Interesting that most of the decline happened in the 2000s. The graph shows a large decline from ~2000 to ~2008 which continues after the GFC before going up a bit in the 2010s. The drop off since COVID is comparatively small.
I don't think that's what the attacker did here. Vercel is a PaaS product where other developers run apps. The enumerated environment variables were the env vars of Vercel's customers, which Vercel likely stores in a long-term data store. Rather than running `env` on a Linux box somewhere, the attacker may have just accessed that data store.
For people who support this kind of ban, I'd ask if you would support a similar ban on new factories for, say, car parts.
Like data centers, factories use a lot of power -- which drives up electricity bills -- and their construction can have local environmental impacts. Data centers have a reputation for not providing too many local jobs, but modern factories are often highly automated and also don't provide too many local jobs.
If, given all that, you'd support factory construction but not data center construction, I'd be curious as to why.
Yea, this sounds like a completely reasonable process to me. They should obviously update their system to accept the electronic submission of evidence, but the process itself is fine.
Carefeed | Senior Software Engineer and Senior Data Engineer | Chicago, IL
Carefeed makes software that makes it easier to operate senior centers. Our mission is to help make residents, family members and staff happier. Thousands of communities across the US and Canada already use our tools, and we're growing quickly.
We're looking for a Software Engineer and a first Data Engineer to join our Chicago office. Our engineering team is small -- less than 20 people -- so there's a huge opportunity to have an impact. These roles are in person 3-4 days a week in our office at Wacker and Wells in downtown Chicago.
My point is that with Google I don't have to learn any of this, it just works logically out of the box. Compare that to Microsoft, where I have to understand the history of their on-prem vs cloud products in order to know the right way to make a distribution list. Forcing this complexity onto users when it's irrelevant to the task they're trying to accomplish is bad design.
I don't think this would prevent the session cookie from being sent to tag manager. The tag manager document describes setting up a specific path on the website's normal domain, not using a subdomain.
Without commenting on the larger issue the article brings up, this specific point doesn't survive scrutiny to me:
Some of the company’s tactics post-merger were garden-variety ruthless, like eliminating 87 series from its streaming platform Max, so that they won’t have to pay union-mandated residuals to the talent that created already-existing programs or pony up funds to produce more seasons of existing ones (such as “Our Flag Means Death,” one of the company’s most popular and critically acclaimed comedies—canceled after just two seasons).
In the streaming era, it's very easy for the revenue created by hosting an older piece of content to be dwarfed by residuals. Streaming services get customers largely by releasing popular new titles; it's entirely predictable that pushing for higher residuals would drive services to sunset series faster, and it's entirely reasonable for services to stop hosting titles that lose them money.
I think you might be missing the context. The scenario we're discussing is a parking lot surrounded by skyscrapers in the middle of a major city. Under a property tax regime, the owner pays little taxes because the structures on the lot are not valuable. Under an LVT, the owner pays the same (high) taxes as the skyscrapers next to it, which would be obvious uneconomical.
So under property taxes, the parking lot owner can afford to wait and have the lot sit empty; under an LVT, they have an incentive to develop.
And right now they can afford to wait forever! But with an LVT they have a big incentive to either develop it immediately or sell to someone else who will.
It's no coincidence that people who support LVTs are typically YIMBYs -- we want to reform urban planning and land use to make it easier to build things.
When you tax something, you get less of it. By reducing the supply of a good, taxes deter otherwise mutually beneficial transactions from happening; the loss of mutual benefit from a tax (or other policy) is called "deadweight loss".
Land value taxes have a special property in that land owners cannot respond to the tax by producing less land; the supply of land is fixed. This means LVTs do not generate deadweight loss, which makes them very efficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Efficiency
The responses here are all assuming your grandmothers taxes would go up. But bear in mind LVTs are intend to replace the existing property tax regime (at least in the US). If your grandmother lives in a quiet suburb or rural area, it's likely that her taxes would decrease under an LVT if the LVT was trying to extract roughly the same amount of overall money as a property taxes regime.
If she lives in the middle of a city, then yes her taxes may increase.
Yes, that's exactly the idea. In Chicago, where I live, there are surface parking lots in the middle of the downtown surrounded by skyscrapers. In a logical system, the owner of those parking lots would have to pay just as much in land taxes as the skyscraper owners next to them -- and since they couldn't possibly afford to do so, they'd be forced to sell to someone who would develop the land and put it to more productive use. Under the current system, though, the parking lot owner pays peanuts while the skyscraper owner is effectively penalized for putting the land to use.
The gentrification situation is similar: if someone is living in a single-family home in an area that is filling up with apartments, they're using the land much less efficiently than a replacement structure would. As land values slowly increase, the owner would be prompted to eventually sell to someone who would put it to higher value use. You could have some speed bumps in the policy to make sure this doesn't happen too fast, but if you stop it entirely you're just giving up on productive land use.
It's worth noting that property taxes have the same dynamic, since they also incorporate land value in them. The difference though is that _property taxes discourage development_, which contributes to higher rents. Land value taxes do not have this problem; a world where we suddenly swap to LVTs is a world with many more buildings and much lower average rents.
Yes, that's exactly the idea. We have a problem in the US where many metro areas do not have enough housing, in part because building big things is penalized by the tax code. By changing the tax code to not penalize construction, we hope to get more construction.
I appreciate this guy taking the time to test this stuff out, but... 2.5 minutes per application seems really reasonable and short? Even the Post Office application that took 10 minutes seems fine. I get that you might have to apply to a lot of different jobs, but at that rate in 2-3 hours of focused work, you could apply to nearly a hundred different jobs.
The fact that it's that easy to apply belies the tone the article takes, which generally bemoans how hard job applications are. But they didn't demonstrate that it's hard at all! Moreover, the author even says in the beginning that they didn't use any of the products that help you, like LinkedIn Easy Apply.
Anyway seems interesting but this mostly just confirmed my perception that applying to jobs is pretty easy. Interviews, on the other hand...