CamTin

You're not missing anything. Yes, this basic assumption underpins all orthodox liberal economics. No, it can't be true.

It's righty because pro-police policies are right wing policies. Sunsetting old laws takes away power from the police, and so is a lefty policy.

While it may be broadly popular in the electorate across party lines, it's definitely a righty policy, since having lots of old, ambiguous laws on the books increases the discretion of police and prosecutors to deal with "troublemakers" as they see fit.

Also, under the US system, many broadly popular policies (marijuana legalization, public health care option) have no realistic path to enactment, so that's far from a guarantee.

Weird to call something "at a glance" when it is a 500 page PDF that costs $161.

Regular state-employed cops can and often do employ largely the same strategy but on a much bigger scale.

The ITAR restrictions are imposed by the US, not Iran. Therefore, the US is at fault if you believe this to be a problem.

Why bother to exist at all (besides profiting) if nobody is changing their actions based on the reporting or programming you provide?

It's a fantasy that there was ever objective reporting, or that NPR/PBS was ever capable of producing it. All news media is propaganda and always has been. Even "liberal" outlets like NPR News spout extremely right wing, reactionary, pro-capital viewpoints while they pretend to dig deep for objective truth.

Smart political actors and media types have woken up to the fact that there isn't much value in pretending to be "fair and balanced" anymore. This is the reason why middle class people who think of themselves as centrists (meaning that they had accepted the liberal consensus which dominated popular media for decades) have begun decrying "polarization."

Moving beyond news content though, PBS also makes entertainment content. What does it mean to have a factual/objective version of /Arthur/? Do we need political officers in PBS Kids storyboarding sessions to make sure left wing concepts like sharing or feminism aren't accidentally introduced to the population?

If you don't chase ratings, you're not chasing viewers, and you're not having much impact on discourse. The current toxic sludge of cable news sprouted up decades after public broadcasting had been around.

Perl almost does this. Various CPAN packages have different "use" lines where they can declare themselves to be written in a particular version. These can all live together on an interpreter recent enough to know all the dialects. This is at the module level, rather than the function level though.

Speaking colloquially, I'll often use "pop" as in "Do we have a log of when that event popped?"

I worked for a Dreamhost competitor for years. These "managed VPS" accounts with providers like that are definitely not something where you can just throw your code over the wall. There were and are whole teams of unix weenies like me responding to the myriad ways that software or customers would bork their VPS install.

The situation on "shared hosting" was IMO much better in terms of reliability, since customers didn't have root, but these servers were definitely still pets and not cattle.

Basically, these companies are a way to outsource sysadmin labor to sweaty cubicle farms rather than a way to actually reduce the amount of labor that is needed. Arguably the same is true for cloud but I think in general the cloud paradigm is actually more labor-efficient. As a thought experiment, imagine if AWS tried to serve their current customer base with the techniques of Dreamhost-style hosting companies. They'd need to employee 1000x as many people! And it would still be worse!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. To me it's obvious that performance reviews aren't and cannot be objective. You may disagree, but this will inevitably lead to dissonance when you your boss's assessment of your performance doesn't line up with what you think your "objective" performance is. This will eventually happen if it hasn't already. If you get a bad review while you think you're knocking it out of the park, the attitude I've outlined here has two benefits. First, it helps you realize that this supposedly objective review of your worth to the company is in fact largely bullshit. Second, it helps you realize that you need to spend some time learning whatever it is that your boss thinks is valuable and optimizing for that instead of whatever you're optimizing for now.

Yes, I was mirroring your own use of the word "truth." My point is that performance reviews are simply the result of management's opinions. You asked the question "Why do you assume the manager always know the truth?" and the answer is that truth is irrelevant (or perhaps even nonsense as a concept) in this context. Only opinions matter, specifically the opinions that make up your performance review, which are the opinions of management. There is no objective way to measure your performance or, if there is, management likely is not doing so unless you work in a field with very easily measurable output (billable hours or something like that).

As in many or most aspects of social activities like work, objective reality effectively does not exist. Only the consensus reality matters.