The average person can't hedge their savings/income etc against hyper inflation fast enough.
Usually people just flee to the most convenient hard currency, like the US dollar, then every pay check is a race to convert it before its value drops.
But a lot of those paychecks are not inflation indexed.
Basically hyper inflation makes it impossibly hard to preserve any kind of liquid or semi-liquid wealth.
You can only hope to have all our wealth in things like real estate or perhaps gold. Although dry beans, rice and salted bacon are probably better then gold.
You can't eat gold, and I'm not sure you can trade it for food in some of the worst parts of Zimbabwe.
below 40% inflation per year, 'there is no evidence that inflation is costly'. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a 'slippery slope' there is no evidence that one increase in inflation causes further increases. Thus 'the focus on inflation ... has led to macroeconomic policies which may not be the most conducive for long-term economic growth.'
If ever I wanted to kill opposition by unfair means I would endow the opposition with experts. [...]
None of our men are "experts." We have most unfortunately found it necessary to get rid of a man as soon as he thinks himself an expert--because no one ever considers himself expert if he really knows his job. A man who knows a job sees so much more to be done than he has done, that he is always pressing forward and never gives up an instant
of thought to how good and how efficient he is. Thinking always ahead, thinking always of trying to do more, brings a state of mind in which nothing is impossible. The moment one gets into the "expert" state of mind a great number of things become impossible. [...]
As I have said, we do not hire experts--neither do we hire men on past experiences or for any position other than the lowest. [...]
It is particularly easy for any man who never knows it all to go forward to a higher position with us. [...]
There is not a single man anywhere in the factory who did not simply come in off the street. [...]
there is the pressing to take away the necessity for skill in any job done by any one. The old-time tool hardener was an expert. He had to judge the heating temperatures. It was a hit-or-miss operation. The wonder is that he hit so often. The heat treatment in the hardening of steel is highly important--providing one knows exactly the right heat
to apply. That cannot be known by rule-of-thumb. It has to be measured. We introduced a system by which the man at the furnace has nothing at all to do with the heat. He does not see the pyrometer--the instrument which registers the temperature. Coloured electric lights give him his signals. [...]
The length of time required to become proficient in the various occupations is about as follows: 43 per cent. of all the jobs require not over one day of training; 36 per cent. require from one day to one week; 6 per cent. require from one to two weeks; 14 per cent. require from one month to one year; one per cent. require from one to six years. The last jobs require great skill--as in tool making and die sinking.
In some jurisdictions, criminal "facilitation" laws do not require that the primary crime be actually committed as a prerequisite for criminal liability. These include state statutes making it a crime to "provide" a person with "means or opportunity" to commit a crime, "believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a crime." [...]
The U.S. criminal code makes aiding and abetting a federal crime itself a crime [...]
The elements of aiding and abetting are, generally:
(1) guilty knowledge on the part of the accused ( the mens rea);
In the US, downloading music , etc. is not a crime- it is a civil infringement. I think (not absolutely certain) that accessory laws in the US generally only apply to criminal acts, not civil infringements.
In some countries in Europe (at least in Spain) it isn't a crime to download music or movies, much less to provide links. Another question is if it's illegal (crimes are a specific kind of illegal act). In fact, it isn't illegal at all if there is no money involved. Copyright holders are compensated with a "private tax" on recording media, including SSD.
I don't know about Sweden or Denmark, but anyway I suggest not to jump to conclusions unless you know more about the laws in those countries.
Well, if sharing copyrighted content isn't illegal, then obviously nothing I said matters. Go ahead and do it in the light of day and post stories about your exploits to the internet.
I just find the argument "we weren't really doing anything illegal, we were just helping you do something illegal by getting you 90% of the way there; so we should be legal." to be tedious and unconvincing.
He completely ignores that humans actually took many tens of millions of years to evolve from scratch not from existing life forms.
Kulisz responded:
The point is that it didn't have to. Nothing in the universe prevented a technological civilization from arising 8 billion years ago. And certainly not 65 million years ago back when the dinosaurs ruled.
nowadays if you design anything at all that has an end-user component you'll spend at least as much time at making it jerk-proof and doing all kinds of abuse analysis
Customers of Kozmo.com who fondly remember getting single pints of ice cream delivered on a whim won't get off that easy this time. MaxDelivery has a $10 minimum order, and there's a $4.95 delivery charge for orders under $50. Siragusa said this is to keep customers from abusing the system, as they did with Kozmo, and he says MaxDelivery's average order size is much different than Kozmo's.
"Someone ordered a pack of Mentos. Then two hours later they'd order a pint of ice cream," said Siragusa. "People did this because there was no penalty. Kozmo had a number of orders that were unprofitable."
Kozmo's founders designed its system to reward customers for making frequent low-value orders. When the customer base responded in a way that should have been predicted by the Kozmo founders, instead of recognizing and fixing their error, those founders instead called it "abuse".
I'm perplexed by your implied comment that having to spend time making your product jerk-proof and performing abuse analysis is only done by poor workmen.
It seems to me that work must be done to create value, and work must be done to make the system idiot proof (despite the continuing ingenuity of idiots), and this is true regardless of the talent and abilities of those producing the service or product.
Work (value creation) can be more or less efficient. As stated, an inefficient workman blames his tools, instead of the way he is going about his work. In this case, and often in other cases, the customer base forms part of the toolset. The workman is saying that his tools are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, and that it is their fault.
Internals tend to attribute outcomes of events to their own control. Externals attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances.
In the present case, the customer base would be seen as uncontrollable (only susceptible to external control) by the inefficient workman, and controllable (susceptible to internal control) by the efficient workman.
work must be done to create value [...] regardless of [...] talent and abilities
I can't figure out if you're just a very clever troll or someone that has something to contribute, if the former, then congratulations, well played but it does not really help the conversation, if the latter then maybe you should try to make your point in smaller steps so that lesser minds like mine can make sense of what you are trying to communicate.
Reading again about "Locus of control" and putting that into the context that you have further provided, I think this is still a question of attitude, and your comments remain unhelpful at best, and at worst are actively misleading.
Viewing the customer as a part of my toolset does not make them internal. A defining feature of my toolset is that it is under my control. The customers I have are not under my control.
Viewing the way I generate my customer base from the collection of potential customers is largely under my control, but that is not the same thing. My customer base is more under my control, but is still not part of my toolset.
I have control over what I produce, and viewing what I produce as a mechanism for selecting customers is useful. Realising, and explicitly using, the fact that what I produce will implicitly determine the customers I get is valuable.
This is not achieved by viewing customers as part of the toolset.
In this case ... the customer base forms part of the toolset.
I do not subscribe to this theory. Toolsets can be changed, improved or mastered. I can do none of these with my customers. I can only do it with the things I use to create my services. I use tools to create services to assist my customers. Calling my customers "tools" does not help me.
The workman is saying that his tools are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, and that it is their fault.
I disagree with this analysis. The workman is saying that there are (usually a small number of) customers who require that the services be more complex in their implementation than might otherwise be expected. This is not the same thing. I know that around 80% to 90% of my customers never provoke the inbuilt protection systems in my code. The protection systems account for about 50% of my code. I have measured these things because I work in the defense industry. I know that around half my code is there because up to 20% of my customers don't use the system the way it was intended to be used. Whether this is lack of training, lack of awarenes, or malice doesn't matter. I don't "blame" them, but I know that if my customers only did what they were shown in training, and didn't do what they are trained not to do, 50% of my code would be unnecessary.
But do you mean, as Marxists contend, that variance in ability plays little or no role in variance in the efficiency of the work?
Of course not. I mean that for every worker, some of their work is producing features and facilities, and some of their work is protecting against inappropriate actions. The balance between these two might change with the abilities of the workers, but I suspect not much. It's a pretty constant ratio across my programmers. To assume what you seem to have assumed from what I have said is, again, perplexing. Perhaps we constantly talk past each other, but I'm finding it difficult in general to understand your mindset.
> Toolsets can be changed, improved or mastered. I [cannot] do [this] with my customers.
You cannot provide any value to the world that would involve a different customer base? After Kozmo re-emerged as MaxDelivery, it changed its customer base (one of its tools in value creation) by starting out with only high-density neighborhoods of Manhattan (and it continues to change its customer base as it gradually expands its delivery areas). It has mastered its customer base (again, one of its tools in value creation) by learning how that tool reacts to various delivery deals, and by employing improved delivery deals. Please see the article linked above.
For at least many decades, bike-sharing advocates and politicians have been failing to efficiently employ the tools at their disposal, one of which is their customer base. That tool, the customer base, has been blamed over and over again as "the problem" as bike-sharing advocates and politicians have repeatedly employed essentially the same defectively-designed policies.
I don't think that you can compare a broken business model with abuse of a system by spammers and others hell bent on destroying some of the nicer sites that well meaning teams have developed.
By that analogy usenet was 'asking for it' because it was open, worked and actually contained great content. Of course that meant that it was ideal for the jerks of this world to try to peddle their wares, eventually resulting in the near destruction of usenet.
On the web the relationship between the number of people that you have to employ to look after abusers vs the number of people that are actually productive is a good way to measure your success....
the relationship between the number of people that you have to employ to look after abusers vs the number of people that are actually productive is a good way to measure your success.
Yes. That is what I said. The workman with internal-locus-of-control improves his value-creation system based on feedback, and is seen as more successful. The workman with external-locus-of-control blames parts of his value-creation system for acting (in his eyes) wrongly, and is seen as less successful.
Recognising that customers behave a certain way and taking that into account is valuable. Blaming the customer for behaving that way is of little use. You have conflated people recognising that people behave in ways that cause difficulty with blaming them for doing so. Not helpful.
Separation of concerns is as useful in customer identification as it is in writing software.
If I change my model to change my customers, I am changing my customers, not changing my toolset. You are deliberately confusing/conflating two fundamentall different concepts,and I believe that while you personally, and perhaps others, may derive some benefit from it, doing so inhibits effective communication.
I agree that blaming the customer base for the failure of the bike-sharing schemes is wrong, and I agree that it may be that changing the target customer base is the only effective solution, but do not agree that calling that "changing your toolset" is helpful.
says Nancy Grasmick, Maryland's state superintendent of schools, in a recent article in the American School Boards Journal. "If you're teaching to the test [...] then we don't see anything wrong with that."
There could be one hundred billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy, ...
The title says:
Galaxy has 'billions of Earths'
In the title we don't have any of the words "could", "might", "may", "possibly", or any other words indicating the uncertainty. To me, that means the title is inaccurate.
Why?