Very interesting. It doesn't leave you in much better shape than the US two party strangle hold. They all place so much value on predictability and control. If there were no parties and each man or woman had to stand on their own with no party line talking points and an empty canvas on which to hang their own ideas it would just be too complex for the rich and powerful to exert their rightful level of control. It would be much too dangerous to let the people choose anyone they like to represent them, easier to let them choose from the acceptable few and present the illusion of free will.
Notice how the servers you access and basically all the non-mobile portions or the internet are not IPv6? You have NAT 64 or dual stack shielding you from the lack of resources available directly from IPv6. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but consider how much is left to convert to roll over to IPv6 as the predominate protocol. Also consider how many of the infrastructure components and devices in use today are not currently capable of decent IPv6 native support. It's great that we are starting to see some movement in the right direction, but the day when you step into a typical office or jump on public WiFi and use your IPv6 address to access resources that are also on IPv6 and just rarely have to involve IPv4 for some legacy beastie left over from the dark ages, are still far off. There should never be any reason for this to become a crisis, we only need to make steady progress in the right direction until we reach the inflection point where businesses will find it compelling to put resources behind embracing the transition. Mobile has fortunately led the way which is a very good thing considering the growth in mobile devices. The rest of the world may just need a little push to get us past some of the pain that is inevitable when IPv6 conversion isn't yet a line item on very many budgets.
Do the Brits just not want any rights? Why do you tolerate this? At least American politicians still have to pretend to give a damn about basic civil rights while they try to scare us into forgoing them. Communication in the modern world is an unstoppable force. Even prison gangs that live in a tightly controlled environment where they are forbidden from free communications and have little or no technology, find ways to communicate without authorities knowing the contents of their communications. Spying on all communications all the time may sound good in theory strictly from a security standpoint, but the moment the actual bad guys know that is the environment in which they operate, they will find ways to evade that scrutiny. Everyone else should not have to tolerate being constantly observed just so the government can pretend that it offers reasonable assurance that they will get the intelligence they seek from the small number of actual persons of interest.
We shouldn't have to design things to prevent this kind of act. We've gone a long time without having idiots perpetrate this level of jackassery. Fiber being installed fairly recently compared to other utilities it just isn't practical to completely protect every inch of every run. We can do our best to protect it from backhoe cuts, but trying to make every inch physically inaccessible to a determined moron is not going to be feasible reality in may areas.
I'm afraid the selection process was at fault. Although on the surface there was much debate it was actually decided by presenting a series of scale models to unnamed members of the legislature. They took the models and spun around in circles making airplane noises, "neeer, neeer, pop, pop, pop, vrrneeer". The one that felt the most like something a superhero and GI-Joe would fly was clearly the right choice at any price.
Bricklayer is a bad analogy. If they wanted to give an example of a skilled trade, a stonemason would make more sense. A bricklayer is the guy you hire to build a patio, BBQ, fireplace, or facade of a house which does require skill, but it lacks the depth required. A stonemason can have skills in a broad range from building a small monument or mausoleum to an entire cathedral depending on skill. We need people who can turn architectural design plans into reality and do so with accuracy and technical mastery at least within the scope of the tasks they are assigned and are capable of completing. We need them to be able to see when there is problem and be capable of adapting. If the wall as designed will not stand, you wouldn't build it, you take the needed steps to ensure it will stand now and also stand the test of time. A stonemason better suggests the need to execute with integrity in every detail. Masonry also much like programing can be learned through study and apprenticeship despite the depth of skill required to be a master of the craft.
Google is free, but that doesn't negate all problems. I've always taken issue with the media and journalists on the matter of Google's rise to domination. Long ago to Google something became a verb and almost immediately the media latched on to that being the cool way to do things. Then instead of ever saying "search" or "use a search engine" the phase was always Google it, as if there was no longer any other logical choice. Google did not need free publicity and the media or journalists in particular should not pick winners. We do have to be careful in ensuring fairness in Google search results as its dominance basically means that any business or entity that depends on being found, has no alternative but to be visible through Google. It's a precarious position ethically anytime one organization public or private holds such power in being a gatekeeper of information. I wonder sometimes if it could be necessary to offer the consumer a blended search capability, where searches are parsed from multiple sources and blended in an agnostic fashion without concern for any provider's business interest.
I can relate to that, though if interest rates were higher I suspect the prices would be lower yet we would all still spend every available cent on housing after a brief period where all the current owners struggled to regain their lost wealth. It's going to be very interesting to see if they are able to unwind this cheap credit trap we've wandered into. These million dollar homes are going to be a bit hard to manage when interest rates sit at 6% or more. Reducing credit doesn't solve everything either, we had a lot of cash buyers to compete with in the Bay Area when the 2008-2009 crash wiped out credit availability and that hasn't really left the market.
So... we should try something that actually makes sense?
Yep, subsidy or not, nobody wants a shanty town in their backyard. I'm not even sure it's a good idea. Packing the poor into high density housing doesn't have the greatest track record, but of course it sort depends on if the goal is to have people live in basic dignity or if it's just to move the poor/blacks "somewhere else" and then drop all support for the project once they are, "somewhere else". As fucked up as the free market is, I have little faith in government's ability to improve on it.
That's hippie socialist "market rent". These are the people that believe "market" is what a typical person can afford, not what the most capable available buyer is willing to pay. It's the same mindset that creates this idea that real estate developers in large cities should voluntarily make less so there will be affordable housing. The market is what the market is, so if the government wants to influence it, it has to actually own up to it and create some socialist policy. I honestly don't know how the hell we are supposed to create any kind of fairness in housing or what the hell public policy out to be, but what we have in free market economics with some occasional hand wringing about the poor is not getting us where we need to be. If they want to actually help the poor then maybe small units like 300 sqft is what we ought to subsidize. We may have to setup something more for the middle class to encourage construction in the 800-1200sqft range. In many areas the large single family home may not be the reality for the middle class in coming decades.
Landfills are free to the manufacturer, they aren't the ones dealing with disposal.
I'm not sure the results are even that valid. How do you tell the difference between a less depressed mouse struggling and a mouse driven into a rage by having it's brain laser baked whilst being dangled by the tail? I guess we'll just have to stimulate a sad memory and see if those mice just hang there without the will to live.
We already have Lifeline, which is "...telephone service for eligible low-income subscribers to help ensure they can connect to the nation's communications networks, find jobs, access health care services, connect with family and their children's schools, and call for help in an emergency." - according to the FCC. If that is the goal of the program, then basic internet service actually contributes to that. I'd rather people just went to the library to get access where possible, but there are areas that don't have a good public resource. I'm not really convinced individual service to the home is always the best approach, but I doubt any agency is going to bother to administer anything more complex to provide more community access.
There isn't any point in reducing carry on size. The allowed size is already very small and it isn't currently enforced because at least 10% of passengers are commonly carrying over-sized carry-on. Never make a new stricter rule, if you aren't enforcing the current one.