I disagree. Have you ever been to the CA DMV with a photo of your license (that you lost/had stolen)? I have. They told me I needed a copy of my lost license to get a new one, or else the man couldn't validate my identity.
Bureaucratic hell, as defined by Harry Harrison in the Stainless Steel Rat series, is the definition of humans as automata.
It turns out, it's very hard to determine "legit" or not. Standard of care has not permeated much of the AA/NA [edit: treatment] culture. This is a heavily stigmatized group of people who frequently do not have the response reactions you or I might.
Insurance companies like scans from MRI tests, not reports written from mental health consultants.
These are some of our most vulnerable people. We need to take care of them. It's less competitive as a business to do so.
[edit - like much of mental health issues, 'success' is difficult to define, so outcome based measurement is difficult.]
I agree with you. But there are competitive advantages in a cutthroat industry to being unethical, so over time, it's mostly the bad actors that have the fattest margins and can make plenty of money before getting caught.
Just like any industry, people accept it because it's just what happens. So busy being a business owner that you cannot afford to be Sheriff.
$120k in SF probably amounts to take home just under $6k/mo. $4k goes to rent, so you have $2k for everything else.
That's not a great QOL. For comparison, I ran the Mexico City / SF cost of living on Numbeo[0]. $38k in Mexico City would need to be $140k in SF for comparable quality of life.
(side note -- this COL calculator is super neat! anyone have any evidence of the accuracy?)
Where did they make that statement? All I'm hearing GP say is if the only way to know your worth to the market is to test it. There is no other way to measure what your employment is worth.
I am naive in this area, but if the creditors freak out, what does that mean? Seems like a "freak out" would mean higher interest rates, and when those rates cross the return from the cash stockpile, they just would stay paying down the debt more aggressively?
True, but how many humans are able to take that perspective? If history has taught me anything, it's that our desires don't end when they are satisfied.
I think that distinction urge tends to be very superficial. People distinguish themselves as Mac or PC users, but don't generally put much of their identity into being a purple baboon instead of a Mac user.
Agreed. But the community of problem solvers does not frequently overlap with the community of people willing to listen to salesmen.
Yes, there are opportunities. No, I do not believe IBM could solve mine, because of the overpromise, underdeliver. I would only speak with a sales team, or a PM, if my boss ordered me to.
I think before you ask for help from a community like this, you should either offer a reasonable promise that you can deliver better results, or offer to pay people for their time.
IBM's Watson, for me, has been so much marketing fluff that it's in the Oracle class of "only bought by people who don't know better". A profitable business line, but not a problem solving business line.
I don't know what the numbers are like, but bicycling regularly increasing calorie requirements, which would have an environmental impact.
No idea how this compares to the scale of taking a bus or a solo car, but there is an increased cost. Growing food (often with fertilizers, harvest machinery, etc) in order to bring it to the market for you to consume and convert into motion doesn't seem like it's particularly energy efficient.
I bike a lot, it's better for me physically and mentally, but I do wonder how the carbon impact is affected. (Of course, this ignores the fact that petroleum is a limited supply.)
For the sake of argument, I can think of a few reasons. One may believe that everyone in a common society is interconnected, so there is no such thing that only affects you. Another reason is that humans are such mimics of each other, that anything you do is likely to make it more likely other people do it. (See suicide rate studies that compare it to media coverage of events.)
People are busybodies and like to exert control over each other. It's a power trip.
Do you think it's desirable to give more power to individuals? Personally, I think enlightened despotism is probably the best form of government in terms of fairness, efficiency, etc.
In the US (a democratic republic), I see that the decision makers act in their own short term self-interest.
The risk with an enlightened despot (think typical corporate structure) is that the person at the top can really cause damage, because they don't have checks on what they can do. We can imagine the downside right now -- the strength of the republic is currently being stress tested to see if it can salvage itself simply by resistance, friction, and inefficiency to prevent Mr. Trump from destroying so much.
Bureaucratic hell, as defined by Harry Harrison in the Stainless Steel Rat series, is the definition of humans as automata.