They certainly do not. I always leave space for a car at the zip, and damn near every time 2 or 3 will try to push their way in there even though there is only space for 1 car. Infuriating.
Again, the correct way to zipper merge is to reduce your speed to the traffic beside you and then merge at the end.
The whole reason zipper merging is efficient and safe is that both lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, making merging quick and easy. If you zoom past the other lane of traffic, you are actually worse than the early mergers in terms of safety and efficiency.
Edit: For those of you downvoting me, could you please explain your reasoning? Do you disagree with the content of my message or its delivery?
You need to have the same speed at the point of merging, not while you're just driving 1km of empty lane leading to the merge point. It would be very silly to drive at a snail pace in an empty lane for no reason. You just have to slow down to the other lane's pace when reaching the merge point.
What would be the point of matching speed with the other lane when you're not actually about to merge?
His reasoning is safety, because it's supposedly (and I guess understandably...) unsafe for cars to be moving at very different speeds next to each other. I assume what people are afraid of (or what actually happens) is that people in the lane moving slower might drift/shift into the lane moving faster and cause a collision. When this happens while both lanes are moving at similar speeds both cars are more capable of avoiding it.
I've been there. I've been in the backed up lane in traffic with the lane next to me moving much faster, near the speed limit. I often try to get into the fast moving lane and it is a bit scary because it can be difficult to see far back enough to get into the lane without cutting somebody off. I still believe it is the fault of the people in the slower lane for being there though, and it is their responsibility to stay in that lane or find a safe opening to get to the next lane. If I see a bunch of stubborn early mergers, I will assume that is where they want to be and I will drive past them like a bunch the bunch of parked cars they are. But I will indeed not necessarily drive 80+ mph and I will pay close attention to the movements of the cars.
As you say, there is a lot of room between "drive 10mph stop and go next to the backed up lane even though everything is wide open in front of you" and "drive 65mph next to the lane going 10mph."
Your speed should not be more than 20mph different from the lane next to you. That's probably at or even past the limit of a safe speed differential.
There are three reasons to drive slowly in the right lane.
(1) It's safer (matching speeds reduces odds of and damage from collisions)
(2) It's more efficient (If you zoom ahead, there is a nonzero chance that drivers in the left lane will be annoyed and attempt to block you, reducing global efficiency. Note that there's no loss in going slow since the bottleneck is the constraint. As a result, going slow can only gain and never cost.)
(3) It's fairest (people who arrive at the same time will leave at the same time, regardless of their lane)
Most Cloud based POS have an offline mode, which still allows you to process transactions. Vend (vendhq.com) stores a local copy of the information needed to process sales (products, taxes, payment types) and allows you to continue processing sales, although it restricts you to selling and you can't manage inventory etc
I don't get why, if you signed a non-compete in good faith, you don't just honor the agreement ? Either stick up for your morals and don't take the job because of the non-compete or actually accept it not only as a legally binding contract (because they are rarely enforceable) but a moral one. I've caught employees poaching customer lists after they turned in their 2 weeks, verifiable by security software and video camera evidence. We didn't prosecute. Why shouldn't a business have non-competes though ? It's just to protect themselves from situations like I described. I wish the world was a happy place where things like this didn't happen, but it isn't, and not protecting yourself from this kind of thing is just asking to get screwed over. Nobody is a perfect judge of character.
I think the sale would still have gone though. For a lot of people putting in a small amount of money and getting a HUGE return on it is reward enough in it's own. So if some people put in 500-1000 and ended up getting 10x or more their investment back during an acquisition, unless they had some huge personal investment, it'd be hard to turn down that kind of money in the bank. I think this would be especially true if things went to scale. The big players would call the shots though and do the same thing as they do at the board now, choose the option that makes them the most $.
Personally I love them. I buy almost every one that comes out. I'll be passing on this one, but I'd be very sad if they stopped offering weekly deals. It's a good chance to try developers/genres you haven't before.
While this may be convenient for developers, I doubt gamers are going to want to see the same rehashed textures, objects and effects with each game they purchase. Reusing art assets - to me - just sounds lazy. Like something you'd find in one of those poor 'Game Creator' apps.
I've heard this kind of comment about reusable content throughout my career in many different contexts and it's always equally true and false.
Here's the reasons I think you need to be a little bit more nuanced on this topic:
a) Sometimes it doesn't matter - The plate and chair in the background don't need to be invented from scratch everytime
b) Sometimes it's just a starting point. You won't know it's library content because it's been edited, enhanced or used in new ways.
c) Sometimes it's just part of a bigger whole. You're not going to notice the brushed aluminum bump map when it's combined with the libraries 'scratched specular map' and a few other ingredients - a cook isn't cheating when he uses bouquet garni or a garam masala from the catering supplier.
Take this one further, and you might ask why it's all run by cartels. We make it profitable for them with prohibition. We give them the resources to wage these wars ourselves. The only reason this violent industry exists is because the government makes it that way with unjust laws. Tax and regulate just like alcohol and it will be run by normal non-violent people. Just like liquor stores. Prohibition has never and will never work.
