If inflation and returns on saved money are consistent then it will have little impact on savings rate. But, in general it is a good idea to try to stabilize the value of the currency, although demand pull inflation needs to be separated from commodity shock inflation since their causes and the actions taken to mitigate are likely different. Demand pull inflation as a result of there being more financial assets (currency) chasing a relatively fixed amount of real goods is mitigated by draining currency via narrowing the deficit of the currency issuing government by raising taxes and/or decreasing spending. And, the reverse when deflation threatens due to recession.

Some of this is automatic, and already exists. On the revenue side, income tax receipts increase as more people have jobs and income tax receipts increase, if incomes increase enough, a progressive income tax causes the deficit to narrow even more. On the spending side, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other safety net spending will tend to decrease, narrowing the deficit further. In an economic down turn when deflation threatens these act in the opposite direction. I would prefer additional more powerful automatic stabilizers, but these are a few examples of controls on demand pull inflation/deflation.

I don't know enough on the commodity side to say how that should be handled, but hoarding of useful commodities via ETFs backed by actual warehoused commodities held off the market should be banned.

Tax rent seeking revenue progressively, tax profit for sales of goods and services like today.

Rent seeking - Interest, dividends, trading profits, licensing fees (RMS would like that one), political contributions, ...

Allow for a certain amount of rent seeking revenue can be treated as regular revenue and subject to expense deduction. Becoming TBTF is actually a rent seeking behavior, so setting making the rate progressive is an act of taxing rent seeking.

Of note, Adam Smith proposed that taxes on rents are desirable.

Basically, revenue from the sale of goods and services work the way they do today with only profits being taxed. Interest income, dividend income, trading gains, etc... get taxed for businesses just like everyone else on a revenue basis.

Some times it just takes a different set of eyes. You get buried in the code and things that are not quite right do not jump out at you because you understand it and know it so intimately that you develop blind spots. A fresh set of eyes no matter experience will see things that you simply accept because it does not trigger your "that does not look right" alarms.

I absolutely agree. I wrote a large portions of some code alone that now several other people are advancing and maintaining. There are some good things and some not so good things in there. Some of the worst were caused by attempts to be overly clever.

The more interesting step to me would be 1920x2160 panels for 1080P passive 3D. Right now passive 3D polarizes alternate lines so at 1080P it is more like 1920x540 per eye. Which probably is perceived by the brain like 1920x700 or something like that. If no one makes a 1920x2160 panel I presume it could be done with a 4K panel.

I would have to go back through the article, but I believe that in terms of aggression lead has a bigger impact on men than women.

Yes, seriously. Then, instead of worrying about f-ing numbers in a computer, we might worry about how to actually put people to work building real things under the real limits on government spending (inflation and available productive capacity) and not use fake self imposed imaginary limits.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html

But, if you subdivide across multiple countries, states, and cities where the lead in gasoline was phased out at different times and the 22 year correlation remains consistent, it becomes highly unlikely that you will find something(s) else that can account for the change.

And, as you said it is statistical because clearly every child exposed to lead during those time periods did not become a criminal. Some just suffered from losing a few IQ points (or whatever intelligence measure you care to use). But, you take a large group of people that have all the other risks for becoming criminals and add lead on top of that and you get a significant rise in crime.

Depending on the farm American tilapia are also raised on shit. At least the fish farm on Dirty Jobs was raising tilapia in the same ponds where they raised bass in order to help clean the pond for the next round of bass. They then sell the tilapia. So, some of that farmed American tilapia is raised on bass shit.

SAVE THE THRESHERS!!!

That is what I did with my Summers and I was a CS major. I don't know how good it looked on my resume when I was looking for a job, this was late 90s, so there were plenty of jobs. But, dealing with children and parents of those children shows people skills.

So, my suggestion would be to "Be Creative" don't go looking for programming jobs, look for things that demonstrate your abilities outside of programming. Volunteer opportunities, but choose something that is interesting to you. Tutor summer school kids or something like that. Teaching demonstrates the ability to communicate. I am sure there are lots of other great ideas.

Well, I was thinking that NASA could use the ISS as a transfer station. But, airports are generally government owned or quasi-government owned and private companies rely on them for their missions (aka Airlines flying passengers to their destination.) So, there is precedence.

Reusable spacecraft in space. The problem with every interplanetary mission plan is that it is a one time plan, or always involves launching the entire spacecraft form Earth every time. Why launch an interplanetary spacecraft to LEO multiple times? Launch it once and after that just launch fuel, supplies, and people. Maybe the a new lander or parts of a lander will need to be launched each time. Since, Ion engines are useful once in space fuel needs would be greatly reduced. A spacecraft that never lands should suffer very little wear and tear, so quit trying to build a single spacecraft to handle all phases of the travel plan. In addition, a reusable spacecraft that never lands can probably be built bigger and more comfortable than one that needs to survive re-entry.

1) Build one spacecraft that launches stuff to LEO.
2) Assemble an interplanetary craft in LEO along with a lander.
3) Launch supplies and crew to LEO. (could be multiple launches)
4) Transfer crew to interplanetary craft.
5) Set interplanetary craft on transfer orbit.
6) Land lander.
7) Do Stuff.
8) Launch lander to interplentary craft.
9) Return interplanetary craft to LEO.
10) Transfer people to LEO landing craft.
11) Repeat from step 3

This is one of the reasons I find any plan to de-orbit the ISS is stupid and wasteful. Even if there is no other science to be had, why waste a perfectly good transfer station for interplanetary travel? It would also probably be a good place to perform vehicle assembly since the interplanetary craft might makes sense to launch in multiple pieces or, if in a single launch, partially disassembled, so it does not have to be designed to survive launch stresses in a fully assembled state.

That is where the Agile angst I am seeing in the comments seems off. People over Process does not mean you don't have process or that having process excludes people. It means that the people are more important than the process. A change board is a pretty good process, but it is useless without the right people.