I’m not sure what you’re getting at. A dealership isn’t just a place of purchase. They facilitate test drives, let people shop around for different makes and models, do trade ins. A lot of people want to see what they’re paying for before dropping 5 figures on a single purchase.
You don't need a dealership for that, you can do it with corporate store fronts and the experience would be better for the buyer (and the seller) because the incentives are actually properly aligned.
The thing I don't like about contract/outsourcing is the uncertainty... I'd rather be at a place where I know I don't have to worry about my next job...
Yeah, and fuck everyone who lives in the country and has large animals, or anyone who wants to haul a camper or trailer. A subcompact can fit like two bales of hay, surely that’s enough right?
Most of them… How do you haul hay? How do you haul a stock trailer to move animals around or take them to the vet? Move fence panels around or haul water?
The comment very clearly says anyone who has a truck for non commercial purposes is an asshole. No qualifiers on where you live. Even non profits are assholes. If OP meant something else maybe they shouldn’t use broad generalizations.
Should be obvious he's referring to the city. Don't know why people do this thing where they make up an argument nobody has made, and then proceed to get mad over it. It's very weird, stop doing that. At this point y'all are rage baiting yourselves.
OP mentioned that people have jobs because of advertising. sabbaticaldev mentioned that this wouldn't be true for more than a few hours because humans need jobs, advertising existing or not.
Or reducing traffic deaths from dangerous driving with a financial deterrent
Did you know that during GWOT, US military personnel deployed to combat zones were more likely to be killed in a car accident after returning home than they were to be actually killed in combat?
Cops being abusive pigs doesn’t invalidate the logic behind the law, but then again it always has been the uneven enforcement that’s the problem
IMO traffic enforcement is convenient busywork to keep cops occupied until capital needs them for something specific. As a bonus, it generates lots of interactions with the public that they can choose to turn violent if they want to let off some steam, and so keeps a persistent note of terror playing.
I figure it's both. There are 10 gorillion cops and municipalities. Some likely have policies and staff that get along well with the public and just try to administrate traffic in a safe and fair way. Some treat it as a cash cow and care more about the revenue stream than increase or decrease in harm. It's one of those things where both sides of the argument can be true in specific cases, making it perfect "internet debate" fodder.
It definitely helps to understand it when you are trying to explain to the ISP that it’s their problem. Knowing what you’re talking about will get your issue resolved much more quickly.
That depends who's doing the talking. You're a large business with a dedicated connection and your own network engineering team? Yeah, totally matters.
You're a single consumer, or a small business? Your dialog is limited to "Yes, I switched the router on and off. Yes, my local network works. No, I can reach the website over my phone, this is your problem".
Repeat three times, then get the inevitable reply of "it'll be up again in the next 24 hours".
Unless you're a network engineer, this really doesn't matter.
This is moronic. Economic theory is a self-reinforcing veneer of soft science studying observed human behavior with wild variance between different cultures, geographic markets, and individual people.
The "laws of supply and demand" are not empirical laws of physics. They are general principles with well-known exceptions and flaws of their own. You should lay off the microdosing.
Supply & demand is such a basic emergent property of, well, anything involving life as we know it, that I have a hard time imagining opposition to it.
If a vendor anywhere in the world has more stock than their customers want, the price goes down. If more people want it than the vendor can provide, the price goes up. If there's more food than animals that want to eat it, animals eat their fill and the rest rots. If there are more animals than food, each spends increasing effort developing strategies to get more than their neighbors.
Now, if someone claims they can prove that demand increasing by X results in prices increasing by exactly Y, I'm with you. There are too many variables to make that predictable. But the basic idea behind it? That's pretty fundamental.
Emergent property != laws of physics yet to be broken. All I meant was equating economic principles to empirically proven scientific theory is deeply misleading. I agree with your last paragraph. I liken it to the saying, “all models are wrong, but some are useful.”
> You can derive the basics of supply and demand from game theory.
You can derive supply and demand from game theory once you make some assumptions about preferences, costs, rationality of players, etc., all of which are non-mathematical, mostly empirical concepts.
to anyone even remotely studied in economics - this is astoundingly ignorant. And the hubris is incredibly cringey. Please provide a counter example to the soft science law of supply and demand?
That's definitely an issue, even if constructive evictions can be prevented, landlords would also have to be forced to renew leases (at limited rent increases).
reply