m__

Subscribe to and watch destroy all software by Gary Bernhardt. It will teach you skills that are applicable to any stack and more importantly, watching him program will show you what us possible in terms of craftsmanship.

kiwi.com allows searching for time of stay, e. g. between 2-10 days, but not providing any exact dates.

Of course it's the new technology that causes this and not economists running monetary experiments, that keeps wages stagnant. (who would expect the purchasing power of money to drop when increasing the money supply!?)

For the past thousands of years we've seen incredible productivity gains thanks to technology (the wheel, the loom, the steam engine!), and purchasing power always kept increasing across the population.

On the other hand, we've been running this kind of monetary intervention for a very short while, at an accelerating pace, but no way this is causing an increasing pay disparity.

This time it must be the AI.

This is why you test from the outside in: You first write an acceptance test where you just specify what goes in and what should come out. The error/failure messages you get when running this test drive your design and tell you which components you should write next.

The RSpec book is a pretty good introduction to this topic.

What a brilliant "solution": if somebody does something you are not happy with... just deport them!

You couldn't by the NYT as a whole for its market cap. Companies are almost always bought at a premium, as the sellers receive some of the value that is generated by the transaction itself (actually, there is some evidence that the sellers receive all the value generated by the transaction).

This seems like a pretty poor strategy for the involved companies.

1) It makes other companies (not involved in the agreement) more attractive, as their salaries will be closer to the salaries offered by the companies involved in the cartel.

2) This means that the pool of potential employees is reduced due the agreement, which means that the companies involved in the cartel will have to bear higher recruiting costs.

3) These recruiting costs make a mistake in hiring more costly. It gets harder to "test" employees and let them go when they are a bad fit, because expenditures from your HR budget are shifted to the front (on the promise of savings down the line).

4) Further, when the cartel breaks (as it will, each company has an incentive to cheat on the other members) the payoff of this inflated recruiting "investment" disappears.

Don't be torn: there's a place for both. The affordable mass-produced stuff is great for obvious reasons, while the wasteful, pretentious hippster-alternative is cool for whomever happens to get off on this stuff. The latter is such a small niche, it hardly makes a difference economically, but people still value this stuff.

Not liking it doesn't make you a Marxist but just somebody who happens not to like this kind of stuff.

As a European I don't feel this way. Unless you have a contract with a company that states you such rights, that is...

If you give up information voluntarily (even if you aren't aware of it) why should it obligate anybody who collects it to spend resources on informing you what they know about you? Morally, why does gathering information imply obligation to provide certain information? This is a total non-sequitur.

> Facebook has bases, and operates, in Europe. Thus they MUST abide by our data laws.

Why? One might argue that European laws MUST be changed. Pointing to laws is hardly a moral argument, there are tons of terrible laws and facebook might as well be a victim of one of them.

One use case might be concerts: People already call friends so they can listen, this way they could add video too.

Of course. I didn't mean to say that she/he should actually start an insurance company. I wanted to point out that there are market-incentives that might motivate someone to offer such a service without the need for a law.

No. I wasn't even making an argument for mandatory car insurance. I was merely pointing out the difference to mandatory property insurance and said that this difference _might_ be the basis for a convincing argument in favor of the former.