I'm not saying cloud is necessarily riskier than on-premises*, but cloud failures can easily make headlines due to the scope, and such could set the likes of MS into a financial tailspin. While that is perhaps a good thing, they'll hurt a lot of customers in desperation for cash during their spiral to Hell.
* The average org didn't manage on-premises well either.
If you are transgender then you pretty much need to avoid red states, as frothy evangelicals would be happy to hang you or lock you in a "correctional facility". And they are growing ever more medieval.
That's the secret to the Chinese government's success - they give a shit about the citizens
Good one. Most leaders, including Xi, don't have a flying fuck about their citizens and one should never assume they do. They care about personal glory and power. If helping citizens HAPPENS to help them reach their personal goals, that's great, but it doesn't always align.
I think anyone saying that the shooter clearly belongs to one party or the other at this point is lying. And I've seen plenty of it on both sides, including you, right now.
If you can't see the shooter is FAR LEFT...then you are either willingly blind or not listening at all.
His notes, his relatives telling his history, FFS he's fucking a gay furry guy trans.....
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck....
Ranting about Teams is our best social gathering.
The Clippy Army. Clippernators?
..."non bold" bets before this? HyperboleGPT?
This requires living in a region with ample sunlight, but yes, that is the way. Only problem is that EVs have a finite commercially viable lifespan because of aging LiPo batteries, but once that is solved - possibly never, but possibly with a standardized semi-replaceable battery cell standards - this can work.
But for the colder and northern climates, fuel that can be stored for months is a neccessity, and it's rather easy with propane / butane, because it doesn't age as fast as gasoline.
You might want to read up on how economists talk about supply/demand graphs. They have to offer me enough to make taking the job be better than my next best alternative (which might be sitting on my duff flaming on the Interwebs). If I have no skills and few opportunities, yes, that's going to be starvation wages. But the vast majority of people do have options so any employer has to out-bid the next best choice.
Without a minimum wage the floor drops out of your next-best-choices and large chunks of the population end up on starvation wages. This isn't a theoretical issue you need to estimate with graphs, it can be seen in practice in jurisdictions with extremely low or nonexistent minimum wages, or even in first-world gig work.
I do not believe that is the case. Standards of living consistently rose in England throughout the industrial revolution. I just read a book by Don Boudreaux and Phil Gramm which has an entire chapter documenting this.
That makes sense, you don't believe that's the case because you just voluntarily and uncritically filled your head with a warm load of grifty bullshit "documented" by a couple of right-wing lobbyists. If you'd ever read a real history book focusing on workers' standards of living in that period, the way that the propaganda book you hopefully didn't pay for flew in the face of it would've set off some alarm bells. Here's something to get you started: https://www.crei.cat/wp-conten...
Did you live through the '70s? I did. Life is immeasurably better now for everyone but the homeless guy on the corner. The wage stagnation myth is just that created by twisting statistics (e.g. ignoring transfer payments).
Look at the median home price vs. median salary in the '70s vs. now and the homeless guy might look like the only person who hasn't been totally hosed. It's the same for education costs, two things conveniently left out of inflation measures. Accounting for transfer payments doesn't change the picture either:
https://equitablegrowth.org/sl...
Tell me about it. I got laid off from my cushy high-tech job and spent 13 months trying to land a new gig. I lost count of how many applications and interviews I went through. High tech and software job markets are in a world of hurt right now.
So you know, and at the same time think that most anyone who wants a job has one right now? How does that work?
I have no doubt working in a Nigerian nickel mine sucks ass. But just like other sweatshops going back to the aforementioned dark satanic mills, you have to ask, why are people working there? Because it beats the alternative. The long term answer is to make Nigeria and Haiti (to pick two examples) more productive so they generate wealth, not make hiring people so expensive the employers all leave. And that's my point: yes some regulation can help some people in the short run. If it makes hiring people too expensive relative to their output, the jobs will leave and everyone left behind will be worse off.
People were often forced into the earliest mills because the (once popular) alternative, farming the commons and telling business owners to fuck off with their hellhole factories, was conveniently taken away. The alternative that people are choosing work over is usually not a lower-paying job but the threat of homelessness and starvation often worsened by the very business interests they're forced to work for.
Productivity alone won't do anything for workers, both the industrial revolution and the last half-century in the first world are proof of that. If you're worried about employers leaving for cheaper labor costs, good luck competing with every Chinese political prisoner.
They'd better be giving these refrigerators out for free, or at an insane discount that they plan to make up for via ad revenue. Otherwise, there's no reason for that feature to exist.
To look rich to your shallow friends.
Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly
