You're welcome!

Generally, when people say one currency is pegged to another, it indicates that the exchange rate has been set to a fixed ratio. Oman's currency is a good example. If you look at the historical rate, it's nearly flat, with little wiggles probably caused by oil price fluctuations. An even better one is the Cayman Island dollar, which has been worth exactly $1.20 for quite some time. Occasionally that changes by a penny, but only 5 times in 5 years.

It can work if your economy is on very solid footing. Most of the nations that do it (and succeed) are major oil exporters or financial hubs. Argentina tried it at a 1:1 rate when their economy wasn't solid. It went very poorly.

You already took the words of of my mouth. This is how businesses do it to, as it is common budgeting practice. You haven't given one example of how this practice creates "waste".

Common people like an impoverished and uneducated Scottish immigrant? Andrew Carneggie became one of the wealthiest people ever and is personally responsible for the public library system.

Maybe the problem is that you've put yourself into a "no true Scotsman" fallacy with "pure capitalism". That's not really a thing at all. Perhaps you're thinking of the laissez faire movement? Which was not "pure capitalism", but an approach to market regulation under Renaissance feudalism.

Maybe that's why they'll never be as rich or powerful as Agustus.

Besides, you're basically saying that modern billionaires won't try to seize political power because that would be too risky. I agree, but you shot down your own argument.

The only Boyle to care about is Peter.

The Left is 30% further from the center than it was in 2008. The Right moved 3%. This continues a trend that existed in 1994.

Hating a person you've never met and whose actual life you can only guess at seems a bit unhealthy. Hate is bad for the heart. In more ways than one.

You're talking about it like NASA has ever built a rocket themselves. They always turned to the private sector to do the actual work. General Dynamics, Boeing, Douglas, Rocketdyne, Lockheed... And now SpaceX, Blue Origin...

But the idea that a company that has yet to get a rocket out of the atmosphere is going to build an interplanetary transport in two years seems... optimistic. I'm not sure that was a wise choice.

I appreciate the reply. In particular, because it prompted me to look up where NYC gets its power (FWIW, I thought the largest source was from upstate nuclear). Turns out, NYC gets roughly half its electricity from in-city fossil fuel based generation. That comes from 24 power plants, the largest of which provides roughly 20% of the total electricity.

Going back to my back-of-napkin math, at least 12 of these SMR's would be needed to cover just the average load, which I thought was a lot of them. But NYC already has 24 fossil fuel run plants, and they only provide half the power.

So I stand corrected! There probably is enough room within NYC for enough of these SMR reactors to power the entire city without using up much more space than the existing infrastructure. That's a surprise to me!

Three of them would still be inadequate LOL

Outages happen. How does reclassifying CSPs change that? The servers are already regional. It's already pretty straightforward to migrate between them (because each wants it to be easy to move to theirs). 365 is loaded with things that can connect to AWS (and I assume vice versa). Since interop exists and the data is all portable (getting ready to do a migration myself), what's left? What else is mentioned, finding out the number of users? This won't do that either!

So, what problem are they trying to solve? They're reclassifying companies to change the rules on them, so there had better be a good reason. Since this can't fix any of the issues they mention, why are they doing it? And why aren't they being honest about it?

You're right, CSPs have regional centers and outages are usually regional. But outages are a pretty flimsy excuse to hang this on generally. There were global outages that impacted everybody, so they're going to change the competition rules? That doesn't even make sense! And none of this would address the issues you cited. Regulating them as "gatekeepers" (what gate?) won't increase redundancy. It won't change dependency on foreign providers.

And, as you pointed out, it isn't actually hard to migrate between providers. They don't try and stop you from doing it, instead they try and make it easy to move to their platform. And really, that's the destination's responsibility anyhow.

Instead, my first thought was, "Oh, this is probably handy for jailbreakers".

They don't?! Those swine!

Unless it's one I don't like.

(Joe Sixpack) "Shiiiit, if I had ten billion dollars I KNOW I would have WON me dat 'Murican Dream!"

* cracks beer *

(Cleetus) "Hey man. Yer Tindurr dinged. She said you're still only a 6 because 'eleven billion, loser.'"

Who's talking about repealing the 19th? You don't mean that Man Show sketch where they got women to sign a petition to end Women's Suffrage, do you? That was so long ago that Kimmel was still funny.

Note that I didn't say Trump either.

The Right isn't hostile to Democracy, it is hostile to some Democrat policies. The Democratic Party now contains enough Socialists that it would make more sense to say they are the ones now hostile to Democracy. Because you can't have both. Socialism is dictatorship.

Remember when California threw out its own Constitution so they could go back to gerrymandering? That was only a few months ago.