If there is oversupply, why are retailers forced to rent and not able to purchase at the depressed market price?
(My theory, landlords are holding onto property in the hope of future returns rather than making a currently rational sale, and doing specific things like holding units empty or 364 day leases to avoid revaluations)
Yes, and we need to punish them with things like vacancy tax. Just need to be careful we don't prevent good things -- for example, in Japan they have restaurants open only 4 hours a day in residential neighborhoods -- but we also don't want to let them do BS like "art gallery only open by appointment" but surely those also legitimately exist?
A pretty bad comparison. If I gave you the correct answer once, it's unlikely that I'll give you a wrong answer the next time. Also, aren't computers supposed to be more reliable than us? If I'm going to use a tool that behaves just like humans, why not just use my brain instead?
It's not a drop-in replacement; rather it is an implementation of the same ideas (+ some extra ones) but open source so it can be used for things other than Apple devices.
It's because such research has no obvious initial use that the public must pay for it; no private enterprise will fund it, and often it will be useless knowledge, but occasionally someone will figure something out that unlocks a whole new understanding of the world.
I gotta ask, did you spend a week sucking your teeth after that, or did you hand it to them and say "hey, you're paying for expertise and we got it to you faster than we estimated"?
The correct way is the send the customer the almost-final version and wait for the bug report. This way you show how quickly you can tackle the problem but don't make the task look too easy.
Can confirm—I made a smart chess set like this years back by soldering Hall effect sensors and wires manually to a wood board for 64 squares. Every new soldered connection feels exponential—totally makes sense they didn’t do it this way.
I would’ve probably done 4 4x4 PCBs instead so a single damaged PCB could be swapped out.
The presumption was about mechanical instruments, from a simpler time. As computers expanded from being purely mechanical, it never got revised, which is why it is being revised now (three or four decades too late, I'll grant you, but legislation is a slow process.)
Except it was revised once already to point out that computers aren't reliable. And then a decade later, at the peak of the dot-com boom, that revision was reverted after a review by committee.
(My theory, landlords are holding onto property in the hope of future returns rather than making a currently rational sale, and doing specific things like holding units empty or 364 day leases to avoid revaluations)
reply