They don't care. They aren't trying to prosecute you for bad driving. They are simply trying to charge you more money if the vehicle that they insure gets driven badly. If you let knuckleheads drive your vehicle then you probably should be charged more in insurance.
You are lucky then. I have an another location 10 miles away where I sometimes watch Netflix and now every time I do I have to adjust my household. I am on the Ultra Premium account, and I am supposedly able to watch 4 streams at a time, but only if we are sitting in each other's laps.
I just did the math and my family watches less than 20 hours of Netflix a month (I have 6 kids). It turns out that I haven't watched Netflix since November. It's not that big of a deal, but getting a message from Netflix every time one of my kids wants to switch where the household resides is just enough of a pain that it makes me want to stop using Netflix completely.
Per hour they are definitely my most expensive service. We can definitely live without them.
This is code for straight-up Socialism or Chinese Style "Capitalism". Picking winners and losers by the Government.
I would instantly agree that we need to stop picking winners like we do now under Crony Capitalism, but putting that power more in the hands of Bureaucrats and Politicians is not the solution.
Along those same lines, Windows 11 is dropping support for older Intel Processors lacking certain features. Supposedly, it's to improve virtualization, but how much would it cost to just not support that virtualization as well on older processors?
It's a boon to PC manufacturers that push Windows 11. The big PC makers say "Works best with Windows!" on their websites and don't highlight or give you any price break on units with Linux installed. Didn't I read that MS requires that they get a payment for every PC sold, whether it runs Windows or not as part of their licensing agreement with the manufacturers? I know the manufacturers get a big break on Windows copies from retail.
I thought Apple should have bought Dell when Dell went private a few years ago, made PCs with no Windows advantage, pushed Linux and maybe even Darwin on these new PCs. I'm not saying don't sell Windows too. They could keep the Dell and marketing separate to not dilute the Apple brand. They would have enjoyed massive buying power for PC parts, screens, batteries, SDs. They could have gotten Dell for a tiny fraction of their massive war chest a few years ago. Could have had most of it financed, too, just like the deal to go private did. This idea might have faced anti-trust scrutiny.
Apple should have recognized that MS wasn't going away and as long as they are there, they are a potential huge competitor in many of their markets.
It would have also been revenge for the obnoxious remarks Michael Dell made back in the 90s when Apple was experiencing hard times.
The whole point of audits is to at least put a finger on those individuals who knowingly cooked the books. Properly done audits would make it easy to know precisely who to prosecute in the case a criminal trial is needed. The easiest way to make sure that the audit is done to a certain standard is to make the auditor liable for mistakes that they failed to uncover. Audits should be comprehensive enough that the auditors should either find the problems in the books, or, in the case of more comprehensive fraud, make an airtight case criminal case against individuals if fraud should go undetected.
Eventually fraud comes to light. These schemes always unravel.
This ruling is definitely a step backward for that level of transparency in our financial markets.
This is precisely it. An auditor that doesn't share in the civil and criminal liability is a complete waste of time.
In an ideal world investors would come to recognize quality auditing firms in the same way that we recognize quality manufacturing firms. These firms would demand a significant portion of the fee up front and would not sign off on the audit until they were satisfied that the company was, in fact, clean. The company being audited could then rest assured that their books were clean (internal embezzling is definitely a thing). More importantly they could attract more investment because they could show that their business had received a quality audit by a well known auditing firm. Failure to pass an audit, or an audit by a less well known firm would be met with skepticism from investors in the same way that you are skeptical of random misspelled brands on Temu.
A quality audit would simply the part of the cost of doing business for companies that wanted to be publicly traded. The reality is that investors already expect that to be a thing. This is witnessed not only by this case, but by the fact that the Tingo Group was able to raise billions in the U.S. stock market on the strength of an audit by Deloitte Israel. The proper response would be for the auditors to be held liable for those things that they should have uncovered with a proper audit. In the long run this would probably be good for the auditing firms. Sure, they would be on the hook for poorly done audits, but publicly traded companies would basically be required to pay for comprehensive audits. Quality auditing firms, with good reputations, could charge more for audits, and could do the work necessary to guarantee that the books were clean (or at least that the fraudsters were consistently fraudulent). Misleading auditors should carry criminal penalties so that if companies did trick their auditors the auditors would be able to hand over their books to law enforcement to allow for easy prosecution in criminal cases. These quality audits would be worth the effort to companies seeking the greater capital that the market gives.
Companies that didn't want to pay for quality audits could get the amount of auditing that they wanted to pay for, but investors could see this as a red flag. At the very least auditors could serve as an insurance backstop. Before investing you could take a look at the company auditing the company you wanted to invest in to make sure that they had the resources to back up their audit.
None of this is even remotely controversial actually. In fact, it is the only reason that auditors should even exist, and it is definitely what investors expect from an audit. What is the point of an audit where the auditors can't be held liable, or at least if the audit can't be later used to show who acted in a criminal manner. Almost by definition audits should show that the books balance, or should at least point the finger at the responsible parties in the case of fraud.
In recent times there have been a string of huge frauds perpetrated against companies where the fraud could have been caught with a minimum of proper auditing. As an example, Trafigura had to write down nearly half a billion dollars as they found that a significant number of their nickel shipments were just useless rubble instead of nickel ore. You can be sure that company will be more careful in the future.
Proper auditing definitely is worth the money spent on it. Investors need the information provided if they are going to make informed choices. As fraud mounts companies that do their due diligence will stand out in the market. If the law doesn't require proper audits, then some auditing houses will almost certainly take it upon themselves to guarantee proper audits as part of their service, and auditing insurance will become a thing. It will then be up to the investor to prefer properly audited companies. Unfortunately, in a world where Sam Bankman Fried can trick people out of billions of dollars by promising ridiculous returns I am afraid that stolid businesses will always have a hard time getting the investment they deserve.
I bought a
I definitely miss Usenet, even though I didn't really get involved in that until after Eternal September. It doesn't help that I still read my email with Emacs/Gnus, and I still have an ISP with a workable news server. Because of that I still read some of the programming mailing lists via their news gateway. I still have the tools that turn those cesspools into workable sources, so I read them their for old time's sake.
I am old enough that I could have been on Usenet before Eternal September, but at the time I was too interested in meeting girls. Looking back I feel like I made the right choice.
You have clearly never raised a horse. Nor do you have any idea of the time and effort that went into building and maintaining the infrastructure required to move people and cargo around using horses and wagons. To give you an idea a light working horse likely eats 20 pounds of hay and 5 pounds of grain per day, and you likely to have to worry about removing roughly that amount of waste per day as well. On top of that horses need to be shod, cared for, and you need the tack and equipment to make them useful. There is a reason why automobiles replaced horses so quickly. Despite all of the problems of early automobiles they were still much less expensive to maintain than horses, especially in urban environments. Even before the mass production of cars with the Model T, automobiles had displaced hundreds of thousands of horses in the cities in the United States. When the inexpensive Model T came out people literally couldn't get rid of horses fast enough. Cars replaced horses because the economics were ridiculously clear.
This is why vat chicken is such a hard place to start. First of all chicken is basically the least expensive meat available. Chickens are easy to grow and care for, they require very little space, and they eat just about anything. Heck, I live in the middle of a fair sized city and I still have neighbors on either side of me that raise chickens in their tiny yards. In a factory farm setting you can already raise chickens with so little space that I suspect that the vat growers would have a hard time competing. Some of the farms only give the chickens 2 to 3 square feet of space per chicken. Chickens also eat just about anything. You can raise chickens on whatever happens to be inexpensive at the time. Even with decades of improvement I would bet that vat grown chicken will still take more space per kilogram of usable meat, and you will almost certainly have to be more careful with what you use for food.
If they could make vat wagyu beef they would be on to something. From a price/utility standpoint chicken is ridiculously hard to beat.
Of course, I suspect that the real reason that they started with chicken is that we already eat a lot of chicken that has been blended into a paste and formed. Recreating something as simple as a chicken nugget is easy. Recreating a steak with its marbling, and other structures, is a completely different proposition. The problem with a chicken nugget strategy is that it puts them up against other chicken substitutes including vegetable chicken substitutes that are already pretty good and relatively inexpensive.
There is literally no way to win replacing chicken. What these venture capitalists have created is a pretty cool science experiment, but it is about as commercially viable as shredding perfectly good plywood to make sawdust. Sawdust has some commercial value, but you would be better off with the plywood and the money.
Heck, I moved to Lima, Peru from the state of Washington when I was 16. The biggest cultural shock of all was the fact that I was now expected to greet every woman in every social situation with a kiss. There was a lot of craziness in moving to Peru as a gringo at the height of Sendero Luminoso. I was threatened with guns, I saw buildings that were demolished with explosives, and I even saw people who had been slaughtered and nailed to posts for the crime of voting. Nothing was quite as disconcerting as walking into a party and realizing that I was now going to have to kiss 20 females all of which were at least a full foot shorter than I was. My brother and I referred to it as "running the gauntlet."
Eventually you get used to it. These days I sort of like reconnecting with my Peruvian friends. Gringos are decidedly cold. We could use a bit of loosening up.
That being the case, this isn't really a marketing problem. Meta simply thought that there would be more demand for their VR stuff. Meta put it in retail locations because they thought that the devices weren't selling because people couldn't try them out. It turns out that people aren't buying VR gear because they aren't sufficiently interested.
I didn't read the fine article, but I suspect that it could easily be argued that if she did not come forward that she was an accomplice to any fraud that he committed. After all, they were married, and she stood to benefit from any financial gains that he made. If your partner steals tens of millions of dollars you probably want to get ahead of that.
Heck, generally speaking, I would like to think that I would report any felony that I personally witnessed, even if the victim was someone that I didn't like. That's just the right thing to do from a general ethical perspective. I don't like the world that we end up with if we each only care about the crimes that are committed against ourselves. I can understand if someone feels differently, but, for obvious reasons, I would rather not be neighbors with that person.
I suppose the true test would be how you would feel if it was your money being stolen. I would bet that if it was your money being stolen you would be grateful to hear that you were being defrauded, no matter who the person was that gave you the information. This is especially true if the warning came soon enough that you could protect yourself.
I recognize that some people truly believe that the most important thing that you can do is to not get involved. However, in this case, Mr. Rinsch had clearly gone off the rails. He needed help, not someone that was willing to cover up his problems. It could easily be argued that turning him in was not only the right thing to do, it was the loving thing to do.
The FSF, GNU, and the GPL have always been about software freedom, and they have always used copyright law ironically to protect that freedom. The catch has always been that you can use the software however you want, but you don't have the license to distribute the software unless you are willing and able to give that same right to the people that you distribute software to.
Along the way they have various legal tools and licenses. My favorite example of this is that Debian's digital RMS program, that was used to warn people about non-free software that I had installed on my system, would warn me about the manual to Emacs, which is published using the GFDL with some unchangeable bits that makes it technically non-free according to Debian's definition. I personally believe that these restrictions make sense for documentation, but Debian had other priorities, so I would regularly get emails from my system from Digital RMS warning me about packages that the actual RMS had helped to write, and using a license that RMS had helped draft.
Technical people like black and white, or at least very straightforward branching, and the rules for software licenses tend to be a little more tricky than that.
It does feel that a repository for reusable boilerplate legal documents should be a thing though. Hackable law, if you will. I wonder if such a thing actually exists.
No doubt. If only there was a device that didn't have battery and required you to be connected to the network with a wire!
I have no problem paying people for services rendered. The real problem is that billions of dollars of VC money was poured into this particular industry subsidizing the price of delivering goods to the point where it was ridiculously inexpensive to have hot meals delivered to your door.
This money has dried up, and now this same service is going to get considerably more expensive. People will either pay the higher costs associated with these deliveries, or there food will not get delivered. It is as simple as that. In some markets DoorDash is already seeing more demand for their services than they have people willing to drive. The only way to fix that issue is to pay the drivers more money, and DoorDash doesn't really have that money to give. It is going to have to come from customers.
I actually agree that we probably should call it something besides a "tip." A tip is something provided at the end of the service to help incentivize exceptional service. This is more along the lines of a bid for timely service.
There's a reason why I tend to drive to the restaurant and pick up the food myself. I know how much a delivery service should cost, and I am price sensitive enough so that I am not generally willing to pay that price. Plus, I have six kids and so when I order food I generally order a lot of it. Paying a percentage to have it delivered doesn't make much sense to me. After all, it is still only one delivery.
However, I really do like the idea of letting the driver know ahead of time how much you value their service. My real problem with tipping is that there is no way for them to know how much of a sociopath the customer for is ahead of time. Delivery people have to work each delivery as if the customer was likely to be super generous so that when they do get a big tipper they have lived up to their part of the bargain. This allows people that aren't tippers to get excellent service without ever having to pay for it.
Personally, I am going to tip, and I have a tendency to be generous. I don't see any problem in letting the person know ahead of time that I appreciate what they are doing. I have experimented in putting the tip on the table at restaurants, for example, right after ordering. Generally speaking that gets me the service that I am hoping for, and it takes most of the pressure off. Sure, the server knows that I am not going to drop a truly ridiculous tip, but they also know that they are not going to be disappointed.
Why should they be forced to give comp days? The competition to become an academic is brutal. There are definitely people out there that would happily give up all of their weekends to be considered for the post, and they have qualifications that are just as strong as the person that wants to have the weekends off. They are just willing to work harder.
Personally, I would much rather see these sorts of positions become more of a meritocracy instead of less. Somebody is going to get this highly coveted job. I would just as soon it be someone that was willing to put in more hours, and to make the job their top priority. Otherwise it invariably boils down to some other completely political maneuver that gets one person chosen over another, and the winner ends up getting not only the job that they want, but ridiculous job security, and other insane perks that really helps to separate the winners from the losers. The difference between a tenured professor and an associate professor is huge. Why shouldn't those positions go to the people that show the most dedication to the job.
I think that it makes sense, in the most highly competitive of jobs, to allow work ethic to play an extraordinary role. That way when I get beat out for the position that I wanted I can at least say that the other person was willing to work insanely hard at getting to the top. Yes, that would preclude all but the most bright of the people that want to have an actual life, but that's how competition works.
"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll
