Netflix isn't that good, with such a crappy lineup and limited old mainstream movies. It's just cheap. Our household and people at work (california) struggle to justify paying for it.
64 karma · joined May 18, 2018
So subserving the US to a more ludicrous IP extension (both in duration and power) from less totalitarian (than china) nations (but still more than the US) is the solution? Laughable and misguided.
yeah, but that report is worthless, in context.
This whole article seems like it was written by someone who is still attending high school.
No, it's not. It's a matter of measure and perspective. The pareto principle guarantees that lower IQ men in aggregate, have more kids (with similar IQs). Regardless of other trends.
So it's also natural. It's like calling the man made elements unnatural. Just because you ascribe constraints to condition, doesn't make it any less natural.
> We can demonstrate the concept with a simple, yet naive example.
> Here we have a Database class that requires an adapter to speak to the database.
It tries so hard to be java, which seems backward.
Same.
> I have always had my own desk.
Outside of your headphones on at your desk, you still need to be more social during work hours than it used to be (30 years ago). Meetings are a thing, standups are a thing. Having your own desk doesn't preclude this. What he means by "introvert" is an important question.
The first, from the Chinese side, is the demonstration that the US can and will impact the immediate Chinese economy. That coldwar tactic is on the table (while open warfare in the south sea is not). Take the tariffs off, move on to a tariff on toys tomorrow.
From the US side, the government has a tacit approval to bring up other relationship imbalances that have gone on for too long. The fact that my machines are attacked by Chinese IPs more often than any other locality (via casual IP lookups) makes me think that this is actually part of a greater response to various Chinese incursions into various arenas in the world (not the least of which is the US infrastructure).
Another good is in regard to the impact on the US manufacturing base. Dealing with the fact that costing in existing processes and materials (based on abroad cheap labor and materials) is not reliable, is an important step. This will force higher capital investment into experimental materials and processes for alternatives (maybe with other 3rd party countries). There will also be a boon to choice US companies that the federal government favor, through existing and new contracts where these tariffs will otherwise be abated. It's not going to kill every existing company, but it hurts a lot. This is a future-investment move. It's possible it's a misstep and we will never have anything better than steel and cheap plastics, but I doubt it.
There is the geo-political arena to consider. The US has been in a cold war with China since after WW2, same as we have with Russia. The moves with regard to North Korea are suspicious. North Korea has been the heel of China for some time. NK has had no way to bargain, with anyone, much less their greatest benefactor. Setting a stake against China then making overtures to NK allows NK (KimJong) to consider becoming a valuable Geopolitical figure and US partner in a critical area, surpassing south korea (for once). It just happened to coincide (I have a feeling Trump is ironically talented at speaking to KJ) and happened to influence the ultimate decision to place the tariffs at this time.
The US manufacturers couldn't compete on cost because critical materials were either solely available or so low cost, from China, that it drove competition out of the material markets in the US. This is one of those, ask any manufacturer, rather than a guess. Then factor in labor costs and you ended up with yet-another-chinese-dominant market where improvements were done in China snowballing the situation to today.
After decades in the industry, I'm comfortable that my success is repeatable (as I have done) and is the most effective way to do the work. As if there's a debate, I'm really surprised by the endless process and bad management advice circulating on the web, among the good. "This hasn't killed my company yet and I'm happy with what we have" is the refrain from small and large companies wasting time and effort (with things like scheduled reviews). Talented Managers aren't supposed to be listeners, unless you're trapped in a byzantine/hobbesian org (these emerge in different tiers).
> Reviews are important for someone with whom you don’t share a lot of built in cultural cues.
No, they aren't. They are important for you to set standards of accountability, at best...unless you really don't have power to do anything about it, which I've seen. You don't change their culture and they don't change yours, regardless of what you tell yourself. The job description and company-necessary responsibilities aren't changing based on the person. I'm not sure there's any value in going on about it, this kind of thinking is just madness.
It is.
> this wealth would be reflected in the equity value of the bank itself
It is.
> this wealth would still be reflected in the wealth of private households who had ownership in the bank.
It is.
What do you mean with all these "if" statements that are quantitatively true? Even stock markets are aggregators of wealth (focusing gains on a small population).
You made up a question that wasn't posted. Please re-read the thread. Please don't attribute your words to someone else. It's transparently dishonest.