This is one of those moments where good programming architecture and integration testing becomes obviously useful. We have a payment gateway interface and the transition to Stripe will be relatively painless after accounting for some accounting differences in how fees are charged.
For the same reason most companies don't share trade secrets.
- Stripe and Balanced ARE direct competitors, much more so than say Stripe and Braintree or Balanced and PayPal. Balanced handles the money in a bit of a different way, but the end product is very similar (i.e. receive payments from cards and bank accounts, and send payments to bank accounts [and now debit cards for both as well]).
- One or both companies may feel they have the better solution (see steveklabnik's comment above), and thus collaborating would be giving away intellectual capital for less in return
As a potential customer, you should prefer that they do work separately, because when different teams come up with different solutions, the chances are greater that at least one of those solutions is correct. This leads to greater long-term health in the industry as a whole.
Membership in a group doesn't preclude discrimination against that group.
- 9 white males
- 2 black males
- 4 females
- 1 unknown
What strikes me as odd is that at a ratio of 9:6 (or 10:6/9:7), they have completely excluded an entire segment of candidates just to bring their ethnic and gender quotas more in line with what they'd like to see. The fact that it's discrimination is obvious, but whether or not that's bad is another question. If they are just doing so to make their office look more diverse for the sake of diversity, I would personally consider that to be bad business and ethically questionable.
If they're trying to promote a broader scope of cultural experience in their writers, then perhaps it's better to discriminate based on experience, not ethnicity. If they think that women write inherently differently than men, then they have bigger problems related to sexism.
> Membership in a group doesn't preclude discrimination against that group.
No, but groups generally don't discriminate against themselves when they are the majority and hold the positions of authority?
> If they're trying to promote a broader scope of cultural experience in their writers, then perhaps it's better to discriminate based on experience, not ethnicity.
> broader scope of cultural experience
> not ethnicity
Care to define "cultural experience" and how it differs from ethnicity?
> they have completely excluded an entire segment of candidates
If you're going to carry on with that narrative, would you explain why you don't agree with my above rejection of such narrative? They are not excluding, they are valuing diversity since they have a lack of it.
The simple answer would be that a greater supply of homes means more people can afford homes in the long run (assuming relatively low population growth). But that is hugely dependent on which states/cities/neighborhoods you're talking about. The section of the world that this article is discussing apparently never gentrified like some of the neighborhoods surrounding it. Things tend to be different in highly urbanized cities like NYC vs. relatively open areas like the Inland Empire.