your entire business model depends on skipping those expensive steps others have to play by. It is a win for Uber passengers through.
I would go even further and describe their exiting Kansas as a 'flounce'. Uber can hype it up and play the victim, which tends to get them support from certain market segments and thus helps them in other regions.
Slashdot Mirror
So what I am curious about, is what they did actually illegal, or is it a case of private currency manipulation? There have been a few historical cases where rich individuals or companies were able to go into poor countries and warp their economy before crashing or gutting them.
When your GDP is lower than some individual's incomes, some interesting but bad things can happen.
I wish I had mod points to spend ^_^
Humans tend to be terrible at weighing actual risks.
The scary part about Hoover was that it was not just 'anyone and everyone', but targeted specifically at anyone who deviated culturally from the 'good guys'. If you were in the privileged group, you did not get watched. If you were part of any other group and were attempting to act above your station, that was a threat to national security.
I kinda wonder if it would have turned out differently if the shooters, back when they were being investigated, we black muslims rather than arab ones. The barrier to arresting and imprisoning one seems to be a bit lower than the other.
You are confusing top criminal investigators in fiction and top criminal investigators in the real world. In the real world, promotions and office are based off prosecuting the 'right' people and not being caught at being 'wrong'. The most effect (and rewarded) way of accomplishing this is to make sure your conviction record matches 'what everyone knows' regarding who commits crimes.
I love how they use awards by law enforcement as an example of them being good actors. One of the old and scary problems in our legal system has always been law enforcement working with really shady companies and protecting them. The fraternal atmosphere tends to leave police departments particularly vulnerable to being scammed, esp when those scams result in things that benefit the department like cash, 'evidence', or validation of existing prejudice.
Ahm, quantifying morality is a pretty active area of research.
Well, it does not have to be reliable, one generally only has to demonstrate that they are making a legitimate effort to prevent foreign downloaders from using the site.
There is an existing law involved, the Arms Export Control Act. That is the one Defense Distributed ran afoul of.
Which also means they can comply via simple IP geolocation restrictions, which will make any 'undue burden' argument more difficult.
Both deal with limitations on 1st amendment protection. While the two acts are not equivalent, any discussion where proponents of free speech take a hardline view have to be able to defend their beliefs against the other consequences of them. If they drop to 'well, some things should be stopped and some do not' then they have to provide a better argument than 'free speech' alone.
Granted the burden on arguments for exceptions is really on the side pushing the exception, but the other side still needs to address the issue.
Unfortunately, what does not work tends to become trendy again as newer developers relearn old mistakes.
This is pretty human in general, people tend to connect with problems from their lifetime and thus have a different perspective on the solutions than people who grew u with those solutions mitigating the original problems. So take those solutions away and the old issues come back, needing to be re-solved. We are starting to really see that with agile development, people have forgotten about the issues that lead to waterfall in the first place, so a lot of developers are jumping to the bad old days with a new shine.
Arguing morality in economics is critical for understanding real world systems though. It is only the simplified toy systems where morality is dropped in order to make the models easier to work with.
It is the other way around. If you believe a free system has such benefits, you are playing with a toy system that exists in a vacuum free of other influences. In other words, ignoring reality.
Uber has an interesting tradeoff in that they can sacrifice small markets and use the outrage to drive sales in larger markets. Drop kansas, watch people in LA circle the wagons and use Uber more.
There will probably always be some consumers who balance things this way, but they tend to be too small of a group for the most mass of mass markets. They also tend to be middle to upper middle class (thus have more disposable income) so that alone makes a smaller percentage to start with.
The places where you see this segment still hold sway tend to be smaller, more 'lifestyle' type markets. For instance, sewing machines. As a hobby it is something generally only people with decent amounts of disposable income engage in, and within that the number of people who do more than make drapes is even more niche. Consequently there is still a thriving demand for purely mechanical 'will survive a bomb blast' sewing machines in addition to the more common electronic and computerized offerings. But you pay a premium AND get less functionality.
Pretty fast.
People tend to overestimate how powerful POTUS actually is. The bulk of the political power lies in various institutions, even within the executive branch, and the relationship between them and POTUS is much more like peers engaged in diplomacy than a leader giving commands.
Great.
What is "unreasonable"?
What is a "paper"?
What is an "effects"?
Things are only simple when one only considers the answers they want.
Yeah, one does not generally 'win' a conflict with police unless one has an entire paramilitary force (like a drug cartel) backing them up.
That is where 'politely and calmly' comes in. While it is not a panacea, it does improve one's chances. Calm disagreement where one does not give the impression of directly challenging the officer's authority can sometimes stop a situation from escalating and gives the officer a greater opportunity to save face. If the officer feels challenged or concerned about an appearance of authority being questioned in an active situation, it give them fewer face saving options, which can lead to escalation pretty quickly.
Consumer expectations have also changed, with people more reluctant to invest in quality equipment and more likely to buy larger amounts of cheaper products.
Well, yes. If one is going to bring up examples of how something can work, one generally pulls from examples that, well, work well.
Interesting. Last physics project I worked on standardized on f77 across the project, but it was one of those 'decade to build the device' ones that kinda encouraged using older standards simply by virtue of not changing what they started with.
You mean them flouncing from other states? They were not 'kicked out' of Kansas, they were held to the same standards in terms of liability and safety as other services, and rather than follow the rules they skipped out. Very different.
Well, yes. Having existing laws applied to you is generally a 'lose' when your entire business model depends on skipping those expensive steps others have to play by. It is a win for Uber passengers through.
I would go even further and describe their exiting Kansas as a 'flounce'. Uber can hype it up and play the victim, which tends to get them support from certain market segments and thus helps them in other regions.