Being able to avoid California's brand of crazy and New York's brand of crazy is a bonus to living in Austin, not a problem. Granted, we have our own issues, but they pale in comparison to the aforementioned places. If we didn't have so many Californians fleeing here and pushing up costs it would be even better- after all, most of the issues we do have are related to outgrowing our infrastructure.
This would create another perverse incentive to dumb down education- as much as the complexity of current law is bad, the inability to pass laws preventing any bad behavior that requires some knowledge (i.e. limits on pollution levels) would allow tragedy of the commons abuses by the powerful to be much worse.
Another approach that might achieve the benefits you seek would be to require that every piece of legislation must be read allowed in its entirety before being voted on- and that any congress-critter who is at any point outside the room during the reading is considered to have voted "no".
One could still write something that was confusing- but at least it would be short enough enough to be read between bathroom breaks.
Personally, I'd much prefer a job as a veterinarian to one as a vegetarian.
I can imagine the signs held by those who want a job as a vegetarian though:
"Will work for no food!"
You are making an rather huge assumption when you state it hasn't been cracked by a Black Hat. You expect press releases from someone who has taken all the information for their own uses?
You are also assuming that anyone incompetent enough to create that abomination is competent enough to notice if they have been hacked.
I didn't take the HS classes for all the AP exams I took, but since I went to high school inside the beltway, I certainly agree that I was not an example of a rural student. Living in a densely populated area certainly helped to be close to where they gave the exams.
As to BWM count, I have no idea- it's not something I cared about. I got my 70s toyota for $50 and fixed it up (little things like being to see the road through the floor were disconcerting and I fixed- overall appearance not so much). It was reliable and that's what mattered.
I was an undergrad in the 90s. I got almost a year worth of college credit from AP exams, including 10 hours of engineering calculus, and the full freshman year of CS classes (I just did CS as a minor, so that got me almost half way there). Things may have changed since then. At the time, it was true that being able to pass the exam required somewhat different skills than passing the classes, but neither was a great measure of ones ability to write quality code, much less step back and put together a quality project.
I currently use a 47" TV as primary monitor at home. Would be nice to replace with higher resolution, but I'm waiting for prices to come down.
I'd much rather sit back in an easy chair and relax than worry about ergonomics.
You are missing the fatboy's point- at least as I understand it.
The REASON that a simple doctor visit is a major expense is because of how we have things structured. If doctors were paid by their patients, there would be plenty of doctors with reasonable advertised costs for a simple doctors visit. A large portion of the decrease in price would come from not having to pay as many middle-men.
The inability of so many people to budget for occasional $100 surprises is a different (and very real) problem. Not that the current approach to "insurance" doesn't leave less money in the consumer's pockets, but consumers are happy to overspend in a variety of arenas.
It's just another example of the 'Approximate Spelling' technique. The parent poster is illustrating significant savings in mental energy.
Tesla's main problem right now is getting enough batteries to meet demand for the current lineup. They have no incentive to move to a lower profit per car model until they can supply the demand.
But this wasn't Knight mugging someone, this was Knight giving up the money by their own choice.
The people who were hurt were Knight's owners, which is an incentive for them to do a better job of oversight in the future.
I refer to the trading losses, not the fine.
To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...
I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.
They can, however, use all the powers of Pepsi to reveal who the tweeter was.
Actually, that may mean they can use all the powers of government.
the current scheme of regulation which lets *them* profit
You are spinning it the other way. Regulation are also costing them. I'm sure lot of hotel would be fine just not having those pesky regulation getting in the way (like you know fire protection, hygiene, using legit employees, insurances,
On the contrary, as long as the regulations exist and are enforced, the hotels are perfectly happy to include the costs of satisfying the city that they are in compliance (whether by complying or otherwise) by increasing what they charge people to stay. The more regulations, the harder it is for someone to enter the market and compete with them. They (probably correctly) see AirBnb as a form of competition, and are happy to use the regulations as a club to pound on the competition with.
We haven't hit the debt ceiling yet, that's later. At that point, arguments about to whether things are "funded" that we're not authorized to borrow money for will be quite interesting. But this particular stopage is about the budget.
Right now, nothing is funded, as we've reached the end of the existing budget (such as it was).
I actually agree with your earlier first paragraph (and thus disagree with your conclusion)- I think that it would be very healthy to vote on different pieces of spending in much smaller pieces- and I don't think the House has gone far enough yet in breaking things up. I would have trimmed enough to make a difference. Stopping Obamacare would arguably be good for the economy, but it won't do much for the federal budget.
Nothing is funded until something is passed into law to spend more money.