This sounds a solution contrived to advantage companies that want access to this data rather than an actual economically valid business model. If building an index and selling access to it is a viable business, then why isn't someone doing it already? There's minimal barrier to entry. Blekko has an index. Are you selling access to it for profit?
Hosting costs are so minimal today that I don't think crawling is a natural monopoly. How much would it really cost a site to be crawled by 100 search engines?
How is any of that relevant? Our civil rights laws ban racial discrimination. If you think that racial discrimination should be permitted in one direction then argue that our civil rights laws should be amended to allow it. But don't argue that it is legal now or that it isn't happening.
My dad is a university researcher. During the Biden administration he was forced to add completely unscientific DEI language to his grants if he wanted to get them funded. You just don't know about it because the media you watch doesn't report on that because they support it. So yeah, the whole Harvard thing is more of the same.
Every large company I have ever worked for has had noticeably lower standards for women and minorities (except for Asians of course because fuck them in particular). They will never say it in the trainings because they know it's illegal. They will never tell anyone anything except for "don't discriminate" but then they will incentivize discrimination by things like "diversity goals" (quotas) and setting recruiter bonuses higher when they bring in favored "victim" groups. Of course if they set higher bonuses for hiring white people the courts would immediately smack them down for discrimination, but it's apparently "legal" as long as - 1. it's implicit, 2. you deny it exists, and 3. it favors a group that the liberals approve of.
Couldn't find the person you wanted to argue with in the comments so you just pretended they are here and claim the community is "part of the problem" even though you couldn't actually find one of them.
I neither have a CS degree nor have ever got a single certification and it's never hurt my ability go get SWE jobs, so I really don't know what you are talking about.
The university accreditation system is a cartel. You can't gain accreditation until you have already graduated students! So basically you have to find a group of students who are willing to risk studying at an unofficial university, then operate the university for several years before you can even apply for the stupid credential that allows you to issue degrees that anybody else recognizes. It clearly should be illegal, but like in so many other areas, the university system gets special treatment while continuing to suck up more and more resources for an ever diminishing return.
If you have more money than anyone else on earth, the highest leverage use of that money is going to be to fund projects that require more capital than anyone else can afford to fund and that governments are unwilling to fund. That way you know you are actually adding to the opportunity set and not just displacing someone else. The difficult part is, of course, deciding which of those projects that only you can fund will actually be a good bet, but that doesn't change the fundamental calculation. Not sure if that's Gates' strategy, but it would make sense if it was.
Actually, no he can't. OFAC will absolutely destroy him if he does. I have a remote job and I am even explicitly banned from doing any work for my company while I am in China or a bunch of other countries.
Number of EOs issued is a poor measure of centralization of power. Most exercise of executive power these days don't even require an EO, just a decree from one of the executive agencies. And looking at Trump vs Obama is myopic. This process has been going on continuously since at least the FDR admin.
You have to deregulate the supply. Right now you have to be specifically approved to manufacture a drug. This causes monopolies / oligopolies even in non-patented medications. It should be changed to a system where any company who wants can manufacture any drug as long as it meets purity and dosage accuracy standards.
There are plenty of tech reasons for microservices. e.g. scaling high traffic services separately and separating low priority functionality from critical paths. I would agree that this is usually not a smart thing to do in a small org, but I have seen times where splitting out a high load path into a microservice has been very much worth it at a startup.
Rich expats who hold visas and reside in a foreign country but don't pay taxes to that foreign country on their assets held back home is actually a very common thing around the world. This is encouraged because having rich people show up in your country and spend a lot of money is actually quite beneficial.
The outlier here is actually the US law that citizens pay taxes on income from outside the country. We are virtually the only country that does this. So in that sense I will agree with you that the unequal treatment is unfair, but it is the treatment of US citizens that is out of the ordinary, not the treatment of the Trump visa holders.
Paying $5 million to get a visa and then paying taxes on whatever assets and income they bring with them seems like a great deal for the US because the foreign income never would have been taxed by the US anyway if they hadn't got the visa. Why get greedy and demand taxation on all their income when this could lose us a the opportunity for a very profitable deal?
Like it or not this is basically how the US is run these days. Congress has ceded its power to the executive branch. Almost everything now is done by bureaucratic degree and executive order.
If the limits are to prevent corruption, why do they have to be so far below market rates? I don't think anyone is objecting to there being limits. Every company out there has level based limits. The issue is where those limits are set.
I really want to like unions. They make all the sense in the world in principle. But in practice they always seem to end up centered around this "pay your dues" climb the ladder bullshit.
Only every single interaction with the government I have ever had and the experience of everyone I know who works in industries where they have to deal with the government on a regular basis.
> The report examines evidence from nine sectors - electricity, health, waste management and water, prisons, buses, ports and airports, railways and telecom,.
Yeah, if you examine only utilities and monopolies they are not more efficient than the government. That's not a surprise because they don't face competition and are heavily politically controlled.
Companies manage to handle all 3 of those things without the inefficiently (or at least a lot less of it).
As for the terrible salaries and mountains of political crap, that's the real issue here. But these are changeable and shouldn't just be accepted as inevitable as is so often done by defenders of government bureaucracy.
I think a lot of the objections here aren't really bureaucracy in terms of government employees doing things. A lot of what people mean when they complain about "government bureaucracy" is really that it often seems to be 20 people taking 6 months to do something that should take 5 people 6 weeks. So discussions on this tend to get confusing.