So you move the cost of losses from the DC to AC conversion to the cost of significant increases in the amount of copper needed to wire a house and the internals of power-hungry appliances.
Yeah I've been wishing it wasn't so ridiculously hard to change mains voltage. If only we could distribute at 220V, or get 220V feed lines to build 220V circuits. Europe has all these 15 amp appliances like steam irons that you can't get in the US because you'd need 30-35 amps to run them--they're 15A at 220V. Same appliances in America are low-power (1800W), and operate as if they're severely defective.
High-voltage, low-current is the way to go. We have 20 amp bedroom circuits; we don't need 20V 120A circuits.
Her defense wasn't delayed by injustice; it was delayed by assholes. Injustice is a thing, a concept, one not entirely tied to reality; it is an abstract aligned to our moral beliefs. We don't consider the vicious treatment of pedophiles in America injustice because we hate them, even though empirically we can make some arguments about mental health and the fermentation of social pressures forcing people with an internal sickness into hiding, stress, and then the shape of something they could have avoided with proper social support. We consider victimization of Jews injustice because we've started this moral narrative about how hating on Jews is bad.
The fact of the matter is it's people who made decisions about their regards toward and actions about race that delayed this Ph.D. defense. It's assholes. It's people who decided to bar this from being heard. Injustice is a diffuse thing, like the injustice of a court system which executes more blacks than whites on similar evidence; it lifts blame off the participants and onto the mode of society or of misfortune. We pretend these actors don't exist, or at least that they aren't directly responsible for their actions, even though the victims are directly burdened by them. That nebulous ideal is immaterial to the consequences of society; the fact that people went along with it instead of using their human reason and empathy to decide against these happenings is squarely the fault of those people, not the fault of the speculation about what those people did.
What happened wasn't wrong; *you* were wrong for doing it.
The only way to ensure the possibility of a good paying job is to match labor supply with labor demand; that is, to make sure there aren't 100,000,000 computer programmers and 4,000,000 programming jobs.
"Keeping the US Economy competitive" is ludicrous. It's like eating shitloads of donuts to keep a sumo wrestler competitive: your body gets sick and you die, and all you really need is good sumo skills to wrestle people in your weight class successfully.
The US economy won't be competitive if it's completely and totally ill from a glut of computer science specialists and the constant suppression of salaries by state-subsidized college education. If the US economy runs well, a well-tuned machine with all of the parts correctly built and sized for need, it will outperform any other economy on earth. An arms race to stockpile perishable goods we have no intent nor ability to use before they expire is only going to make us a poor and shaky economy weak in the things we sacrifice for stacking up tons of tomatoes that are going to rot away next month.
The title is ludicrous. "Court orders UberPop to be banned in all of Italy" really? Who is going to do the banning? It seems to me the court didn't actually order anyone to ban UberPop, so oh well.
Working with people in different continents means brainstorming with them too.
You're not going to get complicated designs out of a brainstorm session. If you do, you've conflated it with a decision session, and have started doing design in your meeting. This invariably leads to bad decisions and bad design.
The question is how long you can go without maintenance and repair--what's the cost over time?
It's like when you hit someone's parked car and they make your insurance pay to fix their fucked-up door, but the door had already been smashed in by them hitting a fire hydrant 2 years prior. How much more damage did you really do? Well, okay, a lot. How much more cost did you add to the repair? None. Why should you have to pay for it? Largely, because you're a shitty driver.
It doesn't make sense to me to claim that drivers of big vehicles causing big damage to roads should be proportionally more responsible for the damage they cause, rather than the usage they make, when much of the damage is unmitigated wear and tear--when the road takes its greatest damage from freeze-thaw cycles. If 10% of the damage is caused by vehicle traffic--that is, if the amortized cost-per-year is only 90% as much with no traffic as it is with traffic--then 10% of the cost should be scaled based on traffic damage, and the other 90% is most fair scaled to bulk usage.
Of course, scaling for bulk usage is stupid, too. It makes the percentage of income paid toward road maintenance higher for lower-income users.
The more and the heavier the vehicles on the road, the more damage caused, the higher the cost of maintenance.
Leave an un-driven road un-maintained for 5 years and it will quickly become an un-drivable road with cracked pavement, potholes, and weedy overgrowth.