Right: TWC sold me "15 Mbps" and Netfix "X Tbps," not me "15 Mbps unless lots of people in your neighborhood are watching Netflix" and Netflix "X Tbps unless you happen to be sending to an individual neighborhood." It's totally plausible that the terms they gave me are very difficult to meet, but that sounds much more like their problem to solve than mine.
If their defense is that they mislead me into thinking they're giving me more than they are ("up to 15 Mbps") I'm not going to be particularly sympathetic to their complaints about the cost of upgrades to handle load.
the SQL standard.
The money that goes to support private schools could instead have been taxed and spent on public schools.
I'm pretty sure there's no deduction for a dependent's private school tuition. And while the US tax -> school structure has lots of problems which are fairly off topic, tax deductions wouldn't apply anyway.
It's all or nothing. And if *all* the cars on the road aren't autonomous, then the non-autonomous ones are mostly a traffic hazard whose only advantage is clear liability.
Interop is very difficult when you don't control both ends, you won't find cogent arguments against that, but defining bad interfaces is bad design, not some magical issue that only affects government work. If a bad design results in excess cost, most people would consider that a problem. Within the government, if they can't coordinate enough to redefine interfaces correctly, the issue is a dysfunctional organization.
For interaction with the external insurance agencies, work was probably harder. Supporting disparate systems may have been unavoidable given deadlines. While the PHBs for this project may have said "this is how you get your plan listed on the exchange. If you don't work with our interface, tough." If so, good for them! I've heard too much about how hard it is to work with so many insurance companies to be optimistic about that, however.
Intelligent software design is not optional in any service at scale. The fact that it's hard does not excuse doing it incorrectly at 6x the cost.
I find this study to be extremely flawed, not to say elitist / racist.
Yes, people who fit a stereotype of those I dislike like to have friends who are similar.
If the study had been conducted with 2000 subjects from places with people like me, I'm sure the results would've been more comforting to me.
This is seems like a permutation of the Butterfield fallacy
Whichever attack you've decided was the "most visible" was so because it was missed.
Fortunately this doesn't affect arguments regarding the proper scope of surveillance, but unfortunately it underscores that people are often oblivious to their assumptions. In your case, it's that you would have heard of stopped terrorist plots. I'll agree that it's plausible because of the temptation to brag about success, but far from certain.