If rents always went down there'd be no incentive to build and own supply. I think the thought experiment here is that though this is a seemingly simple supply and demand problem on the surface its also exceedingly complicated to actually plan and adjust for due to all the related inputs to housing (schools, water, fire, political representation, etc.)
Their twitter page promoted their first "maker space" which I have trouble squaring with this story. Is the message the school wants to send: creation, making, and learning is very very dangerous and only allowed under strict supervision?
A great service that I loved using, a shame to see it go.
I do appreciate the text-only export in a simple format, makes it easy to parse for future use.
I hope one of the many alternatives listed in this thread hop on providing import functionality.
I'm not sure if the article is supposed to be attacking the people that convicted Turing or the legalese used by the Crown in the pardon. On both counts, it seems to miss the mark and just wander greatly.
Unless there's precedent for not using formal wording in the pardon, I don't see what the author's point is.
The issue the author is getting at is that the pardon, and hence the monarch's body political, is unlikely to pass the Turing test not only due to its language but because it lacks empathy, sympathy, and a willingness to take responsibility for past actions or to use its power to redress wrongs inflicted upon the thousands victims of that particular injustice who are still living.
To be circumspect, neutrality towards monarchy - nevermind its celebration - is not historically a feature of either American progressivism or American populism.
I agree. It reads like a republican (lower case!) with an axe to grind. It's entirely appropriate and expected for the monarch to use such a register. What's inappropriate is suggesting that everything should be done differently because it's Turing.
I think the article can best be summed up in two of its paragraphs, which highlight the Queen's gesture as incomplete and suggest a more complete gesture ...
> "We can’t change Turing’s experience with a pardon. But his legacy mandates that we emulate, create, and codify humane and humble bodies politic, whether with law or with software, to steward and respect bodies natural."
> "According to Buzzfeed’s Jim Waterson, 75,000 men were convicted under the same law as Turing, some 26,000 of whom are still alive. (The law was repealed in 1967.) We might start by pardoning, or apologizing to, all those other men."
> We might start by pardoning, or apologizing to, all those other men."
The British government's apology in 2009 was an apology to all affected by these laws, not just Turing. I'm not sure how the author missed that, having quoted directly from the apology earlier in the article.
I'm seeing two apologies mentioned: Gordan Brown's, and the failed legislative apology.
Gordon Brown's, while somewhat ambiguous, reads as though Gordan Brown is apologizing only to Turing. He does acknowledge the injustices suffered by others, but states, "So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work, I am very proud to say: we're sorry. You deserved so much better." [1]
The legislative apology starts off, "A Bill to give a statutory pardon to Alan Mathison Turing for offences under section 11 of the Criminal Amendment Act 1885 of which he was convicted on 31 March 1952.", which strikes me as extremely specific to Turing, and wasn't even approved. [2]
The monarch did not pardon Turing, the monarchy did. Hence the signature was not that of the monarch.
Noting that Elizabeth was reigning when Turing was charged [ and later convicted and sentenced], there is some fair criticism - at least from the foundational American political perspective - that the lack of any personal acknowledgement of the injustice lessens the measure and the pardon's praise of its own beneficence, in light of its power to declare itself the very writ of pardon, is inexcusable.
Amazon Lockers have been a boon for me living in apartments with hours that don't match up to my schedule for their 'helpful' package signing service. I recently noticed I can return packages through the lockers as well. If they can saturate with enough lockers I'm not sure I'd ever actually need the "final mile" of an actual delivery service.
I don't totally follow his methodology for "time-boxing", it seems like goal-setting with a time for evaluation and course-correction, which is something all goals should involve anyway.
Time-boxing as I've heard and used it before is a working style, similar to a scrum sprint, where you have a set of goals and a limited set of time, so you force yourself and team to prioritize what fits. The team then constantly re-evaluates what fits and takes a hard realistic look at the goals that have to be done at the end of the time-box vs. those that can be changed/cut.
While this analysis, and the many others moving their way up HNews make sense, I can't help but wonder if Amazon has started to back itself into a corner. If I as an investor find value because I think they'll keep plowing money back in future R&D, what should I think whenever they do start transitioning to booking profit? Wouldn't I then be worried that taking the profit is a sign that Amazon no longer has grandiose plans or visions for the future and instead is starting a (very) long coast towards decline?
I don't find 2-3 hour commutes all that unusual, though just an anecdote, in PA I knew families which would commute via car to NYC 3 hours in traffic. On the commute if there's room to work, 3-4 hours could represent a decent chunk of thinking/coding/email time.
