Firefox has hardwired me to enter Ctrl+Alt+R whenever something even slightly interferes with reading the content.
77 karma · joined October 12, 2019
> I am talking about the rigorous microeconomic theory which involves using calculus is required to actually pass an economics course or analyze a commodity market. If you are not familiar with concepts like elasticity, substitution, or the difference between consumer and producer surplus then I suggest you look deeper into microeconomics.
The claim that economics requires "math" has no support - just follow the epistemology on the claim and it's a dead end. It is always stated matter-of-factly as if it is prima facie true. Social sciences have never been about maths outside of a very non-rigorous movement to convert social sciences into hard sciences.
For example, when I go to the store and they don't have what I want, do you believe there is an equation that I am operating on that instructs me in what to do next? If you truly believe this, then you believe in something akin to a religion - that there is some unknown but discoverable equation all of us make decisions with. If you don't believe this, then you cannot find that equations are how I am making decisions, therefore my decisions on how to allocate my resources are guided by something else, thus, microeconomics cannot be based on the maths.
It is also interesting you state calculus as if it is so hard. I haven't found evidence of this while I have seen people struggle more with advanced algebra than with advanced calculus.
Your statement suggests that Sowell somehow got through Harvard, Columbia, and University of Chicago without taking a "real" economics course, or that those courses were inadequate, or that Sowell is incapable of grasping these more advanced conecpts. These sorts of statements really just make you look like an ass, or worse.
BTW, your first sentence is nonsensical. Things that are theoretical do not "operate" because they are not in the physically existent universe, and economics attempts to explain things exclusively in the physically existent universe.
This is a red herring on the strawman's shoulder. Good. Grief.
I really think you would be much enlightened to listen to Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics audio book. It's really long, but covers this sort of thing just oh so well.
It will help you to answer questions like: how come people in the Soviet Union were starving to death while crops rotted in the field? Among many others...
This is basic microeconomics. People haven't forgot it because they never learned it in the first place.
I found it interesting that during the sales pitch of their salespeople (new rep + her manager), they mentioned that they were "in good with the town council" and were proud of this fact.
Our building was approximately 150 feet from a cable box in a residential neighborhood that was immediately on the other side of a tall fence along one side of the parking lot.
I asked why they couldn't just run a cable from that cable box, and they told me that the city had a law that forbid them from running a single line across public property to private property that wasn't receiving service and then to another private property that would receive the service. The private property they were referring to was a 10' strip of unused property with bark ground cover.
I asked why they hadn't run cable throughout the industrial zone that we were located in. They said that they had plans approved by the city, but those plans required they use a PG&E substation on the opposite side of the industrial zone that was already at 100% capacity. They had requested, years ago, for PG&E to upgrade the substation, but this request didn't even have and ETA from PG&E, itself yet another government-mandated monopoly provider.
Now, why they could run a fiber optic cable anywhere they pleased, is beyond me. They certainly were excited at the prospect of offering us this service.
The problem here that I have personally witnessed has nothing to do with with anything other than a corrupted local government.
Probably true, as long as you're not one of the ones rounded up and sent to prison, er, I mean, quarantine.
So, just take a guess at what most people do when that waste receptacle is full.
If the industry genuinely wanted to cut down on their sorting costs, they would provide larger waste receptacles.
You sign into an app to indicate you are available for a spontaneous introduction.
If two matched users are within the vicinity of one another, then each receives a notification that someone they have been matched with is nearby. If both agree, the introduction is arranged at some public space. This does away with all the stress of an actual date, plus no actual time commitment.
(Note that I'm not addressing the matching process.)
One point I didn't see or missed in the article is that for men who have no problems getting dates offline, why would they go through the huge PITA of online dating? What does that do to the pool?
1. This has electronic transactions freely going in and out.
2. This initiates inbound electronic transactions.
3. This only works with you standing in the bank.
Or some variant thereof.
Ctrl+Alt+R
http://www.airsafe.com/airline.htm
However, they may not have updated their site beyond the incident summary because Southwest is still listed as an airline with zero passenger fatalities.
My understanding is other than mirrored, RAID configurations may take a long time to rebuild on the larger drives and this is a contributing factor to why the highest sales volume of drives has been 'stuck' at 4TB (thus the lower $/GB price).
I think drive age matters? I'm not clear if they cycle drives out at a certain age or just run them until they fail.
Also, if a drive is low enough in cost, then the additional cost of replacing an incremental 1% may be lower than the cost of acquisition of a more reliable drive.
That may depend on how "domesticated" the date is, although I suppose your statement could be in strict conformance with the Law of Identity.
Other domesticated fruits and vegetables are nothing like the wild version of the same. Notable examples include apples and tomatoes (the latter of which originated in South America - image Italy with no red sauce?).
In many cases the Federal tax code can also be the driver of these decisions because the amortization on building upgrades is way longer than cubicles. However, tables over cubicles is likely something else. To me, it's just cheap, like how call centers used to be (even they have cubicles now).
> It has become very common, and it's unfair. I'm wondering what would be the best way to counter this trend.
One way is to tell them that your employer has not authorized you to sign this agreement.
I used to work for a small manufacturer in San Jose. We wanted to build a simple, 300 square foot room inside of a 27,000 square foot space that would be attached to one of the space's walls.
What I found most interesting about the estimation process was that no matter what type of structure (including pre-fab earthquake rated) we evaluated for, we couldn't get anything out of city hall for less than total $20,000 spent, with no guarantee that permits would actually be issued.
Then, for any contractor we hired (assuming they were available within the next two years), their hourly rate rivaled the rates of downtown lawyers.
After this experience, I've concluded that most people who pretend to know something about building something in Silicon Valley are just knowledgeless windbags. I know I certainly had no idea how bad it truly is.
If the conspiracy is for barratry, and this can be demonstrated, then the case should be able to move forward.
RICO means suing directly the conspirators, so there is no option for any sort of organizational protections or "corporate veil" meaning all of the personal assets will be up for grabs.
I suspect this would send a lot of fear into the conspirators because a case like the one linked here will likely draw more sympathy than the plight of a handicapped person being blocked from accessing some more common venue (grocery store, hospital, etc.). This is very important because as a lawyer-acquaintance would put it, the verdict is ultimately "what 12 idiots decide."
I can't wait for them to completely destroy every franchise so they are forced to be creative and come up with something new.
> (I meant to say they do want to keep their taxes affordable)
That has absolutely nothing to do with CEQA.