You missed the part where deflation increases the real value of debt, which most individuals, corporations, and governments in modern economies hold to some degree or another. You can argue that they shouldn't, but so long as the do deflation is a big problem.
Because there are already better options for time-shifiting energy usage that most companies haven't done. For example, building ice at night with the A/C and melting the next day. All that requires is a tank of water and a bit of antifreeze in your chiller loop, which are much cheaper and have a much longer lifetime than batteries.
Rules are rarely harmless. And these rules in particular have been used to justify the deaths of many.
If you're worried about independent functionality and reliability you should regulate those aspects *directly* rather than requiring a particular solution. There isn't anything inherent about either of the technologies that guarantee the features you want, nor that prevents those features from being provided.
It's quite unusual for anyone in rural or semi-rural areas; I visited one museum in my entire primary and secondary education and that required extra attendance on Saturday and a $50 fee.
Even in urban areas we do a lot to lock children away from the world rather than engage them in it. The amount of staff you need to keep them locked up is a lot smaller than the amount of staff you need if they were allowed to interact with the world, so guess which one we pick?
So you're aware that there's a bias, and you don't have any explanation for that bias, but you're somehow sure it's not the result of gender discrimination? How does that work?
Women might well be avoiding coding because of the social environment. But why is that a necessary component of coding jobs -- if it's not that's an example of gender discrimination, not evidence against it.
Try framing this issue differently:
All people, regardless of gender, are different and have different interests. Some of them will be more interested in coding than others. But given an arbitrary segregation factor -- eye color, for example -- wouldn't you expect the distribution of the general public to match the distribution among coders? And wouldn't you want to understand why a bias existed if you found one?
Maybe that bias is directly related to suitability for the job; the ability to exchange data with a computer is strictly necessary for coding so people who have trouble with human-computer interfaces are less likely to be coders and we're probably okay with that. But if you don't understand exactly what causes the bias how can you assume it's not discrimination?
The fact that outcomes aren't the same means that *something* is already tilting the playing field. Maybe that's a thing we're okay with, and if that's the case we can let he imbalanced outcome continue. But maybe it's not. If the thing titling the playing field is something we understand and directly control it's easy to fix, but that's not always the case, and I don't think it's not acceptable to say "well, the results are biases but I don't know why so I guess we'll just have to accept the bias" -- I actually want to understand the cause and resolve it as necessary, even if it's hard.
Complain all you want about the particular way that people try to solve problems, but the idea that we should just ignore biased outcomes under the assumption that nothing is wrong is absurd.
/ I also object to the idea that just because something is "natural" or "old" it's acceptable
Charging for parking doesn't do a lot to regulate demand, it's done to regulate turnover. Essentially all publicly-run pay parking is also time-limited, and frequently the rate for short-term usage is lower than commercial parking in the same area. Demand for parking is more or less inelastic because people still need to go places whether or parking is expensive; at best expensive parking encourages the use of other modes of transit.
Turnover isn't actually an issue on public conveyances; loitering *could* be, depending on the circumstances, but most transit systems include a layover point where it's easy to determine if someone is merely camping out.
It was working fine here in Seattle (and Des Moines, where I know they also provide some free downtown bus service). Since the whole route wasn't free it created some hassle with payment collection, but that's only an issue with the mix-and-match plan not the free part. The program has ended recently as funding for it was withdrawn but statistics suggest it did increase ridership in the free zone.
"Trust" and "verify" are contradictory. It's fine that you want to verify, but don't pretend that you are trusting while you actively violate the concept of trust.
So what you're saying is this is a completely accurate simulation of real human life?
Aren't human personalities also a type of programmed responses? Don't we spend years training children to respond in the way that makes us happy? Why is it different when we use the same stimulus-response training with a computer?
I don't understand how any of that address the points I made but:
I believe it's a moral imperative to limit the maximum pay ratio, based on precisely the same factors you used to determine it was morally wrong (I assume, since you didn't list any). I also don't see it as a penalty for the rich any more than taxes are.
Perhaps more importantly I do not see how limiting the pay ratio is something that could be "extended to all of the country" with respect to limiting everyone's pay (or again, how that's fundamentally different than income tax) -- by definition a pay ratio limit only affects the highest pay rates.
You can analyze literally any proposal for regulation with:
1) People will try to cheat
2) If we stop them from cheating they will leave
and you wouldn't be wrong.
But I don't understand why that means we shouldn't try.
Says a man who has obviously never take a bus from Minneapolis to St. Louis -- 18 hours over 3 buses, sitting shoulder-to-shoulder the whole way with no more freedom to move around than you'd have in a plane.
And that's not even a long bus trip.