justinlaster

I did address it, and you are ignoring it. I honestly do not care how insulted you are, or how rude you think I am. You removed any right to be cordially addressed when you pushed non-sense into this board, and then had the audacity to actually treat it as if you were being scientific.

Part of being scientific is asking your own position, "What does this look like if the theory is wrong?" It's called falsifiability. If the PDF you linked had the intellectual capacity and honesty to ask themselves that, then the PDF would have never been published.

Yet you nor the paper have yet to realize, again, some pretty fundamental economic concepts that explain the paper as a whole and why it's completely irrelevant to the conversation at large.

>because the argument I made is for the free market, and the party I cited believes in the free market.

No because they put their blinders on and didn't bother to actually look at any other direction except for the one they wanted to see.

Allow me to be completely straight-forward with my final words: fuck off with your unscientific, dishonest drivel.

>You're failing to see that mechanics behind the evolution of consumer markets that lead to prices being driven down.

How so? If anything, I succinctly recognized these so-called mechanics are really just symptoms of other underlying actions and motivations. The PDF wants to pretend like it's looking at market forces, while completely ignoring some fundamental economic theories.

>Combined with your rude and arrogant dismissal of the link, your attitude embodies everything that is wrong with our political system and that prevents solutions from being found and implemented.

Your personal appeals to however insulted you feel or however blunt my response was isn't going to make anything that was stated in your comment or in the link any more substantive than it already is not.

Upon further investigation, the NCPA is a completely biased think-tank whose explicit goals are apparently "to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control." I've never even heard of the NCPA, but the whole contrived tone of the PDF immediately spiked my bullshit meter.

I'm sorry you think you can get away with espousing complete drivel that needs to cherry-pick information to push forward a narrative, contrary to the experiences of the rest of the world. I have a feeling the more and more I'm going to look into this perspective, the less friendly this conversation is going to become. At this point, I have zero tolerance for intellectual dishonesty.

It's at -1. I really should not need to explain why a luxury service is not at all analogous to a service that deals with life-threatening, chronic conditions with a population that may not always have the means to pay especially when that payment amount is built off of a shadow market place and several entities which are notorious for not giving a flying shit about people.

Don't be silly.

>Cosmetic surgery provides price competition because patients pay the bills.

Is this supposed to be satire? Do I even need to explain how ridiculous this stance is? I'll save my energy until I get a resounding "yes."

Because Ford's actions had been expected/known for some time. Trump literally had nothing to do with it. You don't just spin up factories like an EC2 instance.

His other tweets regarding other companies were all future-tense, and companies he is in a position to bully. Except for Nordstrom, of course.

Probably rebasing more than anything. cherry-picking is a messier, yet easier way to get the same history, you just need to clean up after yourself.

Merge commits are useful, in my opinion, if there was significant work done to get two branches to "align" with each other. Otherwise, just rebase your work for a cleaner history.

So in short:

Merging: More "accurate" history about the work done to bring the work into the main/dev branch, yet messier.

Rebasing/cherry-picking: cleaner history, potentially at the expense of context and "accurate" history about the work done to bring in code to the main/dev branch.

> --date-order

Why!?

> things can pass testing but fail in production if the staging environment provides an imperfect simulation of the production environment

Your staging environment should match production, or it's not really staging at that point. It doesn't have to match it in _size_, just structure and process. Ignoring data loss, if you can't quickly switch staging to production it's not really staging. It's just a dorky test environment masquerading as a stage environment. It's also surprisingly not that difficult (the variation of difficulty depends on the type of data you're interacting with, and how isolated it needs to be) to "forward" a slice of real word traffic to your staging environment and monitor it for some duration of time.

>For example, your staging environment servers should be connecting to a different database with a different password.

Handled by proper CI/CD pipelines. Completely irrelevant to deploying new features, configuration for production specific users/passwords happens on the sysadmin/devops side of things.

I thought this is what the NSA, CIA, and FBI were for? Maybe we can start downsizing them if we're just going to hand everything over.

Maybe then we might be able to use the numerous mathematically talented people they've snatched up for something actually productive.

My experience has been people who claim they're banned from groups for espousing different opinions actually did so in the least constructive way possible. They weren't banned for the opinion, they were banned for their conduct.

See: Reddit. With the notable exception of alt-right subs like /r/The_Donald -- who apparently have no issue with banning anyone they even _think_ is going against the hive mind.

>But if you had some hypothetical state government with the will to stand up to them, that would be the end of it.

And then, when the state government can't stand up to them, we could use the federal government to do so!

If only someone suggested doing that in the first place.

You could, but it's unintuitive (in my opinion) to do so -- which was the parent's comment larger point. You're not doing anything different, and to an extent the latter is actually lying about what's going on (you're not writing HTML). I also lose a certain level of tooling by doing it the JSX way. Why try to mask what you're doing? Why make it harder for your tools to help you out?