Buy indie games.

It's only the big players who have these delusions.

I'm not saying the right answer is to get a refund. The right answer is to not make the license revokable.

For the theater comparison: If the theatre would invalidate my ticket and throw me out mid-movie, you can be sure that I'd ask for a refund. And in any sane jurisdiction, I'd get it.

Mostly, the difference is some legales, but the kicker is: "revocable". That is an insane difference. I'm quite sure it doesn't say you get a refund if they revoke your license.

It's not mutually exclusive. They fluff each other.

I don't care how much of an idiot you are, you're simply too stupid to respond to further. I don't want things to be as they were in my childhood. Back then, things were a mess. BECAUSE government tried either to micromanage everything or manage nothing at all. The idea of a third way, where governing is about just that, placing control mechanisms in place but not do the management, is obviously far beyond your pea-brain.

and die for Bibi

lets the other side control when to turn it off. If they flake or go rogue, you are left holding the bag.

The problem is that you can ALWAYS get around rules. It isn't possible to make perfect rules for anything above a minimal level of complexity - that's just a variant of the Turing-Church Halting Problem.

So you are forced to invert the dynamics. There's no real alternative. Instead of you creating a high level of complexity that the departments will work their arses off to avoid, you force the departments themselves to create the regimens that they're prepared to live with. But you have to do so cleverly. They will always create regimens that mean they do the least work necessary (because that's cheap on resources and they will ALWAYS consider this sort of extra work to be an imposition) and have the least amount of culpability.

So you need to meet three conditions:
1. The department can't evade the bits they're actually able to do
2. The department CAN pass on work they're not equipt to do, but ONLY if it's their responsibility to oversee the department they pass it onto
3. The department IS inescapably culpable for failure to either do the work OR ensure that others do it

You do NOT need the frameworks for each department, and should not attempt to draw those up. Those will be departmentally-specific and timeframe-specific. Far, far better have people who actually know the specific context do that work. No department likes to look like it's being forced to do anything, so making the actual detailed specifics internal, you're utilising their psychology. They're not being "forced", they're defining their additional responsibilities and duties. From a psychological angle, they're much more likely to be receptive to this perspective.

But because the departments are all internally writing their own management protocols, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You only need to have a framework which obliges them to write up what they will request. This is MUCH lighter and, because it is much lighter, it is far less prone to have failure points where generic ideas don't work for a specific type of work.

If we want to look at this in software terms, only an idiot would write an overly-restrictive langauge that imposes a strict model of thought regardless of the type of work. If you want to provide a high level of confidence in correctness, you don't try to impose it through a myriad of complex hurdles and rigorously controlled APIs. You achieve it by incorporating contracts (function X is guaranteed to take in data meeting these requirements, and is guaranteed to deliver data meeting these other requirements). Contract programming is much, much lighter on the development process, doesn't impose on the programmer, and yet creates a very high level of assurance. Mostly because programmers aren't working to try and cheat with irritating APIs.

In Linux terms, you want a lightweight virtual layer handling filesystems in general, the filesystem policies should be handled by the filesystem not the main kernel. You want the main kernel to be doing as little of the work as possible. As soon as it is heavy and micromanaging everything, you're going to end up with something slow and unstable, that really can't do a whole lot.

You want to push the complexity to the edges, that's where complexity belongs. The bit that changes slowly, can't handle special cases, has least visibility into what is needed, and is really a very blunt instrument wants to be lightweight. One reason for having things like Common Law and Case Law is precisely because the legal system figured all this out centuries ago.

I disagree. It actually needs less regulation.

The siloing of knowledge and duties is why it was always somebody else's problem. So you simply take out all the regulations that obligate siloing and replace all of that kerfufle with a single rule: "If it's on your plate and nobody else has published that they've done the work so far, it's your responsibility, silos be damned, and failure leaves you liable".

That's it.

That's all we need. A removal of siloed thinking and a duty to complete all of the scheduled work regardless of whose toes it tramples.

That would have solved the problem. But, because departments never like to give up powers they obtain, a side-effect would be that departments would be proactive. They wouldn't walk down piers, looking for strange things. Rather, if they heard of strange things that are their department, if they don't want to be shamed, then they need to ask the company for more information. Because then it's on their plate and not that of a rival department.

The other benefit of using this approach is that it isn't about the special cases, it's about the general problem that underlies all of the special cases of this sort: nobody takes responsibility until it's already a disaster.

If a department is liable for pretending the problems aren't there, then the department wil CYA. If the only way to do so is to do all the outstanding work, regardless of title, then that work will get done. If the only way to get it done right IS to give it to the right department, and they're on the hook until that has happened, you're damned right it'll happen.

I've worked in the public sector, I've seen the paranoia and closed-mindedness first-hand. That's not going to go away. So you solve the issue by exploiting those traits, since you can't eliminate them.

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

Garbage regulations like IP create these behemoths. If you want freedom, stop regulating monopolies into existence.

That would be the imaginary bullshit part that's not actually happening.

HAHHAHA Well played :-)

Joking aside, let's look at the scale here. (please note, I'm using the figures as provided in TFS and some general usage stats from the first google results)

Sweden's population is around 10 million people.
For comparison, NYC is around 8.5 million people. ... this had me wondering how many reactors NYC would need. Finding space for 3 may be feasible, but how many are needed?

NYC uses around 50,000 GWh/year. That averages to 5700 megawatts sustained (yes, I'm ignoring fluctuations and overhead).
TFS says such reactors, "typically generating between 20 and 300 megawatts of electricity."
Some other comments have guessed these may generate around 500 megawatts.

If NYC used these same reactors for baseload, they'd need at least 12 of them. ... Sweden may have room for that, but where would NYC put them? All the surrounding areas have millions more people who also need power. There'd be nuclear reactors everywhere! Surely, we'd cluster them or build a few larger reactors instead.

BUT WAIT! IT'S WORSE! Sweden consumes about 140 TWh annually. That's about three times more than NYC. They'd need about 35 just to cover their average usage!

"adequate" my ass :-P LOL

* Population of Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
* Population of NYC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
* Electricity use of NYC: https://www.eia.gov/states/NY/...
* Electricity use of Sweden: https://www.iea.org/countries/...

You stack them on top of each other and end up with 1,850 cubic meters (m3) I would assume...

Ah, I see what you mean, now. Yeah. I do my best to make lore make sense, but that's one I can't fix.