stargazing is more broadly skygazing. Santa is no more or less astronomical than a meteor (nee asteroid) -- both fly through the sky at incredible speeds, and light up (when Rudolph is present)
3,368 karma · joined April 16, 2013
Soldiers should be able to choose whether to accept an assignment or quit their job. If the nation doesn't want to pay for a certain war/fort/whatever, the nation can sacrifice it, instead of impressing soldiers into service.
Wikileaks is a "rumor" site. It doesn't provide verified information.
Anyway, to answer your question, the central planning works to reduce population growth.
If you've learned Calculus, and you've learned introduction to proofs (either on your own, or in summer nerd camp, or by visiting a local college), you are ready to learn new material (like linear algebra) in a proof-focused curriculum.
You get $100K and $50K of stock (grant value): "target compensation" = $150K
Next year, when stock vests, your target compensation is $160K, so you get $110K cash plus a stock refresh grant: * Stock went down to $0 -> $100K refresh to make up. * Stock stayed flat: -> $50K refresh * Stock went up to $100K: -> 0K refresh to cancel out. * Stock went up to $150K: -> 0K refresh to cancel out, but you still come out ahead.
So, you get upside if the stock shoots up enough, and you are protected from downside, but you lose upside if stock grows insufficiently.
It works well if you like guaranteed income, but you have to ignore a lot of the "expect" upside potential. And it makes you wonder why they bother giving so much equity, doesn't it? 1. They don't give a lot of equity. 2. It's a shell game and most new hires don't value the offer accurately.
A good team at a bad company -- unlikely.
The only way to disprove conservation of energy would be to show that measurable energy -- in _all_ forms combined, varies in quantity in unpredictable ways. And it would be hard to differentiate "non-conservation of energy" from "dark energy" we can't measure with current tools.
It's not at all clear that the officers are the criminals here, and not their chief, their mayor, their governor. Holding the system/state accountable is a complicated question. Civil suits are a relatively flexible tool.
When you look at police shootings, for example, we pursue criminal charges when the officers show personal malice or "hate crime", not when they shoot in accordance with their training and the department's overall use-of-force principles. It's hard to show that it's correct to throw individual officers in jail for following the will of "the People overall" and the local Executive.
then you have technical debt to repay, by making those pre-conditions satisfiable
neighborhood watch groups DO NOT supplement police.
Police supplement neighborhood watch groups. Police are only necessary when civilian management fails.
The news media of course has a an anti-status-quo bias. The status quo isn't news.