I've worked in a dozen agile houses at this point, and it's been my assessment that agile does have its advantages. It's good for things where there's feedback coming and running a constant qa process. When done right, a good way to squeeze a little more creativity in the process. When done badly, it's little more than project managers yelling at their developers who have no idea what to do next. Honestly, most of the time, agile is an elaborate cover to hide the simple fact that there simply isn't any kind of process going on at all.

I don't really have anything to say beyond the subject line.

Except, what they're never seemingly willing to tell you is that today's "economic improvement" is tomorrows "what went wrong with inflation?" We're already seeing the effects of this kind of reasoning over the long term, in every city in America where people complain about the cost of living. There is no silver bullet here. More money in the economy means higher prices for everything in the long run, higher taxes, and the need for future hikes like this in the future. Driving up the lower end drives up the higher end as well, and has ripples through the whole economy. And if your goal is helping the poor, here, are we really certain that sending money to large multinational chains like Walmart (who already don't pay anything in taxes) is a solid idea? I'm thinking... not so much.

The better solution on this is education about education. In America, people are endlessly ignorant about their education options, and they make terrible decisions because of it.

While I don't want to disagree with you here, because I think we do need higher density housing, and cheaper housing construction methods, along with a modernized approach to urban development -- I would like to point out that there isn't anyone in North America, in the 21st century, that wants to live in a city like Boise. It's a second or third tier destination at best, and it doesn't have the local economic resources to handle sustained regional immigration like this. Very few places do.

That said, I think the real solution here is to be build entirely new cities. It's the last part of your post that got my attention.

Why not build more places that people actually want to live?

This can be accomplished a lot of different ways. There are tax incentives that can be had. Puerto Rico has been growing thanks to its status as an economic opportunity zone. The same thing could be done state side in any number of places.

There's no shortage of land to build cities on, either.

Population density in America is only a problem if you look at the existing cities. If you look at the numbers by square foot, or even square mile, you'll see that there's an absurd amount of undeveloped land in this country that could be developed tomorrow. Taking this into account, overpopulation is only a problem if either new cities are not constructed, or the existing cities we have won't scale (a lot of the latter).

By itself, high rise apartment buildings in existing cities, while a good idea, is only a band aide, which won't solve the larger problem.

We have both the market need and the resources to make a dozen new cities a reality today.

It's not like we haven't done this kind of thing before.
All that's missing is the political will.

People who go out of their way to eat organic food also eat less processed food, fewer food additives which everyone knows are problematic, and they exercise more. This is a no duh as far as studies go.

Uh oh, they're looking into other ways to get what they want.
They might not be able to apply the rules, but there are other things they can do to make the cable companies play ball.

When this is over, the cable companies are going to with they hadn't fought this.

I'm just going to make some popcorn and watch.

Isn't there already as USDC coin, that already attempted this, and failed miserably in 2014?
Do we know if it's the same guys?

Remarketing. That's what the practice is called. And it's the latest craze among marketing gurus, whom, as usual, do more to drive prospects away than make them convert. You might remember this crowd from such hits as the recursive self propagating pop up window, the pop up overlay, the popup overlay with long form manipulative cancel button, the landing page craze that recently ended (thank god), and various other forms of clickbait nonsense. As with the others, this too will die when the people actually spending money on it realize that there's absolutely no ROI in it for them.

I would be amenable to breaking up the tech giants, but only we break up the cable monopolies first. The tech giants are a problem, yes, but not as much of a problem to everyday people as the fact that they're being exploited mercilessly by att&t and comcast. If you're going to break up anyone, you need to think about them first.

I agree. The chin's all wrong.

Why do I have a feeling that contributors would be holding their breath for a long time over that one?

1. Doesn't the GPL have a stipulation, that if the text of the licenses is amended or modified, that you need to refer back to the original license?
2. I see why they're getting picky about it, but do these guys really have anything to offer? Okay, you get the source code for a service. What's useful there? Are these guys actually doing anything to change or improve the product? Something more than a graphics treatment? Do we know that? I'm skeptical.

This is a terrible argument, and a poorly written article over on Bloomberg. The writer got themselves so flustered that they couldn't be bothered to proof-read, or make a coherent point that doesn't stretch credulity. I would call this, "panic journalism."

You can't do statistics this way because methods of generating power are shifting. Coal plants are dying off across the world. Part of the problem with this article, not to defend coal, is that there is no one way to measure coal emissions. It depends largely on when the power plants were constructed, what the local regulations are, and the size of the plant. You can't just run an average on it, and hope to be close to the truth of the matter. Even comparing Poland to Belarus is silly. And it gets sillier when you start talking about Germany and France.

But even that is mundane when you put it in the terms stated. Europe, as we all know is working hard to solve the power problem. They're doing it in ways that are a lot more radical than anything we've seen in the US. To start talking about carbon footprints, as they stand today, before the industry has even taken hold is throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

Of course, when it comes to panic journalism, that's kinda the point, so I can't fault them for that.

I guess I won't be buying one of these. Oh well.

I think we're seeing a powder keg of technology coming to maturity at the same time. We're seeing genetic augmentation, radical life expansion, cloning, and AI all swirling around us, ready to be available to make our lives better, and longer, and more productive. We're also seeing some new techniques in robotics and innovations in farming that asuage a lot of the concerns about overpopulation in a very practical way.

What's concerning about all of it, is that there does seem to be a group of people out there, on both sides of the party line that are scared of all of this.

Historically, all you need for fascism is a false but popular belief, a charismatic speaker, and fear of change.

The only ingredient that's missing here is the charismatic speaker.