If it is inconvienient people will by pass it. People want higher transaction limits. Good security requires the project manager to actually think intelligently about the problem for 5 minutes. ( Collectively all the project managers in the world have never had 5 minutes of intelligent thought). NIST has only just changed their rules to explicitly dissallow password rules like a Capital, small, number, symbol and rotate your password every X days. They finally also dissallowed SMS as a 2FA. Every app wants you to have an account and password. Guess what, most apps aren't important enough for me to create a unique password for, so most people use the same password for everything. (and putting some spin on the app or website as a prefix for you password doesn't add much entropy to your password).

If I make a more secure app people will use my competitors. My app could even be easier to use but if it doesn't follow the user flow they are used to they won't use it.

I would recomend banking from home but my bank has a $2000 transfer limit on the web app and a $15000 limit on the phone app. My rent is $2500, guess which I have to use.

People are dumb. Regulations will likely make it worse as people will all use similar work arounds to make their lives easier.

The pay gap only partially shows the problem and we don't have a wealth problem. Real wealth is the means of production, I don't care who owns the means of production as long as they use it well. The real problem is the distribution of consumption. Musk might be worth 250M but he is mostly homeless. He doesn't eat 10x what I eat, he doesn't wear 100x more clothes than me. But we do have 60 million Americans over 65 who continue to consume like they did before they retire. They still live in big houses near where jobs, shopping and entertainment are. They now consume that vast majority of healthcare. They eat, travel and vacation far more than people in their 20s. Insanely over priced homes are a consumption transfer from young to old. Every benefit system and government bailout is a consumption transfer from young to old. Most of the farm subsidize and subsidies to depressed areas are transfers from younger people to older people.

Agreed that index funds are better for investors individually but that doesn't change the facts. Active funds are slow to react and they are the only ones with lots of managed money. Active funds are the ones that will change the stock prices. The index funds only follow price changes.

I was dating someone who ran a mutual fund with a couple billion in assets. Just keeping up with everything takes over 100 hours of work per week. If a stock or even an entire segment of the market is miss priced by the market it would take tens of hours to convince her that she could take advantage of this. She had a team of analysts so for her to react she needed an analyst to recognize the miss pricing, figure out how long the market might take to correct itself, figure out the risk/reward and then be convinced to take an action. The information to make a decision has a cost in terms of her time and the time of her analysts. As a result her fund will likely miss a miss price or if they do notice it, they will be slow to react. The nimble, smaller players who are concentrating on small segments of the market though might see a price miss match but they are likely to starve to death just watching the market before that opportunity arrives.

PS - never date anyone who measures their free time in hours per month.

Do you charge the academic who knowingly published a fraudulent paper or the university that hired him? For the academic to defraud the university the university would have had to not known the paper was fraudulent but the university knew the system was being gamed and went along with it because suited them. If anyone is being defrauded it is those paying the university tuition and the tax payers funding the university. So if we want to fix this, we need to charge the people who can actually make a change.

Large projects like these require a skillset just to purchase them. They also require a set of skills in managing the project, not just in managing the vendor but just as importantly in managing the municipal governments requirements. If you don't exactly know what you want to build and can't articulate it then the project will drag on and you will be constantly adding to it. The vendors don't care, they get paid and they get paid even more if the project is mismanaged.

Projects like these should be managed by a provincial/state/or national government. Some entity that will make these purchases more than once. And someone who can push back on both the vendors and on the bureaucrats.

Now if the purchaser is the federal government then you have a whole different problem. In Canada they launched a project to do federal government payroll The trouble is the pay system has evolved over 150 years through negotiations with different unions. The changes have been percentage increases, or tweaks to how hours are calculated, or bumps in pay based on doing different duties. The existing rules are now self contradictory in many places and would be a nightmare to describe. So before upgrading to a new system the government would have had to fully described what they had, maybe gone back to the unions and tried to negotiate a sane pay system They didn't and we got https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If the only way to gain more consumption in your country is by productive labour, how do you get people to raise capital for larger projects? Will you allow landlords? Can a single landlord take their profits from one building and buy or build new buildings? If I make a innovated way to guide people around a city could someone richer buy that from me? Suppose they bought it from me for 307 million dollars. If I invested that in say minimizing online fraud to a level acceptable by a critical mass of merchants and then sold that for 1.5 Billion would I and my fellow investors get to keep a portion of that? If I took that money and invested in many different companies like a space ship company or mass producing electric vehicles that people would buy at a high enough price for me to be profitable would I get to keep most of that wealth?

Or will you only allow a specific maximum wealth? Will your nation not reward people who risk their wealth? Maybe only your government will innovate and take risks. Do you think a government can take risks? Do you think a government can manage capital and labour without the information gained from profits and the free market setting values on labour and goods?

Historically, humans have tried many other ways of organizing economies I'm not saying your idea can't work. It would be amazing if you found a better way than how most of the world currently works. I am saying it has a lot of problems it has to solve. I'm also saying you are unlikely to get many people with existing capital to join your new country. You also may have a problem of your most ambitious wanting to leave.

You are really advocating for communism. The free market/capitalism with social aspects has been proven to be far superior to all other ways of organizing an economy. The goal of your economy is to provide consumption for the people. In an economy you have input, Capital and labour, and outputs capital and consumption (goods and services). If you want to be supreme dictator of an economy you have to figure out how to use your capital and labour, how much new capital to make and how to distribute the consumption among the people. The free market works far better than anything else in history at motivating people to work, it convinces people to forgo immediate consumption and to take risks and create new capital.

If you think you can get communism or some other way of organizing an economy to work, you are free to convince others to join you and contribute their labour and capital to creating your utopian nation. The fact that you want to use someone else's capital and you can't convince anyone to give you their labour might mean your great idea isn't very appealing to anyone.

Yes it does. It means they make the hamburger most people prefer. It means McDonald's gives a buying experience that is consistently better than the alternatives.

How bad do you have to be to lose to someone like Trump?
I guess I'm about to find out. I'm Canadian and I will likely vote for Pierre Poilievre, the Covid and Climate change denier, a man who is generally incoherent on any policy . The only politicians who are willing to tell me the truth to my face, at least in English, are the Quebec separatists but they don't run candidates in English Canada.

I might not go so far as if you aren't still selling something but I would say that if you CAN'T sell a copyrighted material anymore then you lose the copyright. So if the hardware no longer exists and no emulation that the copy right holder has access to is available the copyright is void. There should definitely be a requirement of copyright that when the copyright expires that the work be released to the public. So if the BBC does not have a copy of a doctor who episode not only should they lose the copyright but there should be sanctions against them for claiming a copyright on the work and not being able to release it. Same with any works only released with DRM, if they become unable to be played then the holder loses the copyright and is also fined.

We have known that a hole in the ground will contain the waste for billions of years because there was a natural nuclear reactor in Africa and the contamination spread only centimeters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... All the costs with dealing with waste are to appease the green peace and their like. Which is a waste of money since the greens are opposed to nuclear energy regardless of how safe it is. I would go so far as to say the greens are pro coal and fossil fuel.

Make it expensive in some way for companies to post job offers. Make it expensive for them to respond in a way indicating they are moving forward in someway with a candidate. It doesn't have to be very expensive but it must hurt a tiny bit. It is the zero cost that allows spam to flourish. It is the zero cost and total lack of consequence that allows ghost job postings to flourish.

I work in the electrical industry and we have a joke about power distribution "I get my power from a 120v outlet". We have shirts and bumper stickers with it. It means most people are totally ignorant of how the power is distributed. An apartment building does not have enough power for everyone to use all their appliances at the same time. We count on everyone not using them all at the same time. A building max power is 4-10amps per unit on average. You cannot give 20% of the people the ability to consume an additional 10amps more power starting when they get home from work. At 6pm your building will fairly often exceed 80% of it's current draw. Assume a building with lots of medium end bachelor apartments in a place without AC and 100 units. It might be 600amps at 240v service to the building. If 20% of the people pull 10amps at 120v that's 100 more amps. You are now over 90% of capacity. I don't like that margin. That's less than a Friday night where people all shower and turn on their hair driers or some other fluke synchronization of human behavior away from blowing the circuit for the entire building.

The most prevalent theory on multi cellular life is that it required high levels of oxygen because multi cellular organisms have less surface area, so to have a similar metabolism to free floating cells they need the higher energy gradient oxygen provides. It is currently thought that, in a low oxygen environment, the decrease in metabolism outweighs any benefit primitive multicellular organisms could possibly gain. The authors are proposing that multicellular life started before the end of the great Snowball earth and that it was the benefit of cooperation in a viscous fluid was sufficient to sacrifice the problems like lower metabolism that come with being multicellular.
Clearly multicellular organisms today have lots of advantages but for evolution to work every step along the way has to be advantageous. The big debate is what is the earliest advantage.