The doomsday "propaganda" didn't come to pass because several states and localities promptly passed their own net neutrality laws after it was deregulated at the federal level. The larger ISPs couldn't find a workable way to implement their non-neutral bullshit in some markets but not others, and the local ISPs in places with no net neutrality laws never really had enough clout to do crappy things in the first place.
If that didn't happen, and the ISPs started profiting off non-net-neutral tactics, it could have been permanently fucked.
Once someone depends on a legal source of income, if that source of income gets banned in the future, they generally get to keep that source of income "grandfathered in" if they take the issue to court.
> Once someone depends on a legal source of income, if that source of income gets banned in the future, they generally get to keep that source of income “grandfathered” forever if they take the issue to court.
That’s… not true.
Otherwise, all the people depending on selling drugs that were later banned would have been grandfathered in when the drugs were prohibited.
Even when there is a regulatory taking (that is, government regulations eliminate the value of existing property in a way that is considered a taking under the 5th amendment), the remedy is compensation for the lost value of the property, not a lifetime exemption from the regulation.
Hm. I would encourage a different, less intense angle here. It’s possible the doomsday didn’t come to pass because a lot of passionate people worked very hard to make sure we avoided it.
Possible, but is there any reason to believe so? I'm open to hear it.
The whole point was that companies like Comcast don't give a crap what we think and will engage in this anti competitive behavior unless the FCC stops them. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt they would if it was in their financial interest.
But can we agree that it is also possible that market incentives aligned and the infographics depicting tv-bundle-like internet packages weren't actually around the corner? To me it seems like the easier explanation. The incentive could be as simple as Comcast not wanting a new monopoly court case or to start being classified as a utility in areas where they have no real competition.
Sure, maybe those bundles weren’t right around the corner. But the fight for NN probably incentivized the MBA grads to not explore those options with fervor.
And it’s very reasonable to assume that avoiding a monopoly case or being classified as a utility is enough of an incentive.
But I have a preference for putting up the defenses on all fronts when it comes to ISPs and their unlimited creative chicanery.
The null hypothesis is that market forces takes care of it. Like your airline ticket prices. The onus of proof is on you to market forces aren't enough.
Similarly, the FCC net neutrality rules allow telcos to charge any price for the service while disallowing blocking or throttling particular Internet sites or protocols. If such rules weren't indeed necessary, big telcos wouldn't be spending their money campaigning against them, would they?
My company is hiring a senior Python dev and we've rejected at least 95% of applications so far. Many weren't even Python devs, most weren't senior (no, getting that title 2 years out of college doesn't count) and some had resumes so off-putting we just said "this person is full of shit." We actually discussed adding a survey question that read "Answer 'no' to this question" to see if they even read the page. So many freaking shotgun applicants.
I wonder how many of those people are saying "I've applied to X jobs and nothing!" Had they gotten feedback or maybe read the job listing they wouldn't have added our posting to their volume count.
The problem as an applicant is that after sending, say 30,40,50 carefully considered applications, spending up to several hours on each, and getting almost no response, you change tactics.
There's no point crafting a love letter which won't even be read - just stick a bunch of bullet points together and broadcast.
Several hours definitely isn't required. If you are a good match for a job your resume should already be a stand out, so all you need to do is read the listing and submit your resume (plus whatever HR system hoops they make you jump through). Anecdotally, I typically get a high response rate when I'm choosey and have never wrote a cover letter or anything specific to the job in question. Why would I need to write a love letter for a position I'm well qualified for? I'm the prize, not them haha.
Changing tactics to blindly applying for positions regardless of qualifications is just a waste of time. I for one wouldn't want an engineer who solves problems like that on the team.
"I for one wouldn't want an engineer who solves problems like that on the team. "
I guess this is some high-handed attempt at a put-down.
I think you have to consider what game job-hunting/filling is.
IMHO it's essentially quite similar to mating.
In that case, you see all kinds of strategies, tailored to the environment, and other realities.
Have you thought about why you're getting all these applications that clearly don't match?
Is it because people are stupid, or lazy? Or do you think there might be some logic behind a strategy of just sending out semi-customized applications in search of a match, knowing that most are simply ignored anyway?
I mean, someone who thinks through why things are the way they are, and what to do about it, even if they can't get to an answer, is someone I would want on my team.
I guess that argument makes sense, but then don't expect a high return rate or complain "I've applied to THOUSANDS and nothing! What gives?"
The last time I was in the market was September and I didn't have much trouble (I got a solid offer but decided it wasn't time to move yet). If things have changed in the past 6 months then yeah, I don't have firsthand experience in todays market. But I always see people complaining about this kind of stuff so I'm used to writing it off. If you think its gotten that bad I'll take your word.
I'm also in the market as a senior, went to a big name university and have been at a few companies that everyone knows so my experience being choosey may be different than others.
I guess this is some high-handed attempt at a put-down.
If someone is having trouble getting a response and answers by "well if I do it more with even less filtering then maybe one will come through" I think less of their problem solving. Although I am persuaded by what you said originally so I guess its not as terrible of a strategy as I was first thinking.
I would also compare it to mating. If you're on a dating app and write love letters to every girl who's profile you like you will get roughly 0 dates (this being the "spend hours applying" approach). If you are confident, believe you're the prize and try to find girls you're a match with then you will have a lot more success.
I ask people to rename their resume file to follow a very specific filename template. Maybe 1/3 of the applicants do it and I think I have had more luck with them than with those who ignored my instructions. (It is a simple template and as long as folks at least try to follow it, it is fine with me.)
I sympathize with your mentality, but you most certainly do not have that right. With a few very limited exceptions in Texas, in the US you have to be defending against a deadly threat. Breaking into your home with ski masks is usually seen as a deadly threat, but that doesn't apply to a flipper house when you aren't even inside.
If you arrived to the house and killed them with a tire iron you would likely have been charged with murder.
I strongly recommend reading The Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca.
Will do. I actually started staying in the house just prior to the sale to prevent any further issues. With my vehicle onsite, had a lot less activity going on.
Between my vehicle and the “I’ll shoot you” signs, no one disturbed the residence.
It was a pain sleeping on a blow up mattress for two weeks.
So capitalism in practice compared to a perfect democracy where the powerful few handle their power without becoming corrupt? Well obviously the theoretical system wins here, but it sidesteps the biggest problem that people do not handle power well.
We have an entire legal framework revolving around the dissolution of marriages and the surrounding issues. Its kind of a big deal (and has nothing to do with God, who the government does not enforce contracts for). Churches can (and do) enforce the "until death" vow part by treating divorcees differently within their organization.
Some Rolexes will appreciate, but not all. Knowing which ones will appreciate is like art or cars. Especially at the entry level you'll most likely be fighting for grey market prices.
"It's an investment" is usually just a cope for people who can't actually afford the watch and don't want to sound foolish.
> The average price of a pre-owned Rolex watch increased from less than US$5,000 in 2011 to more than US$13,000 by the end of 2021, according to a report by the California-based firm published earlier this year.
Even if the price of a specific watch slightly declines (unlikely given statistics published), it sounds much better than a 100% chance to become eWaste in the case of Apple watches.
On the other hand, if you had taken 10% of that $5000 and spent them on an Apple Watch[0] and put the other 90% into Apple shares, you'd have bought fractionally over 346 shares in 2011 which would have been worth $48,804 in 2021.
[0] keeping the money aside for when the watches were actually released, which wasn't 2011.
The article is about rolexes gaining value over a particular decade. The idea that those 10 years will just happen again (that it's not in a bubble and this is sustainable) is a foolish gamble imo. Basically everyone pushing this is an SEO blog for some watch merchant, keep that in mind as well.
