Do you see how you have continued to pry the topic away from how to fix this issue that everyone agrees should be fixed? This is the desired outcome of whataboutism. Do you have any input of how to address the issue at hand other than commenting on the details of why people care today or when this problem started?
I just declined an offer from Ford on an in house team where everyone is averaging 70 hour weeks; so its not /only/ contractors, but its true, the big 3 use contracting very heavily
it was a direct answer to you saying 'they must be doing something right' the implication being that while they are able to find paying customers, what they are /not/ doing right is the actual work of developing software.
the parent points out that this market inefficiency exists because the people making purchasing decisions are not technically competent enough to truly evaluate the vendors that are selling them these development contracts.
A company can make money selling a bad product, it happens all the time; and its a well know phrase in finance that 'markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent'
First of all if you going to quote Keynes, use it in the right context. We are not talking about stock market here.
So you are telling me that these Indian outsourcing companies who have been growing for 30 years with billions of dollars in revenue is all because they are selling a bad product.
So the Indian companies are like wolves eating feeble Western companies like lambs. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds.
Moot to the acting director though, who can only be gotten rid of for cause or by senate approving a nominee.
I believe the senate only needs a simple majority to approve the nominee, though, so it might not be that difficult for them to get rid of the acting head if they feel pressure
If the city/public is funding a building, i would think they are checking if it is built to code before they pay the company in full.
If its not built to code, the contractor didnt finish the job and will not be paid until the building is up to code.
If its a private investor building the building, thats on them, they shouldve hired better contractors or been more thorough in their management of their contractors
Flooding is a big issue right now in Toronto because we've had a few 'incidents'. You can build a building such that every drop of rain is gone from the property within minutes of it landing, straight into the storm sewers. But you can't have everyone do that, or every rainfall will mean a major flood in the lower-lying areas. And anyone in Toronto back in 2013 remembers exactly what that is like (last week too, nearly).
Instead, regulations now say that new buildings have to retain their water for as long as possible. You can release it, just not all at once, and hopefully not all of it. Green roofs are great to absorb the water. Car washes in the underground parking garage. Options like this exist, but they cost money.
This is only one example (storm water management). There are others. The goal of the city regulating certain engineering aspects of the buildings isn't just to protect those directly living in the building, it's to protect the city as a whole.
Fuck NIMBYism straight to hell, but don't tell me that the developer flooding my property isn't my problem.
Maybe these people do get offers but prefer to work on their own schedules and without cumbersome contracts.
If you were making really good money making youtube videos, why would you want to sign on with food network (who probably demands things like good behavior clauses and stuff in their contracts), have to shoot a real tv show on the networks schedule, doing reshoots and promotional events, etc at the beck and call of some executive?
I absolutely agree that these youtubers are underpaid for the value that they create/the audiences they have accumulated; im just not as surprised that we arent seeing them convert into tv and movie personalities
>A court may view a woman’s charge of rape as an admission of extramarital sexual relations (or “illegal mingling”) unless she can prove, by strict evidentiary standards, that this contact was legal and the intercourse was nonconsensual.
So once again, they have not said this was applied to this particular case, why?
Try to read between the lines. It's a handy tool to have. This article is decietful. The above paragraph is OT to what I was saying. But you'll notice they use words like 'may' and they don't say it was relevant in this case. They are playing games with the truth. And that's something I particularly don't agree with.
To be frank, I find the supposition that you are deceitful much easier to believe than the idea that Human Rights Watch is conspiring to give Islam/Saudia Arabia a bad name.
Given that Saudi Arabia doesn't even have a criminal code at all, of course they make statements like that. Judges simply enforce (their idea of) islam, rather than any legal code. There is no rulebook like in pretty much every other country on the planet. So judicial randomness is the norm, rather than the exception (and of course, one might even say this is not the fault of the judges, as they don't make the law, this is the fault of the government refusing to govern).
Technically, since you apparently missed my point by writing a post on pure emotion, If I don't have to buy insurance then I'm not forced to pay for insurance and thus my money does not go towards someone who drinks to excess, smokes cigarettes, or engages in deliberate behavior that will likely increase their chances of going to the hospital.
> my money does not go towards someone who drinks to excess
except that you absolutely will be paying for them not seeing a doctor and waiting until they have to go to the emergency room.
People who drink in excess go to the ER and get their stomachs pumped - thats paid for by the taxpayers if the person doesnt have insurance. My point was exactly that - you cannot avoid paying for these emergency rooms visits by changing how insurance works, the way to pay less for these emergency room visits is to decrease them by promoting more holistic care - and how does the government promote things? by providing economic incentives in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, etc.
I guess you missed my point by responding with pure emotion...
Again slow down, think carefully and try to stay rational. You'll never have universal health care or coverage. Someone had to pay for it. You can't force people at the end of a bayonet to pay for the mistakes of others. Well, perhaps in your socialist dream world. Keep voting for Bernie and maybe someday you'll grow up.
rain is a lot easier to deal with than snow and ice on the roads. i'd take 9 months of cloudy skies over 4 months of invisible black ice patches, multi car pileups, blizzards, polar vortexes, scraping ice off my car every morning, shovelling my driveway, extreme heating costs, etc.
While the PNW isnt ideal compared to drought ridden california, its vastly nicer weather than what millions of americans put up with every year.
Brutal winters and high crime rate, what else? Of course, there's lots of other problems like decrepit infrastructure (like the water pipes in Flint nearby), and I seriously doubt there's any kind of nice downtown area to walk around in like in nicer cities. I hear the suburbs are OK, but that doesn't exactly make me want to live someplace.
Basically, AFAICT, Detroit sounds like someplace that would be OK if all you wanted was to live in the suburbs and never leave your house, and you have zero interest in outdoor activities, and don't care about going to nice restaurants downtown. The crime downtown is terrible, there's huge stretches of abandoned neighborhoods, the winters are horribly cold; I honestly don't know why anyone would want to live there. The location surely made sense a century ago back when shipping on the Great Lakes was a big thing and the location was sensible for manufacturing and shipping reasons, but those reasons are all gone now.
Those are real reasons. If you think I'm going to spend several years visiting every city in America over 250k people so I can see what it's "really like" instead of just reading about it, then you're absolutely insane. If Detroit can't fix its image in the media, that's its problem, not mine.
Moreover, why the hell should I believe some anonymous troll on HN over plenty of journalistic articles?
