As a presidential candidate, she's been perfectly clear that she does not intend to change that policy if elected.
Skydancer
joined 1 year ago
Easy. You either set it up as a nonprofit (still not great in terms of incentives) or, better, as a consumers (or members) cooperative.
Alternatively, you don't - you modify the incentives. Agency sets a one time, lifetime membership fee. Every failed match they set you up with refunds you a percentage of the balance.
Detailed example:
Let's assume it's a $1000 membership, 5% refund.
First match works out? They keep the $1000 First match fails? You get $50 back. Second fails? You get another $47.50 (2% of the remaining $950) By match #45, you've been refunded 90% and they're still holding less than $100.
Why it works:
This strongly incentivizes the agency to make the best possible match as quickly as possible. Users aren't incentivized to join fraudulently because they'll never get more out than they put in. The agency has no reason to create fake profiles, since a bad match costs them money.
Where it (arguably) fails:
-
This incentive structure is designed for long-term, monamorous relationships. It fails to account for poly relationships. People using it for short term hook-ups would settle over time into #2 below.
-
After a certain number of bad matches, it's not worth it to the agency to put any effort into making a good match. Since they make the most money on early matches, their incentive is to connect the most "desirable" candidates with new members. People with more failed matches will most likely be connected to ... other people with more failed matches.
Arguably, this is a feature not a bug. For new members, it means they don't get spammed by long-time members that are hard to get along with or not actually looking for a long term relationship. For the ones that the early match algorithms didn't work put for, it means they'll at least get exposed to different groups of people over time - including others that failed to match for similar reasons as themselves.
- Even if the user never makes a successful match and gives up, the agency still gets paid. An alternate strategy for the agency could be to make the worst possible matches so members give up early and they keep more of the membership fee.
This would not do wonders for their reputation and is probably not a good long term strategy for them - at least on the early matches. After a certain number of failures though, it might be an effective way to cut losses.
Pornography is ~~close to~~ full sex work
FTFY
Dems don't even need to come up with a plan - the Venezuelan opposition just showed them what to do.
Unfortunately, Venezuela also provided a roadmap to the Repubs. In the end, it may come down to exactly what you said: combat.
No, you wee right the first time. It's 27 times as big, or 26 times bigger
Reread your comment and this may not be for you due to the tossing and turning, but in case it helps someone else: Have you tried changing pillows?
Specifically, I'm thinking of buckwheat hull pillows. I sometimes make a depression to fit the headphones, even the big over-the-ear style. It's the only way I can sleep in them.
That would be true for competent web developers. Unfortunately, those are a vanishingly small subset.
Not completely ignoring - I assume that was the swipe about "only engages in genocide reluctantly" was about.
Myself, I agree with you that we haven't seen much sign of that reluctance.
That is not accurate.
- RedHat is the standard for high-budget American corps.
- Rocky and similar for low-budget American orgs
- Ubuntu Server has a large following with developers who think they don't need sysadmins.
- Debian Stable is more popular with European orgs that aren't incentivized by US government contracts to go with Redhat. It is much more stable than Ubuntu, has been more reliable in its support promises than Redhat, and doesn't suffer from the NIH syndrome that infects both.
- Ubuntu is popular with home users
- Debian Testing is good for workstations and personal machines that need to be a bit more current
- Debian Unstable for people who like Debian but want to live on the bleeding edge
view more: next ›
The opposite headline would have been more true. This ruling DOES disenfranchise those very same voters for state and local elections.
They won't get to vote on little things like who draws the voting districts, who runs the elections, who certifies (or refuses to certify) the elections. Same for who decides on school book bans, policing priorities, medicaid expansion, or mask bans.
This may be a smaller loss than expected, but painting it as a win is disingenuous.