nagrom

Except for your HN account, unfortunately.

Why wouldn't they cut the blade up in situ for transportation at the end of its working life? Seems better than having huge convoys to take them away for recycling.

Well, there are very few projects where someone can make a real difference from day 2 or 3. But given that there are numerous permie developers who want either to be a) Product Owners, b) Software Architects or c)professional Youtube viewers, getting a contractor in means you can cut your losses at the end of a 4 week period if you want to and firms do. While it's possible, I've never seen a permie cut during the probation period.

What did you do instead? There is a wave of people looking to get out of contracting in the UK right now exactly because of the messes HMRC keep making.

You have completely misunderstood the UK market - note that the OP talked about London. Perhaps as a way to get past the recruiting problem, UK corporates pay a premium for exerienced programmers on the basis that if they cannot do the job, they are let go immediately without severance. Most contractors are 30+, don't want to be 'in charge' (at meetings, giving interviews, being trained in the latest corporate 'values') and are happy to be given a product to build or maintain.

Every contractor I know resigned from a permanent position in their early thirties to go contracting and make 1.5x-2x as much money as a contractor. Businesses regularly offer contractors full-time positions and are regularly turned down.

Contractors may not be particularly special technically, but they will focus on doing what they're told in the team and not attending training, seminars, workshops or HR meetings. I'd much rather build a product with a team of suitably incentivised and managed contractors than a team of permies.

In case anyone else is confused, the term "en banc" refers to a case which is heard before all the judges on the bench for that court, rather than just one. En banc hearings are generally made in cases deemed of extreme importance. As such, this is a fairly strong finding.

I suspect that this is a question of energy. At high energies, it's difficult/impossible to stop a particle, so you place a row of scintillators out, bend the charged particle path using a magnetic field and measure its displacement (and thus velocity and thus energy).

At lower energies, you can stop the particle in, e.g. an NaI detector which is known as calorimetry. Typically, of course, cosmic rays are quite high energy and given the low rate of muon interaction calorimetry is difficult/impossible. A HEP physicist may use both techniques, e.g. by using heavy-metal plates to cause an EM cascade and measure the resultant shower in a crystalline detector. But typically when one talks of scintillator devices (and almost certainly in the case of cosmic rays) one talks of tracking and measuring deflection in magnetic fields if wanting to measure the energy.

If you could find some undiscovered pattern in cosmic rays distributions, you'd be discovering something much more interesting than where to site your datacenter. If you could explain such an undiscovered pattern, you may be discovering what it's like to win a Nobel prize :-)

Poverty is an extremely loaded term - a child in poverty is defined as a child living in a household with less than 60% of the national average income - it has no connection to specific material deprivation.

Foodbank use is up - but there is no measure of whether this is down to misplaced priorities instead of actual need. Flour and good quality fresh vegetables are the cheapest and most widely available they've ever been.

Clean water in Scotland is paid for by council tax so I count it as a publicly-provided good. I'd also argue that the framework for delivering the water and sewage systems are significantly connected to the government. Note that Tax Avoidance is not illegal, nor is it morally repugnant. A tax system that is reddled with loopholes and exceptions that can only be understood by the private entities making money off it is the problem there - perverse incentives rather than a nominally low rate. (Although the rate is not particularly low.)

Fly tipping may or may not have increased. But my local council runs several large recycling centres and collects refuse biweekly in addition. The fact that some people are breaking the law to avoid paying recycling charges has nothing to do with Brexit.

Public transport may be provided by private companies but these are often bidding to supply government contracts. Public transport has always been poor outside large towns and always will be - your neighbours should not be forced to pay for empty buses to drive about the countryside in case someone in a sparsely populated area wants to go somewhere.

Student numbers are up to the point where a lot of students are paying for degrees that they cannot use to get a job. International student numbers are good, which surely proves that universities are remaining globally competitive.

The unfeasible public commitment to paying old people using income from young people has problems - nevertheless, the government is meeting its commitment to pay retirees a state pension. Why should women get to retire earlier than men? They are equally capable of working and supporting themselves.

For the record, I don't believe that the NHS is a good system - anything that politicises something as important as healthcare is bad. I suspect that the French and German models are better (but still nowhere near perfect). But the NHS has, for as long as I can remember, had a funding crisis. There have always been headlines about funding problems and service unavailability - fifteen years ago the service was getting pilloried for leaving patients on carts in the corridor rather than providing beds. I'm not convinced it's getting rapidly worse. Mental health treatment has always been a disgrace - not just in the UK but worldwide. Nevertheless, the care provided for the money spent in the NHS is good - a lot of countries (e.g. US, Ireland) spend more and get less. The formal NHS budget will rise by £35bn in the period form 2009/10 to reach £133bn. Inflation (which the previous commenter claimed we shouldn't worry about as we will suffer deflation causing 'social collapse') will eat £24bn of that meaning that the NHS budget over ten years will increase at a rate of about 0.9% a year over inflation. No-one's lying and the total budget has not been cut.

"Austerity" has meant no overall cash cuts. Austerity has meant an increase in public spending year-on-year over the rate of inflation. There are lies going on about public spending but to imagine that public services are 'cut to the bone' is so nonsensical as to damage the credibility of anyone arguing thus.

> That's been the theory behind decades of such experiments in many countries. Worked out great, we all can see how the money keep s"trickling down".

Do you have an example? I don't know of any serious economist that backs trickle-down theory except as a strawman, but many point to lower and flatter taxes that can be used to support market-based economics as enabling high productivity. The obvious country that backs this - the US - has done pretty well from it, as have a multitude of smaller nations (Hong Kong, Switzerland, Singapore, the UK, Canada, Australia).

Some countries with higher taxes but also based around a free market economy have done well - Germany is the prominent example and Sweden and Finland. Some have succumbed to corruption and are failing, or on the brink of failure (Italy, Spain, Greece).

The opposite - high taxes, lack of a market and extreme governmental intervention - has certainly been tried in many, many countries. Most (all?) have failed badly in a way that has destroyed generations of productivity (North Korea, Cuba, The Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc.) and really fucked-up their societies that way - usually accompanied by secret police squads, the crushing of liberties and very low quality-of-life.

> That theory is actually very un-capitalistic: It assumes that only a few people know what is best for the majority.

That's actually very 'capitalistic' - the man with the capital makes the ultimate decisions as to where it gets invested. Perhaps you meant democratic?

I'm not convinced by the rest of your argument either. The capital owner usually employs many people to invest portions of the capital into smaller investment opportunities - it's not like Bill Gates has to invest all of his fortune into just one opportunity is it? If anything, this site is based around the idea of giving capital to the unexperienced to start businesses with promising ideas - that's pretty much the exact theoretical definition of angel investors, incubators and VCs.

One might argue that these institutions suffer from cronyism and don't do their job as well as they should, but their job is after all to re-allocate accrued capital to value-producers in a risk-balanced way across a broad portfolio which, I think, is what you seem to want to advocate.