Probably the biggest eSports tournament was the 2014 LoL World Championship. It hosted 45,000 people in the stadium, and streamed to over 27 million people.
eSports have been growing steadily, even if WoT tournaments are just now catching up.
This just isn't true. Art has such a large degree of expression to it, and it's value is truly in the eye of the beholder. It is difficult to judge someone else's work because of this, because to that person their work may be invaluable, but you think it's crap.
If I program a system and my code is littered with globals, alternating snake case and camel caps, and I never release my system resources, guess what? I'm doing it wrong. Objectively wrong.
As someone who went to a liberal arts school, majored in CS, but took a lot of art classes, here is my observation: CS is far more difficult, but art is far more time-consuming.
People bring up the Jim Crow south all the time when talking about this. It's interesting to note that Jim Crow was not private enterprise being discriminatory, it was government discrimination. The reality is as long as you ensure individuals are free, discrimination by businesses is minimal, and dies out over time. There is no evidence that suggests government policies in any way improve or expedite this. In fast, the opposite has been true historically, as you pointed out with the Jim Crow laws.
The freedom to be a dick is exactly what liberty is all about.
Do you think freedom of speech means you're allowed to write a letter to your grandmother? No, it means you can say controversial and offensive things without fear of government retribution.
Freedom isn't a word that's supposed to make everyone happy all the time. Liberty is about having the right to be "openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic", without fear of physical aggression.
That's not to say there aren't consequences for one's actions, but a free society isn't one that mandates everyone conform to specific belief system, it's one that allows people to believe what they want and behave as they like, as long as they don't physically hard other people.
But as a BUSINESS, you will provide the same service to everyone regardless of race/creed/religion/etc.
So, as a business, you are being forced to associate with people.
I personally wouldn't use a service or purchase a good from a business that actively discriminates. But I don't think anyone has the right to dictate who they can or cannot refuse service to.
At the end of the day, discrimination is bad for business. All you need to defeat it is someone who is greedy to open a competing shop, and discriminatory business will wither and die- unless, of course, you are living in a region where everyone discriminates, in which case you having deeper problems than simply legislating a belief system.
I think people with certain belief should be allowed to discriminate, and this includes denying me service. I wouldn't like it, but I don't think I have the right to violently force them to perform a service for me.
The only exception to this would be people involved in public service (including utilities), or people who deal with the immediate health and well-being of others (hospitals). If there exist exigent life-or-death circumstances, a business cannot deny service.
I think your stance is one primarily of laziness. You don't want to exert the effort to convince people of something, you would prefer just to force a specific belief system upon people through the govt.
....so I can't say for sure what's in it. However, as long as any business is not actively causing physical harm by refusing a good or service, they should have the right to do so. If this is a bill to codify that right, I'm ok with that.
The government derives it's power from the ability murder people, imprison them, or impose violence on them. As soon as discrimination cases can be brought against a business for refusing to transact with some group or individual, the government force an outcome under threat of violence. No business should be forced to perform a service for anyone (excluding exigent, life-threatening circumstances). Our laws need to reflect that.
I just wish religion wasn't the backbone for this law.
The way you phrased this make it seem like you think all these things are fundamentally *good*. The reality is they are all just barriers to market entry.
Seriously.
Cars must be inspected 3 times a year. This includes safety and cleanliness, and accessibility.
If you are making money off of your vehicle, the incentive to keep it clean, safe, and accessible is higher than some government mandate telling you that you have to.
Must have a rate card with FIXED (regulated) fares (none of this surge pricing nonsense) that the fares can see
Surge pricing is a mechanism to prevent shortages. Every time the government mandates pricing, there have been shortages (for instance, the housing crisis in New York or the energy crisis in California). Furthermore, what right does the government have to tell an individual they don't deserve to be paid more for risking their safety in poor conditions, or high-traffic environments?
All drivers must have valid Taxicab Drivers Licenses
This is just a mechanism to arbitrarily limit supply. If the person already has a motor vehicle license, they have already shown they can drive. It's just another barrier to entry pushed into law by the existing industry.
Must have minimum $200,000 insurance per person
I think insurance is required for anyone who drives a vehicle anyway. Why should insurance laws be different if you operate a cab? I don't even want to touch mandated insurance...
Must operate each cab a minimum of 18 hours a day (again, none of this 'I'll only drive if the rates are high enough' crap)
This is frustrating. Why not let people drive when rates are high? If high rates encourage more drivers and thus more people can arrive at their destination more quickly, how is this a bad thing? You can even do the math: if you have 1000 people who need rides, and rides are fixed at $10, let's say you have 20 available drivers. Each ride takes 10 minutes. This means every person will arrive at their destination in 8 hours and 20 minutes. Now let's pretend rates can vary. You have 100 drivers willing to operate at $50, 80 drivers at $40, 60 at $30, 40 at $20, and 20 at $10 (keeping in mind that you only have 100 drivers total). Now let's say you have 200 people willing to pay $50, 200 willing to pay $40, 200 willing to pay $30, 200 willing to pay $20, and 200 willing to pay $10. The first 200 people are taken care of in 20 minutes. The next 200 it takes just under 30 minutes. The next 200 take just over 30 minutes. 200 more in 50 minutes, and the final 200 take an hour and 40 minutes. This gives us a grand total of just under 4 hours.
But wait! you say. The rich people got their rides first! This isn't fair!
Holy hell, man, think for a second. First, we just moved all 1000 people in *under half the time it took us before*. Second, not everyone who pays more is necessarily rich, they might just really need to get to their destination- in fact, truly rich people probably aren't using cab services. Third, you are saying you would rather it take longer for everyone to get to their destination, then for people willing/able to pay more to get a ride first. Finally, you would *prevent* the rich passenger from giving more money to the driver- if you do this, you better not complain about the 1%.
Alright, at this point I'm pretty sick of going over these point by point. The fundamental takeaway is they are bullshit, and don't actually help anyone except the entrenched industry.
See, this right here is the thing. Sure, you can implement a library yourself. Sure, your implementation might be more closely fitted with the problem you need to solve. But is your code cleaner? Is it more extensible? Is it well-documented? If you have all those things, you can *begin* to compete with a framework that does the same thing. The framework still has a major advantage: people outside of *you* can come into the project knowing the framework. Everyone will have to learn the thing you wrote from scratch.
Just to give some perspective to that figure, however, the average flow for the Yellowstone around Glendive is almost 40,000 gallons per second. A 50,000 gallon spill really isn't that much.
That being said, True oil has a history of spill, in part because of the poor government incentives in place. Instead of suing them for millions in damages when a spill occurs, making a spills incredibly costly, the govt. issues compliance regulations. Not only are the industry leader consulted when creating compliance (so the oil industry regulates itself), but if an oil pipeline company meets those standards they are far more difficult to sue, because they have the best defense: they followed all the rules.
I hope collectively we will wake up some day and realize that regulations don't work, only massive punishment. The U.S. government shouldn't be in the business of telling companies what the proper safety is for their industry. The industry should be figuring that out, and if they figure it out wrong, oh well, you owe millions in damages and you go out of business. Should have invested more in research and better equipment. Maybe your competitor will get it right.
It's really cool that you own up to your info as an honest mistake.
I was/am kinda scared about how quickly your post got modded as informative. Just a reality check about stuff one reads on the internet, I suppose. Easy to make a mistake, and easy for others not to recognize it as such.
The Keystone pipeline has four phases, three of which are complete. The first three bring oil down to the Gulf Coast from Canada. XL has nothing to do with that.
The XL potion brings oil from Canada through Montana and Nebraska before it connects to the rest of the pipe. It has an initial capacity of 700,000 barrels, and can be increased to 900,000. http://www.downstreamtoday.com...
Also, there is massive shipping operations in Texas that allows the oil to easily be transported to coastal parts of the U.S.
So I really don't know where you got that info, but maybe double check it next time...?
Slashdot Mirror
Probably the biggest eSports tournament was the 2014 LoL World Championship. It hosted 45,000 people in the stadium, and streamed to over 27 million people.
eSports have been growing steadily, even if WoT tournaments are just now catching up.
This just isn't true. Art has such a large degree of expression to it, and it's value is truly in the eye of the beholder. It is difficult to judge someone else's work because of this, because to that person their work may be invaluable, but you think it's crap.
If I program a system and my code is littered with globals, alternating snake case and camel caps, and I never release my system resources, guess what? I'm doing it wrong. Objectively wrong.
As someone who went to a liberal arts school, majored in CS, but took a lot of art classes, here is my observation: CS is far more difficult, but art is far more time-consuming.
I don't think I've ever seen this opinion expressed using proper capitalization.
Exactly.
People bring up the Jim Crow south all the time when talking about this. It's interesting to note that Jim Crow was not private enterprise being discriminatory, it was government discrimination. The reality is as long as you ensure individuals are free, discrimination by businesses is minimal, and dies out over time. There is no evidence that suggests government policies in any way improve or expedite this. In fast, the opposite has been true historically, as you pointed out with the Jim Crow laws.
Wait... that dude standing by the door at Best Buy is supposed to check receipts? Huh. Every time I've been there he just wishes me a good day.
Actually, I don't care if you discriminate b/c of your religion or any other reason. I don't think religion should be a part of this conversation.
That's part of the reason I never mentioned it- although you seem to be pretty pissed at religion in general.
That being said, I fall into the camp
you make it so it's legal to discriminate against anybody
with the stipulations I already stated.
So you just ranted about religion having more rights for a while, but that's not what I was talking about.
Sooo.... yeah.
The freedom to be a dick is exactly what liberty is all about.
Do you think freedom of speech means you're allowed to write a letter to your grandmother? No, it means you can say controversial and offensive things without fear of government retribution.
Freedom isn't a word that's supposed to make everyone happy all the time. Liberty is about having the right to be "openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic", without fear of physical aggression.
That's not to say there aren't consequences for one's actions, but a free society isn't one that mandates everyone conform to specific belief system, it's one that allows people to believe what they want and behave as they like, as long as they don't physically hard other people.
No one is forcing you to associate with anyone.
But as a BUSINESS, you will provide the same service to everyone regardless of race/creed/religion/etc.
So, as a business, you are being forced to associate with people.
I personally wouldn't use a service or purchase a good from a business that actively discriminates. But I don't think anyone has the right to dictate who they can or cannot refuse service to.
At the end of the day, discrimination is bad for business. All you need to defeat it is someone who is greedy to open a competing shop, and discriminatory business will wither and die- unless, of course, you are living in a region where everyone discriminates, in which case you having deeper problems than simply legislating a belief system.
I think people with certain belief should be allowed to discriminate, and this includes denying me service. I wouldn't like it, but I don't think I have the right to violently force them to perform a service for me.
The only exception to this would be people involved in public service (including utilities), or people who deal with the immediate health and well-being of others (hospitals). If there exist exigent life-or-death circumstances, a business cannot deny service.
I think your stance is one primarily of laziness. You don't want to exert the effort to convince people of something, you would prefer just to force a specific belief system upon people through the govt.
....so I can't say for sure what's in it. However, as long as any business is not actively causing physical harm by refusing a good or service, they should have the right to do so. If this is a bill to codify that right, I'm ok with that.
The government derives it's power from the ability murder people, imprison them, or impose violence on them. As soon as discrimination cases can be brought against a business for refusing to transact with some group or individual, the government force an outcome under threat of violence. No business should be forced to perform a service for anyone (excluding exigent, life-threatening circumstances). Our laws need to reflect that.
I just wish religion wasn't the backbone for this law.
Literally the best way to pass this test about gender imbalance is to segregate genders based on project. .... ....
I don't even....
....Google's search mechanism doesn't violate any of those, unless you are *really* stretching....
Spoken like someone who isn't just completely tired of using their voice but not being heard.
They might, they might not. Who knows? We've never gotten that far.
I really think it's from this Brian Regan sketch.
You can enable "only_full_group_by" mode.
The way you phrased this make it seem like you think all these things are fundamentally *good*. The reality is they are all just barriers to market entry.
Seriously.
Cars must be inspected 3 times a year. This includes safety and cleanliness, and accessibility.
If you are making money off of your vehicle, the incentive to keep it clean, safe, and accessible is higher than some government mandate telling you that you have to.
Must have a rate card with FIXED (regulated) fares (none of this surge pricing nonsense) that the fares can see
Surge pricing is a mechanism to prevent shortages. Every time the government mandates pricing, there have been shortages (for instance, the housing crisis in New York or the energy crisis in California). Furthermore, what right does the government have to tell an individual they don't deserve to be paid more for risking their safety in poor conditions, or high-traffic environments?
All drivers must have valid Taxicab Drivers Licenses
This is just a mechanism to arbitrarily limit supply. If the person already has a motor vehicle license, they have already shown they can drive. It's just another barrier to entry pushed into law by the existing industry.
Must have minimum $200,000 insurance per person
I think insurance is required for anyone who drives a vehicle anyway. Why should insurance laws be different if you operate a cab? I don't even want to touch mandated insurance...
Must operate each cab a minimum of 18 hours a day (again, none of this 'I'll only drive if the rates are high enough' crap)
This is frustrating. Why not let people drive when rates are high? If high rates encourage more drivers and thus more people can arrive at their destination more quickly, how is this a bad thing? You can even do the math: if you have 1000 people who need rides, and rides are fixed at $10, let's say you have 20 available drivers. Each ride takes 10 minutes. This means every person will arrive at their destination in 8 hours and 20 minutes. Now let's pretend rates can vary. You have 100 drivers willing to operate at $50, 80 drivers at $40, 60 at $30, 40 at $20, and 20 at $10 (keeping in mind that you only have 100 drivers total). Now let's say you have 200 people willing to pay $50, 200 willing to pay $40, 200 willing to pay $30, 200 willing to pay $20, and 200 willing to pay $10. The first 200 people are taken care of in 20 minutes. The next 200 it takes just under 30 minutes. The next 200 take just over 30 minutes. 200 more in 50 minutes, and the final 200 take an hour and 40 minutes. This gives us a grand total of just under 4 hours.
But wait! you say. The rich people got their rides first! This isn't fair!
Holy hell, man, think for a second. First, we just moved all 1000 people in *under half the time it took us before*. Second, not everyone who pays more is necessarily rich, they might just really need to get to their destination- in fact, truly rich people probably aren't using cab services. Third, you are saying you would rather it take longer for everyone to get to their destination, then for people willing/able to pay more to get a ride first. Finally, you would *prevent* the rich passenger from giving more money to the driver- if you do this, you better not complain about the 1%.
Alright, at this point I'm pretty sick of going over these point by point. The fundamental takeaway is they are bullshit, and don't actually help anyone except the entrenched industry.
See, this right here is the thing. Sure, you can implement a library yourself. Sure, your implementation might be more closely fitted with the problem you need to solve. But is your code cleaner? Is it more extensible? Is it well-documented? If you have all those things, you can *begin* to compete with a framework that does the same thing. The framework still has a major advantage: people outside of *you* can come into the project knowing the framework. Everyone will have to learn the thing you wrote from scratch.
It's not the length of a day that will impact Mars-dwellers the most, it will be their internet speed.
Just to give some perspective to that figure, however, the average flow for the Yellowstone around Glendive is almost 40,000 gallons per second. A 50,000 gallon spill really isn't that much.
That being said, True oil has a history of spill, in part because of the poor government incentives in place. Instead of suing them for millions in damages when a spill occurs, making a spills incredibly costly, the govt. issues compliance regulations. Not only are the industry leader consulted when creating compliance (so the oil industry regulates itself), but if an oil pipeline company meets those standards they are far more difficult to sue, because they have the best defense: they followed all the rules.
I hope collectively we will wake up some day and realize that regulations don't work, only massive punishment. The U.S. government shouldn't be in the business of telling companies what the proper safety is for their industry. The industry should be figuring that out, and if they figure it out wrong, oh well, you owe millions in damages and you go out of business. Should have invested more in research and better equipment. Maybe your competitor will get it right.
It's really cool that you own up to your info as an honest mistake.
I was/am kinda scared about how quickly your post got modded as informative. Just a reality check about stuff one reads on the internet, I suppose. Easy to make a mistake, and easy for others not to recognize it as such.
What?
The Keystone pipeline has four phases, three of which are complete. The first three bring oil down to the Gulf Coast from Canada. XL has nothing to do with that.
The XL potion brings oil from Canada through Montana and Nebraska before it connects to the rest of the pipe. It has an initial capacity of 700,000 barrels, and can be increased to 900,000. http://www.downstreamtoday.com...
Also, there is massive shipping operations in Texas that allows the oil to easily be transported to coastal parts of the U.S.
So I really don't know where you got that info, but maybe double check it next time...?
Well, no. The spaces where *originally* called "hackspaces" or "hackerspaces."
However, because of the negative associations the word "hacker" has, the more mainstream name is now "makerspace" or even "createspace."
Source: was a member, years ago, of a "hackspace," and am a member, now, of a "makerspace."