Not exactly. The kilogram was redefined in a fundamentally different way, moving from an artifact, which will change with time, to a fundamental property of nature, that as far as anyone knows, will be the same at all times. The second was already defined in such a way. Any such definition still requires some sort of measurement though to get something usable. Different ways of measuring the same type of definition can be more precise, and in this redefinition they think they've found a more precise method that works in the same fundamental manner. Both measure the oscillation rate of atoms, but the proposed element is thought to give better precision.
Kethal
joined 2 years ago
I feel like this is a big component of inflation that no one talks about. The stocks they use as collateral aren't worth what they claim, since any attempt to sell all of those stocks would immediately drastically decrease their value. The loans then act as a sort of money press, for value that doesn't really exist. That then drives up prices.
T-Mobile has lowered my prices while increasing my service in the past. The fact that they don't dick me around is one of the reasons I've stayed. If they're going to start this shit, then I'm going to leave.
A seller shipped me a phone that was much worse than what I bought, and it wasn't even the same brand. I returned it. However, the seller wouldn't ship the right phone but still had the listing saying several were available. I couldn't leave a negative review, which makes no sense, and I reported it to ebay, but as of yet nothing has happened to the seller that I can tell.
It's really disappointing. I want an Amazon alternative, but it's tough if I'm going to have to go through this crap.
"... and that's a huge problem for the companies behind it."
Thank you for clarifying.
Apparently you are unaware of ranked choice voting systems, because there are certainly reasons that electing by popular vote is a bad system.
First-past-the-post voting systems result in two conflicting parties. This would entrench the two party system. The current system is not good, but popular vote is only slightly better.
Five presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. Four of those were Republicans: Hayes, Harrison, Bush, Trump. John Quincy Adams was the first, just as the Republican party came into existence, although he wasn't a member. He joined it later.
By "the electoral college" most people seem to mean that each state has influence disproportionate to its population, because every state gets two electors regardless of size. Ignoring that that is independent of the electoral college, disproportionate power isn't where most of the problem arises. The problem is that most states do not allocate their electors proportionally to how their citizens voted. Almost all states give all electors to the majority winner in the state. It's not required to do it that way, and Maine and Nebraska allocate at least some of their electors based on the proportion of the vote.
If states allocated their electors solely based on the proportion of votes in the state, that would achieve what a national popular vote would achieve and more. For example, Trump won despite losing the poplar vote, but if states had instead allocated their electors proportionally to voters within the state, Trump would have lost.
Why do this instead of a national popular vote? First-past-the-post voting systems result in two party systems with a lot of conflict. Ranked choice systems elect representatives that are more agreeable to everyone. A national popular vote entrenches a bad system, making it harder to ever get a rank choice system.
More importantly from a pragmatic standpoint, it's much harder to get a national popular vote implemented. To work, almost all of the states would need to get on board, but there's no individual-level incentive for citizens of a state to agree to it. Why would the majority of citizens of Montana agree to send their electors to the national popular vote winner when it's likely not the person they voted for? How are you going to convince them to join? The majority of people there won't want that, so they won't pass the law.
If states allocate based on proportion, individuals won't be concerned that their votes will ever support a candidate they don't like. It also doesn't matter whether other states hop on board. Maine and Nebraska are proof of this. They changed their allocation schemes without regard for any other state. At the individual level, the choice is easy; no one wants their vote to go toward a candidate they don't like, and the current system AND the national popular vote system both do that. If you think about your own views, are you in a state that the majority of the time the majority of people vote for a candidate you don't like? Wouldn't you rather have your state allocate proportionally? Are you in a place where the majority of the time your state goes the way you do? Are you happy that your neighbors' opinions are suppressed? It's pretty easy to get on board at an individual level, so that makes it easy to pass within a state.
People should give up on national popular vote and focus on getting their state to switch to proportional allocation. If you really want progress, target some key states: Florida, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois.
It's odd that you're saying you shouldn't consider the specific cases where C excels and then narrowing down things to the Web, where languages like php excel. So now you probably have some idea why your experience is so narrow. There's a lot more to programming than the Web, and there's always going to be.
"The software development market evolved from C to very high language languages such as Javascript/Typescript and the majority of stuff developed is done or will be done in those languages thus the CPU architecture becomes irrelevant."
I saw someone else make a similar comment about C. People track these things, and C has been in the top 2 most widely used languages for more than 2 decades. Not knowing this should probably make you wonder why your background has resulted in such a narrow experience.
For all its talk about free markets, the GOP vehemently defends this very not-free-market system. To be fair, the Democrats defend it to the death too, but they don't pretend like they value free markets, so they're just greedy and corrupt, not greedy and corrupt hypocrites.