I was looking to create a little database to keep track of spending, put things in categories... and then wanted a useable GUI and having to create that sure sounds dreadful... that, and the rest calls for each table and every possible operation, aaaa.
By fantasy scenario I refer to those people who comment one thing and one thing only: the idea that the government wants to force bad hires, as some kind of attack against white people.
While in reality, all that's being asked is to recognize that there's something systemic going on here.
But enough people comment this, some people pick it up and actually start doing it...
>To those that say, "Hey, it's just time for white males to find out what it has been like for women and ethnic minorities"
The only people saying that are bitter idiots.
Reading all these anecdotes of disinterested people of color just confirms to me people want to strawman this issue, as they always do.
Nobody is talking about forced hiring of disinterested people. The problematic situation is when several candidates who are perfectly confident, able and willing are not hired, because the hiring manager for some reason just liked that white person better. Every single time. Just... a gut feeling, since they were all pretty much equal.
That practice, where the person hiring always defaults to the white person, even in a mixed group of people with equal skill, is what's problematic, and what needs to be tackled.
Yet people have already begun imagining the most extreme fantasy scenario possible... bad thing is that when you start imagining that, some people actually start doing it because they think they have to. Repeat a lie enough, and people will start thinking it's the truth.
From a more long term point of view, it's also important to increase diversity. Simple from the argument that the more groups you get interested and comfortable with joining a certain industry, the more skill and competition will eventually come around.
Giving more people starter positions and the chance to learn, is exactly how you robustly increase a workforce. But more importantly: having strict rules against abuse.
Here's my time for anecdotal evidence: known several people, perfectly skilled, who just left tech companies because of the casual racism and sexism that HR just decided to ignore.
And when only 1 or 2 people are involved, you can keep the larger workforce thinking there's nothing bad going on. And so when people see a thread like that, they go "I've never seen that". Well yeah, it's being kept out of sight...
Commercially backed mortgages. The reason it doesn't work the way you're describing.
Supply and demand do not exist in a vacuum.
There's no _immediate_ response to people not being willing to pay a certain amount.
Owners, and especially individuals or companies that own large amounts of housing, will refuse to lower prices, regardless of demand dropping. Be it actual demand, or people staying away because the price is too high.
Where store spaces have not been rented out for sometimes a decade, because owners consistently refuse to lower prices. Just refusing to lower rent, for years on end, and being empty that entire time.
And if you ask why, the answer is: commercially backed mortgages.
It's simply: you take a loan with a bank for, say, 10 million USD. You're required to pay this loan back over a period of 10+ years. The bank, meanwhile, sells this as an investment product. The bank uses their own funds to guarantee the profit this loan is going to generate, and attracts investors to take a part of it. Thus gaining them a % increase after X years.
However, this means that you can't ever lower the amount you have to pay back, if the value of the physical good your property is based on, drops.
Price isn't dynamic in a pure sense. There's a person on the controls and if they refuse to move them, even if you think it's illogical to do so, they're not going to budge.
Because they have a loan to pay back. Over a finite amount of years. And lowering rent means longer time to pay back the loan, meaning breach of contract.
There are far more systems in place than many are even willing to consider. For it assaults their idealized worldview.
Be it shop or regular housing, this is a system that artificially stops prices from dropping.
In this entire text, the most important questions are missing:
1/ Why does a person start to use drugs?
2/ Why does a person use so much drugs it kills them?
The entire article is talking about symptoms, not causes.
That's not to say all drug use is bad.
What's bad is living a life that's so full of stress and pain that you feel you have no way out other than to distract yourself with these drugs. Eventually leading to death by overuse.
It's not looking at the causes, only at the symptoms, and wondering how we can work within that limit.
And it is exactly that limit that prevents us from seeing the cause.
A quick CTRL+F shows nobody mentioning it, so I'm just gonna say that Louis has repeatedly stated that "Commercially Backed Mortgages" are to blame.
If I understand it correctly, basically what happens is:
1. The owner of the building takes a loan over a period of, let's say 10 years.
2. They fix the rent as such that it will be the thing that pays back this loan plus interest.
3. The bank that granted the loan creates a "Commercially Backed Mortgage" based on that loan, which is a sort of guaranteed-profit thing. Dozens to hundreds of people get in on that.
The interest on the loan being the "guaranteed profit". Considering the amount of people buying in, it's gonna be pretty high.
But because of this, based on the size of the loan and probably some other factors, rent has to be pretty high. Even unrealistic. And the kicker is: you can't lower the rent, because it's all based on that idea of "You need to produce X in Y years, no matter what".
Lowering the rent means getting 100% approval of all the people who bought into that specific mortgage, to say "your guaranteed profit is going to be lower than what you were told when you bought into this".
Which isn't going to happen.
And if you fail to get the needed amount of money, I guess the bank still pays the people who invested in the mortgage and takes the property as compensation? Perhaps fines too?
> They honestly think that if they raise their prices to get the same profit (NOT increase, just to keep it the same!) they have been getting, no one will come anymore because the cost is too much.
This is why hard-enforced industry standards are a good. The situation you describe only exists when the price increase happens for 1 single restaurant and the others stay the same.
However many exist in the region, as long as there's no mandatory system, they're just gonna wait it out, see who gives up first, people stop going there and go other places instead, thus increasing traffic and income without having to raise prices.
This race to the bottom will be won by those who are already the richest and can weather the financial storm the best.
It's a system by which those at the top of the rungs actively prevent anyone from passing them through hard work.
Reading those comments, it's startling how people basically argue "but I like Ben Shapiro and so do others so he must be good right?".
No, everything the man says is biased and purposefully leaves details out in order to skew conclusions. Those unaware of the data left, out cannot possibly know that it was left out. Yet people will desire a conclusion, at the moment of listening. Desperation through poverty will do that to people. Not limited to finances.
I speak in an absolute, because why the fuck not.
This is what Plato meant when asking "do we have free will?".
How can one's will be free, if you make decisions based on incomplete facts? Not only that, but incomplete by design, the designer have done so with premeditated intent, for the express purpose of steering the reaction of those listening.
And once you've become convinced, you're unwilling to go back. It made sense once... and that feeling sticks.
Even visual layout can impact performance of the individual programmer.
There should be an IDE or IDE plugin that changes how code is laid out while editing, but not in the actual code. So, it's merely a visual layer, which can be adapted to the preference of the individual. Meanwhile, the actual code is forced into a specific style too.
Constantly changing the layout of codebases is impossible and will cause people to clash. So instead, let the individual control how they see things at the IDE level on their machine.
Stop forcing entire teams into 1 single view and let everyone control their own, without altering the actual source code.
Let everyone see the code and write it as they personally prefer, and let a post-processing tool based on diffs force the changed files into a specific style for the final repository.
The industry should stop taking choice away and let everyone have the code environment they feel comfortable looking at.