What percentage of companies are dumb enough to buy domains on these new tlds purely "to defend their brands"? Is Walmart going to buy "walmart.diamonds" and "walmart.condos"? I doubt it, but whatever, I'm not sad that there is a new tax on corporate stupidity.
Why not? It was real to the tax payers who paid it to the government and real to the Corinthian employees who were paid by the school and it will be real to the students as they struggle to pay it back over many years.
If something is "real", you can't have less than zero.
(For some definitions of " real".)
Right now, the consequences of forgiving a billion dollars of student debt are immeasurable. It's a small amount to spread over so many people, and ultra easy/cheap borrowing by the federal government can delay the consequences for a long time.
Technically no. Money is only real if 2 or more people believe it to be so.
Think about it. We exchange dollars, euros, bits, whatever all day long. Do you ever stop to think, "Why does this hold any value to me?" Its because someone else will accept it in exchange for goods or services.
Ok, so we have this common ground of thinking money isn't too real if it can be printed at will by central bankers. That's good.
Now ask yourself: what do central banks hoard? Whatever they hoard must be, at the very least, a more "real" kind of money than the money they print. Do they hoard diamonds? No. Do they hoard platinum? No. Do they hoard fine art? No. Do they hoard expensive wine? No. What do they hoard? Gold. And why do they hoard gold while publicly stating it's a useless and worthless metal? "Tradition", according to Ben Bernanke.
So if you believe our rulers, you can sleep sound in knowing nothing is real money, and the worthless stuff central banks hoard, they're doing it just because it's tradition. All this work of moving this stuff around the globe in armored planes and escorted ships, it's all for tradition, you see.
Does gold truly have that much worth as a value store? Its not a terribly great metal, and I can't see myself buying food with gold anymore than I can see myself using dollars if the economy collapses.
Presumably she had planned to become an LPN or RN. Her current position would not have required a degree, and to get to those other levels she must now still attend a different school. Corinthian wasted her time and her money.
Can one stipulate that one does trust a particular server (maybe it has a valid TLS cert?) and still derive some value from this API? E.g., it seems perfectly valid to me to do some work on the client in order to reduce data volumes or server loads?
Well, I'd never trust the server (and TLS certs are only a step or two above pure snake oil security), but if the server is willing to trust me, then I don't in principle mind decrypting data on its behalf.
Do I really need to be able to update the Cart? Sure, but what do I need to update? Because I need to be able to add new items to it. However, that should be under the Item resource surely? Great! Now we can get rid of that too.
My first thought was that POSTing to the cart (or the user) is the most obvious way to add items? But then I thought maybe you just PUT to /api/cart/item_number? That would be cool.
PUT is almost always the wrong way to go, since it requires a complete replacement of the target resource, meaning your browser needs to know the entire structure. to add new items you would POST to /carts/<cid>/items. to update an item you would PATCH to /carts/<cid>/items/<iid> with qty=3 or some other partial attribute update
what I do for my carts is PATCH to /carts/<cid>/items to partial mass-update all items with items[iid][qty]=x
TFA already explains why carts don't need an id: for this application there is only one cart per account, and users only ever see their own accounts. The representation I was imagining being PUT would be an integer, like "1" or "5". The /api/cart/item_number resource could allow only the PUT and DELETE verbs, and /api/cart/ would handle GET. item_number, in this case, identifies an item that is for sale (EDIT: a SKU), not an association between such an item and a cart. EDIT: Keeping an integer at /cart/sku is the only association we need. /catalog/sku holds price and other associated values. /api/cart/ holds taxes, discounts, and whatnot.
EDIT: It's as if you're arguing based on some theory you've read rather than on what we're discussing.
however, when you do PUT, you leave it up to the client to choose the destination id (if it is not already known), this is not good. You should add items by POSTing to an item factory such as /cart/items. The cart will create the item(s) for you and that item resource will almost certainly hold additional data that was not passed in from the client (usually just SKU + qty) such as base price, calculated discounts, tax, etc. a PUT would not be appropriate as it requires the entire resource to be replaced (or created) at the destination specified by the client. the client rarely knows the entire resource (or has the permission to modify it at will), so follow-up updates should be done via PATCH /cart/items/<iid> or (mass) PATCH /cart/items
I've never been to this, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to go. (When I go to the desert, it's not to be around other people.) However, this whole authority-obedience-fashion-and-privilege episode seems somewhat counter to my previous media-driven impressions of the event.
If you want to do something fun in the wilderness with your friends, you don't need anyone's permission for that.
Except in this case the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) permission. I spent a lot of time in Las Vegas and for the most part you just drove out into BLM land and it was fine. But if you have a group greater than a certain size it requires permits. The tickets process is a way for them to not exceed their permit limit of 50,000 people. Doing so would get them banned from getting permitted in the future.
That said, I'm rather surprised at this point that some tech billionaire hasn't bought a couple of thousand of acres of desert and allowed it to be run there. But at some point the 'exclusivity' becomes its own value.
Not really, it's mostly sheep and the un-employed :)
In all seriousness, it's a lovely little town, with some nice scenery and good people. This new data-centre should see at least a short-term boost to the local economy, which basically sank into a black-hole after The Collapse.