tgrass

Seems historically similar to the 70s/80s when automakers started positioning an alternator in such a way that it required removing an axle to replace it.

I was a Civil Engineer in hydrology. I built out a web app that integrated some local, clunky disparate software solutions so one could design detention basins in a matter of minutes to the local code (http://www.drainagebuilder.com).

I met with so much resistance from the local Regional Flood Control District that I finally walked away from the project (it was based on very local specifications, so the market was rather small). They ultimately "upgraded" the existing hydrologic component of what I was working on by making a web based form - but it was a step back from their desktop app (for one, it had no database, so the user is required to download and store hydrologic computations back to their client).

I have my PE but ultimately walked away completely from Civil. I understand why Civil is conservative - bureaucrats, especially those in public safety, are incentivized to always say no; such conservatism is not for me.

Another recent article on some issues of apps for Gov: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/13/magazine/desig...

I studied civil engineering in college, worked in the field for six years, and got my PE.

It bored me. I slowly studied programming and left the civil field for software. I now make as much designing for the web as I did designing bridges.

Life is not a predefined trajectory. It is chaos. Roll where your heart leads ya.

Google makes money (via ads) by showing the results the user wants, not by showing the results the user should want. If I want to go to an anti-vaccination site to reinforce my pre-pre-existing beliefs, it's hard to imagine Google will care, let alone make it more difficult to find it.

Mike Munger suggests that (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/07/michael_munger.html) by allowing Uber/Lyft the local government is committing a regulatory takings by devalueing the existing medallions. So not stealing, but not straight forward competition either.

I think there might be some selection bias there: if you are iretired from above, it sounds like you are choosing women based on appearance alone. While a fine pursuit, it won't necessarily lead to intellectual conversations.

I always respond with "Find the money." That is, find a buyer today for the simplest version.

THOUGH, this did not end well when after many drinks I met a guy who runs (presumably illegal) gambling out of his house and wanted to expand on it with an app to let people place bets on the players. I sent him an email as a record of contacting him with the single line "Find the money." Apparently he was scared shitless for a week before he remembered who I was.

Your timeframe is critical to the decision though. Most of us will not live in our home for 20 years, let alone 30. Some of us will move to other towns to take pay raises that (a) we could not have discovered in the town of our current home and (b) might more than compensate for any loss in savings.

Choosing to rent or buy on purely financial grounds must incorporate the length of time you will own the home.

I agree, that the firm might benefit from transparency; but the article stresses the need for regulation in the interest of the consumer, not the firm.

This is how the price mechanism is supposed to work: it communicates inefficiencies over the long term.

As I understand it, Uber's prices are listed prior to contracting for a ride. Uber's market is clearly the middle to upper income brackets. If it's understood that the price is time and conditions-variant, I fail to see how their pricing method is unethical.

There's a great interview with Mike Munger on Econtalk about the price mechanism during an emergency: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/munger_on_john.html

Also, for truly deep insight into his literary thoughts and themes, read his essays in Farther Away: http://www.amazon.com/Farther-Away-Essays-Jonathan-Franzen/d...

To filter for those managers who will never be happy with anyone's work ask: "Who is your favorite employee? Why? How do you motivate them?"

Additionally, and to my mind most critically, the university degree signals that you play well (enough) with others. It says you have learned that sometimes power is capricious and when it is you can keep your head down long enough to survive.

I recommend: Two Cheers for Anarchism (Scott) and Why Things Fail (Ormerod)

Understood. No offense, just being goofy.

For more on patio11's thoughts on pricing and conversions, please listen to his MicroConf lecture: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2013/04/24/marketing-for-people-who...

This is my gut reaction. And yet time and again you hear from the likes of patio11 et al that one should leverage email as an engagement tool.

For anyone with experience in this, does it just come down to weighing the benefit of gaining a customer against the risk of losing two?

An economist and his friend are walking down the street when the friend sees a ten dollar bill on the sidewalk.

“Look,” he says, “it’s a ten dollar bill”. “Nonsense,” says the economist. “If that was a ten dollar bill, someone would have picked it up by now.”

No I saw it. Effing clever, so points for that.

It has plausible deniability and has an Oscar Wilde wit to it. Touche.

Thanks for the edit, zalzane.

@ntumlin: when the issue is explicitly gender based and is referring to "using one's girlfriend"...there is a great deal of baggage that comes with the word whether the writer intends it or not.

"Whore" is inappropriate.

Downvote for unnecessarily derogatory language.

Apply for other jobs.

Noted, thanks.

Just to fill out the first four pages a little more:

[Edit] In the US [/Edit] your home and office are most likely already set outside the floodwaters of the 100-year storm. New roads are typically designed to convey floodwaters at no more than 1 foot deep for the same event.

Protecting a building that has a lifespan of less than 100 years against an event with a probability of occurring between .005 to .002 (the 200-year to 500-year event) is a hard sell.

From the comment guidelines: "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them."

I accept that natural disasters are frequently politicized; And I love analytic discussions of political machinations. This comment does not seem to be asking for that.

Upvote for the question.

For the sake of argument, a community might want to subsidize another class of people in order to ensure equal opportunity.