throwaway2245

You could double that number to account for the "fraud and error" spend at DWP: I would presume that further spending in this regard is dedicated to other departments.

I would count coordination here as a deep technical skill, which requires a depth of study and/or experience. You are selling your coordination skills.

It's the stick of the T.

People who have broad interests with no depth of knowledge have not identified (for themselves) where their value lies.

I would imagine that this type of engineer needs to be carefully managed to stay on tasks that add business-value.

As such, it's not unfair that they are seen as juniors. They are juniors.

Requiring "means testing", i.e. excluding people who are not in need, is often shown to cost more money than it saves.

(and allows some people who don't technically qualify to fall through the gaps)

If you receive an extra $10,000 that you say you don't need, you could receive it and be in a tax band which gets taxed an extra $10,000. That's more straightforward.

> The market price for a referral is negative. Businesses would normally pay to seek them out.

By threatening to withdraw from a national market, Google seem to be saying that its business model depends on getting its own users by this mechanism.

As such, it's reasonable to believe that the true market price won't remain negative.

I think the video evidence people wish to collect is exactly the evidence that you are wrong - that people get arrested (or perhaps brutalized, or killed) despite being wholly respectful.

I learned recently that the Food Pyramid was created by the Department of Agriculture in the US, i.e. not by the Department of Health.

So, not experts. (Not in the field they were claiming).

I would wager that "Reject All" does not, in fact, opt you out of "Legitimate Interests" - sites are using the language "Object to Legitimate Interests" for this.

If the drug is granting people willpower, then it really is miraculous.

> Security by obscurity replied to hacking

Considering that Wikipedia dates the concept and its rejection back to 1851, you have understood it wrong.

Being overweight/obese might be (and might not be) a side-effect of the things you list, but it also that causes its own further side-effects and is worth dealing with in its own right.

The principle of 'obscurity is not security' would seem to apply to anti-spam algorithms on the scale of Google.

I suspect that Google are not claiming this law would interfere with their anti-spam efforts, simply because it wouldn't - they can't justify it.

If that was a real concern, why wouldn't they mention it, for example in this lengthy blog post? It's a good public defence for them.

The fact that they don't say it, means that I infer the opposite.

This page doesn't contain the word 'spam' - is that actually Google's claim, or are you inferring it?

I am not clever enough to understand this analogy, at all.

Why would Google be opening a coffee shop? Could you please translate this analogy into the factual situation, so that I can understand your point of view?

> What the nobility had to offer peasants was safety.

The purpose of the article, as I read it, is to identify that this claim was written into history by the nobility.