The purpose of monetary policy is to stimulate the economy, i.e. increase the value of dollars that are invested in something. The fact that it decreases the value of dollars that aren't invested is a feature, not a bug.
4,324 karma · joined February 2, 2016
Right now, N companies have N partial records of my identity, with varying ages and accuracy levels. Company A has my name and phone number, company B has my email and name and my previous phone number, company C has a copy of my driver's license from two years ago, etc. N partially accurate versions of my identity, floating around, getting bought and sold and merged together with buggy perl scripts, forever. Notaries do nothing to solve this.
Whence comes this fear? How would the government having an accurate list of the citizenry, and storing a key for you so you can attest your identity, intrude on your life? Doesn't having to scan a copy of your ID and send it to your [bank/insurer/crypto account/hosting company/employer/etc] intrude on your life more?
I know some people are afraid of the feds having a centralized and accurate registry of citizens, but the alternative (that every company who takes payments must have their own separate, partial, and inaccurate registry) causes a lot of problems.
Here's why the the two linked cases were dismissed:
> "Plaintiffs lack standing. And even if that were not the case, the content of their claims— and the sources those claims cite and depend upon—does not plausibly suggest they are entitled to the relief they seek."
> "[The plaintiff] has not plausibly pleaded that any action by President Biden or Surgeon General Murthy was causally related to Facebook and Twitter’s decisions to enforce their misinformation policies against [him]"
Summarizing that as the courts finding that "the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts" is not even misleading, it's just false. And it's not particularly relevant to the actual subject of the article, which is the Missouri v Biden case brought by the three people named in the first sentence.
Dammit, there's a reasonable discussion to have over this. Biden said, "Misinformation on Facebook is killing people." Facebook said, "Oh crap, the president is calling us out, that looks bad so let's block stuff." Is that censorship? Maybe! It kinda is, and it kinda isn't! We could argue about it! But not while we're arguing over semantic crap like this. It felt like a good and useful thing to do, to point out when something is taken egregiously out of context like that, but now I really regret even wading in.
Edit: TFA goes on to contrast those cases with a different case, Missouri v. Biden, which I didn't mention because it's the entire topic of the article I'm charitably assuming we've all at least skimmed before coming here to argue about, but I'm adding it now due to naasking's uno reverse card.
> The Strid (grade 5-) is a long thin section of river where the Wharfe narrows to 5-6 feet in places. The main problems are beneath surface in form of ledges which if you're swept under - you can forget it! At a higher level as seen in pictures, it's runnable. The pictures show med-high water and most of the ledges were covered. I'd have graded it at 5- this day. At lower levels it runs at class 5+ and many would portage, the ledges that trap you need divers to get to you and even good safety cover would be of little use in an entrapment situation. (2 tourists fell in at the Strid last year and one didn't emerge for nearly a week)
Portage in this context means get out and carry your kayak past it. From https://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/rivers/england/north-eas...
I personally don't think it's an important concept; I don't think measuring "grit" tells you anything deep or important about a person. For example, someone might exhibit "grit" in one job but not another, just because one was a good fit and one wasn't.
But neither do I think it tells you anything deep or important when a company mentions it in a job description. I think it's a trendy fad in pop-sci, akin to Myers-Briggs or DiSC. Someone there probably read an article about it recently.
Blocking unpopular content doesn't become a political act just because one side produces more of it than the other.
That's the world in which you can buy the software you described without SaaS. As long as the vendor is running the server side, you're paying by the month.
Hahahaha! Probably time to get a padlock for your garbage cans.
edit: apparently I should clarify, this was a humorous suggestion that the people who do research for hedge funds will stoop considerably lower than the tactics Mudge was referring to, not a serious suggestion that he actually padlock his garbage cans
This seems like a good idea to me. But I also think it's about as likely to happen as President Stallman.
Five years ago, we deployed once per sprint, and it was a big deal: the test pass takes this many days, the change management team needs this much time, etc. So quite often, finishing a story on day N might mean it goes out on day N+4, but finishing it on day N+1 means it'll take two more weeks, day N+18. That's where the urgency came from: that "tax" of lost time due to infrequent deploys. So there was a lot of pressure to get things into a given sprint. Hence, sprint commitments.
Now, on the same platform but with frequent deploys, we still have pressure to get a story done by a certain day sometimes, but the sprint cadence no longer affects our ability to do that. It goes when it goes. Without that pressue, we realized that sprint commitments didn't serve much purpose, so w stopped doing them, and we haven't missed them.
That's what I was referring to - it's not the sprint that matters, it's the "tax" on deployment time, which varies depending on where you are in the sprint. Take that away, and you stop caring where you are in the sprint, like a teenager in summertime losing track of the days of the week.
Also a 'crunch' around the end of a sprint sounds like mini-waterfalls.
re: sprints: You don't need a barrier against "can you do this thing". If the thing is important enough, do it; if it isn't, don't. You work on whatever the top priority is, and your sprint commitment is just a list of what the priorities were, N days ago.
(Edit: you do still need a PO willing to say "doing the thing would delay the other thing" though)
1. If the people on the team can't change the process, it ain't agile
2. Sprints aren't a failure of agile, they're a failure of devops. Once you start deploying multiple times a day, nobody will care when one sprint ends and the next begins and it'll be fine
3. Estimates aren't literally the devil, execs need to have a rough idea how big it is, just don't get more granular than months
This is #2 on my "what the hell, microsoft" list, right after the way the Teams join meeting? taskbar popup obscures the Teams join meeting button.
And, side note, would it be too much to ask that after a billion dev-hours effort in to the most popular consumer OS on earth, that it could figure out that a 1-pixel movement at 3:28 AM does not mean I want my display to light up and stay on for a full 60 seconds? And while we're at it, why is the only way to send Windows to sleep (one of the most common things I do with a hotkey) a four-key combination (win+x,u,s)?
"This has taught me that my platform can be weaponized by any bad actor who can fool or manipulate me. One column from me could get a CISO fired or move a Fortune 500 company's stock price. That's a heavy responsibility that I wasn't really accounting for, but now that I understand it, I've put some thought in to it and I have made some changes that I hope will harden me and my platform against this kind of social engineering attack."