After the 2000-ish dot-com crash, California was flooded with unemployed developers, making jobs very difficult to find around 2001-2004. I found that the best place to find jobs and contracts was in states with cold weather: Minnesota, Ohio, etc. Places with lousy weather have a harder time finding employees and are thus less picky about finding an exact language or buzz-word fit.
As best I can tell, CGI's competitors all suck also. Gov't contracting is a screwy industry that rewards screwy behavior and thus shapes screwy corporate behavior.
Deflationary currencies encourage saving until people realize they have "enough", and decide to buy something, or lots of somethings.
Inflationary currencies have their own problems.
Rothbard does a great job explaining how supply and demand for cash balances equilibrate the price of goods and services. Money is a good like any other.
Except we did read it, and most likely reached the same conclusion. He's got next to nothing, but hopes that darkly hinting at future revelations of much worse will fool us into taking him more seriously than he deserves.
If you're going to have a series of revelations about anything, best start with one that doesn't have people saying "meh".
Well just like the star naming scam, no-one "gets to decide" and anyone can name anything they like.
I could rename the craters of Mars after my relatives if I wanted to. Yes, even the ones that already have names. No-one, however, is likely to pay my naming the slightest bit of attention, because I have neither authority nor importance. Just like UWingo.
The International Astronomical Union, on the otherhand, have a fair degree of recognition. Feel free to ignore them, but you'll find that most people concerned with Mars are happy for them to take the lead on naming.
I imagine that using buzzwords like "crowdsourced" means we're not supposed to spot that this is just a way of fleecing people of money for a totally worthless certificate.
Maybe the cause is good. But this method of fundraising is just sleazy.
I did not donate, yet I edited "deadbeat". Is that a conflict-of-interest?
I've heard lots of older IT people that they're actively discouraging their kids from following in their footsteps
I tell them, "find out what you like doing, and learn it well, but keep flexible. Don't chase fads or short-term money."
IT is cyclical, unpredictable, and tends to eat the elderly, but so do many other professions. The work world is full of pointy edges and roller coasters.
It's mostly "redistributing" money from people, to their older selves
Time Socialism: a new evil for the right to rant about. It'll take their mind off birth certificates.
Because there was nothing to confront them about. NPOV was not violated and the OP is talking bunk.
I've read the article that is mentioned in particular. A minor page about a card game. A few things might be better worded, but I see no flagrant violations of NPOV. Yes, one or two contributing editors may have had a conflict of interests, and probably shouldn't have been editing it. But the article as it stands is broadly neutral and reasonably cited.
If this is the best example that Wikipediocracy can produce of this outrageous practice, then I doubt Wikipedia has anything to worry about.
The OP talks of violation of the NPOV policy, but that is not what is happening. They are violating to COI (conflict of interest) policy. Violation of NPOV is easy to determine by reading the article, because a NPOV violation applies no matter who wrote it.
COI violations are less easy to determine if you do not know who the editor is.
libertarian tendencies and for caring too much about the constitution
A good many libertarians treat both the Constitution and the Bible as a buffet: pick only the food you are interested in and ignore the rest.
Don't want the government knowing everything about you? Don't request secret clearance from it.
Those are about the only positions not at risk of being outsourced to Timbuktu because the Timbukese can't get US clearances.
Come on now, no one glorifies clowns.
You're painting this as a picture of Darwinian vs. Lamarckian. That's a false dichotomy. I never once argued for the primacy of Lamarckian evolution. That's a strawman. I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge the contributions and relevance of multiple schools of thought. In fact, my original point was not that Darwinists were wrong about many aspects of Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms, but that other schools of thought were rejected by the very wrong attitude that evolutionary mechanisms are exclusively Darwinian.
Naturally, much of the struggle of this was taking place pre-internet and in conversations between student researchers and advisors. If you don't want to accept my contention that there was suppression of these ideas, fine. But don't accuse me of arguing for the primacy of Lamarckian mechanisms, or maintain an ignorant attitude that only one school of thought is legitimate. Which, oddly enough, kind of proves my point.