HN user
I think the problem is that buildings like you describe don't contribute to the city at street level. If the residental buildings are smaller then the gym, sauna, swimming pool will have to be in the neighborhood available to everyone.
I recommend watching this Ted talk.
Peter Attia: What if we're wrong about diabetes.
It reminds of a coworker, a frontend developer and Linux user. He asked for a macbook pro from his employer, and after using it for a year he switched back to Linux. He said it was because he missed using it.
I use Linux primarily because of ideology, but luckily it's also the best OS out there, for me at least and many others.
For others Mac OS or Windows will be better for them, and that's fine.
I have to strongly agree with your last point - I also never understood the massive hard-on that the technical user-base has against useful telemetry.
I think it would be far less hostility if we as users got access to the information ourselves. E.g. I would think it would be very useful to see stats on which features I'm using in firefox, how often, which features I'm not using, how many tabs I have (compared to the average user) etc., and I would be much more happy to share that data with firefox if I can see it first.
Launched with the code-name Project Lenix, AlmaLinux is an open-source, community-driven project that intends to fill the gap left by the demise of the CentOS stable release. AlmaLinux is a 1:1 binary compatible fork of RHEL® 8 and it is built by the creators of the established CloudLinux OS.
This is what open source is all about. Personally I don't need it, but I love it.
Looks like it's fixed upstream https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gdm/-/issues/642
The specific wording was "Linux Kernel 5.9+ is incompatible with current and previous NVIDIA Linux GPU drivers."
So it's not the driver that is incompatible, it is Linux. And that led to the grandparent comment asking if Linux people are "deliberate to fuck with nvidia".
If nvidia had said "our driver is incompatible with the newest Linux kernel" then we probably wouldn't been having this thread.
Nice wording by Nvidia. Linux has an unstable/ever changing internal API and Nvidia need to update their out of tree driver for the new release, and probably every release.
Nvidia is trying to put the blame on Linux, but Intel and AMD don't have these issues because they open sourced and upstreamed their drivers (for AMD they mostly did), which is the way to work with open source.
Linux has always been fighting an uphill battle, but as it becomes more and more relevant it is becoming increasingly difficult to fight against it. Intel understands this, and AMD understands this.
The wording by Nvidia is telling for how they view Linux I think. In fairness it's probably very costly for them to go open source (one time cost at least).
This comment is very weird. For Linux users it is definitely better buying an AMD discrete graphics card than Nvidia, and it has been for an eternity. Just google "torvalds Nvidia" as an example of how the community feels about Nvidia. Is it even possible using Nvidia cards with Wayland?
Nvidia has a history of problems in Linux. I can still remember having to log out of my X session just to change monitor layout; which is something you do alot with a laptop and external displays. Took them several years to fix!
I've experienced intel boards where I had trouble getting anything but the newest fedora with custom kernel parameter to even get the installer running. But most of the time intel has very good upstream support, so it is normally a pretty safe bet.
With AMD there are sometimes delays getting full support for a new generation upstreamed (e.g. hdmi audio and such), so it is usually good to Google for Linux reviews first.
In general AMD has superb open source support for their cards, if not immediately at launch, and I recommend them for Linux users who want the least amount of hassle.
I've seen people recommending Nvidia to Linux on YouTube (and now here), and I honestly think it's a disfavor to anyone interested in Linux.
I unfortunately don't know any details other than it seems to be working. The content they have is highly in depth, and the comments section is excellent.
My experience was that I started reading the articles as a non subscriber. Because I enjoyed it I began visiting the site more and more. After some time it started to annoy me that I had to wait to read the latest content, and that's when I started subscribing. These days I read it less frequently, but I still subscribe to support the site.
An alternative subscription model that I've always liked is Linux Weekly News (lwn.net) which publishes all premium content openly after a week behind paywall. (In my mind I like to call it "Freshwall", ie. paying for fresh content.) News quickly gets old after all.
Nobody makes an electric commercial vehicles of the type electricians, plumbers etc. drive.
How about Nissan e-nv200?
I've never done that but it sounds neat.
Anyway, I'm guessing the answer to your question is: control. You know that you can at any moment tilt your head forward and lose the vertigo sensation. So you are safe and in control and you also feel safe and in control. That makes the experience enjoyable (I assume).
Thought experiment: Let's make the minimum wage $1000 per hour. I'd like you to think through the ramifications. What would happen?
I'm assuming prices through the roof, companies forced to sack their workers, unemployment rate through the roof, companies go bankrupt, economy collapses.
I believe Sanders is suggesting $10/hour (and that it's around $7 now). That's just a number, but I'm assuming it's the threshold between "needing welfare" and not. So my argument is that if you're paying an adult less than that then that's less than the cost of that person to "reasonably survive", thus artificially low. (In other words, companies are paying less for labor than the actual cost of labor.)
So now instead they're getting $7 from their employer, and in practice $3 in welfare. That's the difference with your example: People are already earning $10/hour, they're just not getting it from their employer. So raising the minimum wage is not raising the cost of labor, it's simply placing the entire burden on the employer instead of subsidizing it. There might even be room for a tax break there once people start number crunching. (Although in Sanders case I'm guessing he has other things to spend that money on, but I digress.)
If raising the minimum wage to the real cost of labor is a problem, then I just don't understand why. The money is there, it's just "stuck" at the top, and minimum wage is one way to help distribute some of the wealth (which really should benefit the economy as a whole, since the incredibly rich can't possibly spend all their money like millions of middle class families would).
What do we do now? We continue to work, even though we're far past satisfying all of our material needs. Why didn't everyone just stop working more hours than it takes to eat and stay warm?
I guess it's partly because we live in a material world (where having a nice house, car, pretty clothes etc. is rewarding in its own right), and partly because money brings possibilities, and thus freedom: Freedom to travel, to not work, to do whatever one pleases. So money ultimately brings pleasure, and what else is life than seeking pleasure? ;-)
tl;dr: Raise the minimum wage so that employees don't need to live off of welfare. People lose their job? Good riddance, seriously. People don't lose their job? Called their bluff.
Walmart employees are not compelled to work for Walmart; the employment contract is agreed upon voluntarily by both parties. The employees know how much they will be paid and agree to accept the terms. Walmart is operating within the legal employment framework set up by the government, including the welfare state and the minimum wage.
Yes. And if you think everything is fine the way they are now, then don't change a thing.
That will not change by raising the minimum wage. Rather, Walmart will simply add automation and reduce its employment.
Sounds great to me. You're basically arguing that not having minimum wage is actually holding back progress.
That is, their skills are not worth the minimum amount an employer is allowed to pay, so they will not be able to find a job. Ever. That person will be a permanent liability of the State.
If an economy can produce the same amount of wealth with much less workforce/work hours than today, then why shouldn't it? Sounds great if you ask me. (And if that's not possible, just hire more people, it's apparently worth it, problem solved.)
"Minimum amount" is in this case "amount needed to reasonably survive", ie. not need extra welfare. If you can't produce enough value that you can't even justify being paid to "reasonably survive" then yes you need help.
Okay, so I'm no economist, but it sounds like you're arguing that not having minimum wage is in itself a socialist measure. In other words, paying people something, anything, is better for the poor than paying them nothing. The only reason to pay the employees anything at all is to "help the poor", because their work is not really needed anyway (their work is worth that little).
To follow that line of reasoning, from a capitalistic viewpoint, it would thus be wise to raise the minimum wage. If people are being paid to do work that's not actually worth it (ie. subsidized via welfare), then don't. I seriously don't understand why capitalistic Americans defend that point of view. Why should the state/government subsidize effectively worthless labor?
What I'm doing is "calling the bluff". People won't get hired? That's fine, the work they were doing is practically worthless anyway, and I'm certainly not for subsidizing that. However, I think people actually will be hired anyway. Because their work is not worthless. I think the only reason people are being paid so little is not because of the "worth" of the work they're doing, but because the market allows it.
I don't know how that happened, perhaps because the big cooperations have too much power, perhaps it's just inevitable in a free market. But I do not support subsidizing labor, and I don't buy the argument that you have to. The money is there, the value of their work is there, there's no problem paying people more, they just don't want to, and luckily for them they don't need to either. And as long as everyone plays along, that's how it's going to stay.
Sometime in the future I'm sure we'll be able to produce enormous amounts of wealth with minimum man power (re: automation). What will everyone do then? That's up for debate, but it looks like the best bet is putting everyone on universal basic income. And that's not a problem, because the wealth is there, the "problem" is that no one needs to do anything to produce it. I'm sure our future selves will find a fix. (If not, then that sounds like a base line for a revolution. Let's hope that's not needed.)
In the meantime, redistribute some of the wealth by raising the minimum wage. Wal-Mart don't need employees? Fantastic, the future is already here.
If the employer responds by increasing the prices of the goods/services they sell, then yes. However, in the market the consumers have a choice, so they can choose to not buy something, or buy somewhere else, and the market thus regulates itself. Don't want to pay taxes? Not much choice there. So I think having the market regulate itself is better than enforcing the cost of labor through taxes. (Who knows, maybe the employers would be forced to cut their margins even.)
To give an example in microcosm: if you buy a used car on Craigslist from someone, the fact that the seller is a welfare recipient doesn't mean that you're a beneficiary of welfare because you're not paying him enough to live off of.
I think the difference here is that it's not a matter of a single transaction, it's an employment, so what the employer is basically paying for is the employees time (and time is finite). So a better example would be that you pay someone on craigslist for a service, e.g. paint your house. If the painter works full time painting houses and still needs welfare, then the taxpayers are basically subsidizing house painting ("conduit of welfare" as it was phrased). Why can't those that need their house painted pay what it actually costs to get the job done? Because if the full time painter needs welfare, they're in reality paying him too little.
In the case of minimum wage, they would indeed be forced to pay more, rendering the need for welfare to those same people unnecessary, thus shifting the cost from the state/government to the employer.
That is in effect wealth distribution, which again closes the big income inequality. (That's the intended effect anyway.)
Regarding income inequality, I recommend listening to some of the speeches/debates with Bernie Sanders.
E.g. he argues that the greatest receiver of welfare in the US is the wal-Mart family, because they get even richer paying their workers so little that the workers have to live on welfare. (In other words the welfare is "paying" the workers so that Wal-Mart don't have to.) He proposes to rise the minimum wage.
Check out the demo from last year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8zwnqKysfI#t=4314s
(Video should start at ca. 1:12:00).
http://cppcms.com/wikipp/en/page/faq#If.CppCMS.is.not.a.CMS.....
Quote from that page:
The original idea was: "Write your own CMS in C++".
The lead developer asked in 2008 for a better name but didn't get any suggestions, so the name stuck.
It was decided later to keep this name as it was already well known name and all the software around used cppcms as the namespace.
Thank you for posting this, lots of nice tips in there.
Aliases for submodules were missing though, I guess you're lucky enough to not need them:
sh=show --submodule
df=diff --submodule
fe=submodule foreachThis only applies to ActiveRecord, I wonder if e.g. DataMapper is vulnerable in a similar way.
In Norway the standard hours are 8-16 (8am/4pm) which includes half an hour lunch. I believe that in Sweden it's 8-17 (8 hours work, 1 hour lunch).
It's also normal to have three months of notice (and it's not optional for the worker). It's not uncommon that they'll let you leave with a shorter notice if you ask for it, unless they really need you during that time (for e.g. training new staff).
Enter is actually a good candidate for something like that:
" turn off highlighted results (set nohlsearch) when pressing enter.
" just pressing n or N will turn the highlight back again
nnoremap <cr> :noh <cr>