There are no issues, at least as long as you can supply power to the base station: just make the motor/generator reel in the kite, that causes plenty of movement relative to the stationary air to keep it afloat and controllable right down to the reefing mechanism.
I have a similar tic. I just edit my hosts file to redirect those requests to localhost. Then when I mindlessly navigate to one of those sites it doesn't work and I realize I did it unconsciously. I do the same for gmail because I have the same tic for checking my mail.
If I actually want to go to one of those sites I just edit the hosts file and comment out the redirect line.
On my mac, the /etc/hosts file looks like:
# #
# Host Database
#
# localhost is used to configure the loopback interface
# when the system is booting. Do not change this entry.
##
127.0.0.1 localhost
255.255.255.255 broadcasthost
::1 localhost
fe80::1%lo0 localhost
127.0.0.1 news.ycombinator.com twitter.com www.facebook.com reddit.com
127.0.0.1 mail.google.com
I do that too! But then of course there also the moments when I am really procrastinating and I remove them again... but that's a dumb excuse as it's much easier to solve than the subconscious problem, thanks for reminding me.
The only way the doctor would get a $300 deduction is if they use accrual accounting and had already reported the $400 as taxable income. It's isn't a free deduction that comes out of nowhere.
With accrual, you report income when you bill for it, not when you receive it. Suppose you treat a patient on December 31 and bill the insurance $400 on same day. You report the $400 as income and pay taxes for the entire $400 in that year.
The next year, insurance only pays $100, so now you have a $300 loss to report in the new year. But you only have this loss because you've already reported the $300 as income.
If the doctor uses cash accounting, there would not be a $400 income entry on December. There wouldn't be any income to report until they are actually paid, and then the income is the actual amount they are paid, $100.
At my company (Mixpanel), the modern equivalent is our support team, which is filled with smart, hungry people who want to get their foot in the door in tech.
Now, we have former support folks all over the company (sales, sales engineering, services, software engineering, product - just to name the departments I can think of offhand), who are often our top performers as ICs or who have grown into leadership roles. Some have left to start their own companies.
It's actually been one of our most effective hiring channels!
This is something I've been wanting to ask at interviews, "how many people who work here were hired with a different title?" I'm pretty sure that promoting from within is an extremely strong indicator of resilience.
we're a/b testing the button copy... the Starter package is free and the Growth package pops up a plan builder with pricing.
It's complicated because the price is based on your user volume so there's not a single price to show. We've heard this feedback though and are working on an improvement!
I'm really excited about this release - sampling has been necessary to support some of our largest customers for many years, but has a bunch of issues, as Vijay points out in this post.
I love the fact that moving sampling to query time lets us beat the tradeoff - we get something like 90% of the speedup of ingestion time sampling with none of the downsides, and the only incremental cost is storage which is cheap. It's a big win.
I hadn't heard of this person before, but a couple of points resonated with me:
First, the framing of equality and redistribution, and the suggested emphasis on focusing our efforts on raising the floor rather than lowering the ceiling:
In Anderson’s view, the way forward was to shift from distributive equality to what she called relational, or democratic, equality: meeting as equals, regardless of where you were coming from or going to. This was, at heart, an exercise of freedom. The trouble was that many people, picking up on libertarian misconceptions, thought of freedom only in the frame of their own actions. If one person’s supposed freedom results in someone else’s subjugation, that is not actually a free society in action. It’s hierarchy in disguise.
To be truly free, in Anderson’s assessment, members of a society had to be able to function as human beings (requiring food, shelter, medical care), to participate in production (education, fair-value pay, entrepreneurial opportunity), to execute their role as citizens (freedom to speak and to vote), and to move through civil society (parks, restaurants, workplaces, markets, and all the rest). Egalitarians should focus policy attention on areas where that order had broken down. Being homeless was an unfree condition by all counts; thus, it was incumbent on a free society to remedy that problem. A quadriplegic adult was blocked from civil society if buildings weren’t required to have ramps. Anderson’s democratic model shifted the remit of egalitarianism from the idea of equalizing wealth to the idea that people should be equally free, regardless of their differences. A society in which everyone had the same material benefits could still be unequal, in this crucial sense; democratic equality, being predicated on equal respect, wasn’t something you could simply tax into existence. “People, not nature, are responsible for turning the natural diversity of human beings into oppressive hierarchies,” Anderson wrote.
There's also an interesting bit that I haven't considered or heard of before: the original arguments for the free market were to escape a tyrannical hierarchy, topping out with the king - a free market was much better than that. But as we have built out free-market economy, we've gotten to the point where the decisions your employer makes are just as arbitrary (and probably have a greater effect on your daily life).
Images of free market society that made sense prior to the Industrial Revolution continue to circulate today as ideals, blind to the gross mismatch between the background social assumptions reigning in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and today’s institutional realities. We are told that our choice is between free markets and state control, when most adults live their working lives under a third thing entirely: private government.
Her idea of equality as the ability to function equally as human beings resonated with me too.
Many years ago, what started my shift from a capitalist to what I am today, was the following question: "If people had to earn and pay for breathable air (a basic) the same way they had to earn and pay for food, education and medical care (also basics), would the world be a better place or a worse place?"
The world I imagined was one of such desperation that hardly anyone had time to think about anything but themselves, a world that barely advanced because hardly anyone had the luxury of time to think of greater things.
I am now completely sold on the idea of taking the basics out of the competitive equation (nutrition, education and health). Desperation is the enemy of civilization.
I believe the fundamental difference between paying for air versus food, education, medical care is that air is abundantly free. Someone could try to charge you for it, but you could just open your lungs and consume all of the air which they haven't bottled.
Food requires land, plants, and animals. It requires labor. It requires you to either produce it yourself or interact with someone who does. Air does not.
Read _The_Air_Trust_, a sci-fi novel about a century old. Then consider that human intelligence declines when CO2 reaches levels that might occur within the next century or two. If levels of inequality do not decline, we can reasonably expect that the wealthy will be polluting the planet with even more CO2 in their efforts to protect the brains of the dominant class.
This is already starting to happen in China. The upper class are able to utilize air cleaning technologies to eliminate any external pollution within their living spaces, while the lower and middle classes can't afford such luxuries.
Is the decline in intelligence with respect to CO2 correlation or causation? Obviously, we should make real efforts to protect our air quality, as we all benefit from this. And we should make efforts to prevent people from polluting the air to their benefit (creating capital or profit from some action which pollutes the air -- an action which otherwise would be unprofitable if we were to make it illegal).
Because nutrition, education, and healthcare require resources and effort, one cannot guarantee their availability for all without forcing labor, thereby impinging on the freedoms of others. Thus they cannot be basic human rights without forcing some degree of inequality.
One should have every right to pursue such goals, but defining these as unalienable rights is incompatible with egalitarianism.
This used to be my thought as well when I was a capitalist. But then I realized that this is a form of insurance. What we pay to maintain the welfare system in an insurance premium in case we need it one day. It is also a sort of social utility fee -- it reduces crime and makes society more livable. I'd gladly pay for these benefits...
> We are told that our choice is between free markets and state control, when most adults live their working lives under a third thing entirely: private government.
Of course, in practice, private government goes hand-in-hand with growth in the usual sort of government - this is what today's "institutional reality" looks like. A truly free institutional reality would have people constantly voting with their feet, shopping around for the best "private government" service. It's only because of pervasive interference that this is not allowed to happen today.
But there is no way out of "pervasive interference". For instance quite obviously the normal state of a network company as was Standard Oil, AT&T and nowadays Google and Facebook is a monopoly. How do you "vote with your feet" then?
The fundamental error is the erroneous belief that markets will magically find equilibrium states, and optimal ones with that. Both premises are false: market tend to equilibrium only in undesirable situations such as oligopoly, monopoly or monopsony; else they're simply chaotic and fail to converge to anything stable and go anarchically from boom to bust.
Sabine Baring-Gould is a character in a non-canon Sherlock Holmes novel by Laurie R. King called `The Moor`. If you enjoy fictional accounts of widely knowledgeable characters, I recommend it :)
Honestly you could probably write a quick pipeline to dump your json data into Mixpanel and then use JQL -- it would be a little hacky but if you have less than a few million rows it shouldn't be too much work (and would still be free at that volume).
