scott00

You can register both second (example.name) and third (first.last.name) level .name domains. However, once a third level name is registered, they reserve the parent second level domain.

ICANN is involved because Verisign is the registry operator for .name, and the contract between ICANN and Verisign gives ICANN some oversight power over Verisign's registry services. This includes some fairly limited oversight power over what they call "voluntary services", which are services that the registry provides that are not required to be provided by the contract. Apparently the registration of 3rd level domains and the email forwarding service are voluntary services, not services that Verisign is obligated to offer by the contract.

Feb 15, 2027 is the termination date. (According to my registar, 007names, who did notify me.)

Would using the ILS without the local altimeter actually be a safe way to land the plane? (Ignoring whether or not ATC is allowed to give you clearance for that.) Is the requirement of a local altimeter just overly cautious?

The key difference seems to be German private health insurance contracts are long-term affairs. Multi-year, or perhaps even lifetime? US health insurance contracts are typically a year at a time. So German companies have to reserve for costs projected to occur far in the future because they are liable for them, while US companies have no idea if their customer will still be around in 20 years.

My guess would be there's a healthy dollop of regulation pushing the German insurance market into that shape, otherwise you would probably see short-term insurers outcompeting long-term insurers since they wouldn't have to do old-age reserves and could therefore charge lower premiums. Consumers tend not to be nearly as good at rationally planning for long term expenditures as are actuaries.

It mentions reduced spending on doctors. My thinking on the mechanism is that freeing doctors from noncompetes makes it easier for them to leave big practices and start small ones. Small practices have less bargaining power with insurance companies and will have to charge lower rates.

Doesn't make intuitive sense to me why you'd need a whole new airplane for this. Can you not rig something up to let one of these blades ride on top of an existing plane like the space shuttle transporter? Or would Sergey Brin's giant dirigible work? Or two helicopters flying in formation? Or just make the blades come in two pieces assembled on site?

Just seems very hard to believe a project as massive as a whole new airplane is the best solution to this problem.

I was curious on some of the details, so I did a little digging.

The town in question (Salisbury, MA) is built on a narrow strip of land between a marsh and the ocean. Mostly between 2 and 5 houses wide. Doesn't seem like you need a geology PhD to determine you're going to have some erosion problems here.

As best I could determine, the beach replenishment in question was from access points 5 - 11, which covers 1.6 miles and about 150 homes. If I'm right on that, they put down enough sand to extend the beach 3-7 feet[0]. So the first thing to note is that this was a very small beach replenishment project. The senator is probably right that they should go bigger next time.

The cost per home for that would have come out to about $3333.33. Honestly, even if you triple it and do it every year, I don't find that to be an unreasonable expense to impose on owners of $1-5 million houses built on a sand dune. These guys need to quit whining and raise their _local_ taxes the relatively modest amount necessary to preserve their town. Something like $5k/year for beachfront and $1k/year for the rest would get the job done.

[0] This is assuming a constant slope to the beach. The low end is extending at 3 feet above sea level, the high end is extending at 6 feet above sea level.

For the benefit of readers, here's the quote from the article indicating no controls:

"Factors that may also play a role in health, outside of daily duration of eating and cause of death, were not included in the analysis."

Contractors pay self employment taxes in lieu of the social security and Medicare payroll tax, and as a result are eligible for both.

The health insurance situation is not great, but it's available through Obamacare. In my experience the actual cost is not much worse than employer provided, but the true cost is often subsidized, so employees don't always realize how much salary they are giving up for health insurance.

No eligibility for unemployment or workers comp though.

'motivate customers to visit' - Some people like cheap stuff. Some amount of people who are not willing to pay x for a meal at noon might be willing to pay 0.9x at 2 pm. Other people have money and tight and inflexible schedules. Some of them may be more willing to visit at noon and pay 1.1x than they would be to visit at noon, wait in a 10 minute line, and pay x.

'enhance customer and crew experience' - Neither customers nor crew like it when the restaurant is busy enough that the line gets long. By making it more expensive to eat at peak times and less expensive to eat at off peak times, they think they can smooth out the demand schedule. Of course whether that's a net positive to any given consumer depends on their relative preferences on meal time, wait time, and meal cost. But the potential is there at least. On the crew side, a smoother demand schedule means they can either schedule fewer people on longer shifts, or if they keep schedules the same reduce the amount of "crunch time" during each shift.

I think what this work does is establish a new, and lower, upper bound on the number of points that need to be explored in order to find an exact solution.

From some of your other replies it looks to me like you're confusing that with an improved bound on the value of the solution itself.

It's a little unclear to me whether this is even a new solution algorithm, or just a better bound on the run time of an existing algorithm.

I will say I agree with you that I don't buy the reason given for the lack of practical impact. If there was a breakthrough in practical solver performance people would migrate to a new solver over time. There's either no practical impact of this work, or the follow on work to turn the mathematical insights here into a working solver just haven't been done yet.

Yeah, the discretization interacts with the oscillation for sure. Full implicit is better than CN with regards to oscillation for instance, but I don't think would be a net win. Running a few implicit steps before switching to CN might help, though I've never tried it.

Is that method extensible to discrete dividends?

Crank-Nicolson is probably the least objectionable part of the method, but I prefer ADE.

There are two numerically painful parts of the problem: the advection term and the oscillation inducing terminal condition (because it has a discontiuous derivative). I like to deal with advection by transforming the equation to an advection free equation. I'm under NDA on the best solution to the oscillatory terminal condition so I can't give that one away unfortunately.