Hopefully, the said trapped newbie programmer will give up on complaining at the door rather quickly.
And, yes, you're correct, that was suppose to be "or". As they won't find a dehumidifier, soda, ice, or fruit, most of those arguments won't matter.
The finest mechanical lock pick isn't much use against an electroncially operated solinoid acting as a deadbolt.
I think you over-thought a joke.
Maybe a full analysis was done and a round number close to the optimal number was selected.
That also happens to be a power of 10? There's only a 1 in 10 chance of that happening in real life, so that's not likely.
On the other hand why mandate when a number has to be reexamined? If inflation is low it could be quite a while before needed.
Someday the number will need to be raised, so why not plan for the inevitable?
Round numbers are easy to remember and deal with.
That's true, but other than criminals, who needs to memorize how much a person can deposit before it gets reported?
[The number is too low] When too many transactions get reported and the investigation teams get swamped.
That's an objective metric, certainly better than picking a number out of thin air as the first one appears to have been. Maybe they should write that into the law and also that the number must be re-determined periodically so it's never too high nor too low.
Give the kid a computer, and programming book.
Install an electronic lock on the door with an interface to the computer.
Give them simple instructions.
Write a program to unlock the door.
If you get out, you can eat again.
If you can't, you will die in this room.
A person typically dies without water in 7 days, and without food in 14 days.
Good luck.
So instead of fixing the algorithm, they wrote a new law making it illegal to exploit the algorithm.
That's your federal government at work!
What's so magical about the $10,000 number?
Laws have to be black and white.
That still doesn't explain why $10,000 is a better number than $9,999 or $10,001. The fact that it's a suspiciously round number suggests negligence on the part of whoever wrote the law.
If inflation causes the number to be too low they can change the law.
How would you know whether the number is too low? Why wasn't that same mechanism used to help write the law long ago when the cost of making changes to the law was much lower?
Lets not go too far into this specific case. It is just an example of how knowing an algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.
You're partially correct. It's an example of how knowing a poorly designed algorithm can facilitate gaming the system.
Some were over telegraph wires too. I like this story.
Atkins continued to call Cuba and finally came back the words, clear and distinct: "I don't understand you."
With those words, international voice communication began.
When you find people gaming the system and the results of that are undesirable, isn't that a good time to refine your algorithm?
What's so magical about the $10,000 number? Why not $9,999, or $10,001? Should it be indexed to inflation? Did someone pull that number out of thin air, and if so, is that a responsible way to write laws?
If lack of competition is the disease and we use regulation to mask the symptoms, won't we end up with more regulation while the disease persists?
"Whenever faced with a problem, some people say `Lets use regulation.'
Now, they have two problems."
(With apologies to D. Tilbrook)
So everyone is penalized...
...when everyone is paid fairly?
I'd be willing to wager that intelligence monitoring of international phone calls started right about the time international phone calls were first available.
This article says the first trans-Atlantic calls was in 1927.
This article says government wiretaps started in the 1860s.
So Gaia banged her little sister and made the moon? I assume rule 34 has already been satisfied for this, right?
Sure, but this is about salaried employees.
You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.
