9,569 karma · joined April 3, 2014
In this case, the likely result is a wash as increased ability to respond to administrative requests gets met with increased ability to make administrative requests.
Still extremely common to get attempted, although due to the current UI it's usually listing something for billions when it should be millions. Also common is describing the contract as "500 plex" but the actual contract content is "1 plex".
> A long while later, rank up in the “inventory” management roles and fly or bump ships out of the bubble to waiting “real” corp members.
Player-owned Upwell structures have largely replaced POSes so that basically isn't a thing anymore. What is a thing is using a Black Ops battleship to conduit jump expensive ships off of tether into a waiting gank. It's honestly a UI/design oversight, if your ship can fit a covert ops cloak and you're close enough to a blops in your fleet, you can get involuntarily yeeted to any system within jump range.
Warrants are petitioned for by district attorneys, who are elected officials. In principle, the means of redress for inappropriately pushing for warrants and improperly using prosecutorial discretion is at the ballot box.
In short, you'll still owe somebody, it just won't be a bank that doesn't exist anymore. Over the short run, the FDIC or an acquiring bank will take over the back-end of the payments, which will be made much the same way as they are today.
1. We had a table from a third-party API that used their ID as a primary key, I believe stored as a string.
2. Ruby on Rails believed that it should make sure that primary keys aren't a too-large-to-store integer before attempting to save a row.
3. Our test suite would generate fake hexadecimal strings for the primary key for testing purposes for the table.
4. Sometimes, the hexadecimal string would have enough leading 0-9 digits that when Rails coerced it to an integer for their own internal checks, it would exceed the integer limit it thought the table ought to have.
I honestly only figured it out by getting lucky.
Index funds do not have opinions on the attractiveness of prices. What happens in this hypothetical when one index fund has a cash inflow is that it bids on all the assets it is "short" of, which increases the price until the other index funds have "too much" of the now-higher-priced asset and decide to sell.
But generally speaking yes, there's cash or cash-equivalent in the overall market's mix, and it stays relatively constant. When these cash assets get dumped onto balance sheets, other assets get bid up until their sizes are appropriate for the amount of cash around.
Like, suppose you had a specific service level agreement that requires X% of requests to be served within Y seconds over some time interval, and breaking the SLA costs Z dollars. Each provisioning level would generate some distribution of latencies, which can get turned into likelihood of meeting the SLA, and from there you can put a dollar value on it. And crucially, this allows the "ideal" amount of provisioning to vary based off the relative cost of over and under-provisioning; if workers are cheap and breaking the SLA is costly, you would have more workers than if the SLA is relatively unimportant and workers are expensive.
You are correct when taking the view of the financial sector as a whole - every asset purchase merely swaps who has the cash and who has the asset. You're not getting much of anything wrong, merely missing a behavioral trait of many market participants: they desire a fixed ratio between their various financial assets. An extreme example of this is an index fund, which has a formulaic relationship between their book value and how much of what assets they own.
In essence, what happens is that cash gets dumped into the laps of various market participants, who then notice that they have "too much" cash. They then bid on various assets until there no longer is "too much" cash in the system for the total value of assets around.
The nonwage job utility hypothesis is one that is typically completely ignored when discussing wage gaps. I'm not sure what proportion of which wage gaps are explained by this - and with how politically charge the topic is, I doubt there will ever be a confident consensus range. Intuitively, most people have some extent to which they're more willing to work a more prestigious, less difficult, less time-consuming, more fulfilling, etc job even if it pays worse. It's a lot easier to measure wages, though, which makes them a particularly tempting fixation.
That isn't the hypothetical I'm using to make my point. Obviously if you change the hypothetical you come up with different results, but then it isn't the scenario I'm using as an intuition pump.
Like, what I'm getting at is that there are sometimes policies you want your government to pass, even though more people oppose it than support it and nobody being truly undecided. Not all policy choices are equally important, and not everyone considers all policy choices equally important. A referendum is structurally incapable of enacting policies with minority support, for good or for bad. It's usually for good, true, but there are circumstances where you can do better by making sure that people think that the important policies are implemented, even at the cost of the majority not getting their way on relatively unimportant matters.
And when two or more minority interest groups feel this way on each other's issues, it is a failure to enact the "will of the people" if you use strict issue-by-issue majoritarianism. After all, each individual pet issue fails on its own merits - they just aren't broadly popular enough.
Fundamentally, the issue is that strengths of preferences do not show up in a referendum on a topic. Furthermore, there's no way to credibly commit to a compromise that gets you something important in exchange for a relatively unimportant concession. I'm not saying these issues outweigh the benefits of direct democracy, they're just problems that can get solved by a representative system.
Bold of you to assume that they wouldn't just cancel your lease, share your do-not-rent status with the other mega-landlords, and hope that homelessness makes you go away.
If a vector space is more your jam, imagine a six-dimensional vector space of policies, and each of these six hypothetical interest groups as voting for any combination of policies with a positive value along the axis in question, and against any combination of policies with a negative value. [100, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1], [-1, 100, -1, -1, -1, -1], etc, will each get voted down when presented individually as policies, but their sum as a package gets supported by each interest group.
Yes, and this is a feature, not a bug. Majority voting on issues one at a time cannot generate a deal that a majority would prefer when the compromise is presented as a block. Eg, if there are six different compatible single-issues that 10% of the people care solely about each, each individual one would get voted down 90-10, while representatives can make a bargain that delivers a combined platform approved of by 60%.
You'll have to do research into your particular retirement programs and what tax advantages they have, but other than that it should be roughly the same as anyone else's.
> What options do I have?
Hedge funds spend billions of dollars and hire teams of math PhDs trying to beat the market. You are a single software developer. You are not going to do better than average. Fortunately, there's an extremely easy and low-cost way to guarantee average performance: broad-market index funds. These will charge a ludicrously low amount of overhead (something like .04% annually) in order to buy basically everything the market as a whole buys in the same ratios as the market buys.
> I also perfectly understand that safe means lower return and I'm perfectly fine with that, since I am going into this for a long term.
IMO the correct approach for long-term investing is to set aside money you are perfectly okay with never seeing again, and literally not checking how the market is performing at all, while maximizing return regardless of risk. Long-term underperformance is actually a bigger risk over 30+ years than any number of market crashes, at least while you're underneath the Kelly Criterion (and even a 100% equities portfolio is comfortably below this).
> Also, any useful resources regarding investment would be helpful (YouTube channels, books, etc.).
It really wouldn't. China has decided to turn an absolutely massive amount of iron ore into steel for non-economic reasons, which means that the profits to be made are largely in supplying them with raw materials.