So you don't think a laser is an interesting invention? Those require quantum mechanics for the stimulated emission.
Quantum tunneling is key to many devices as well.
Then of course there's the reality that the mere existence of everything we see around us - the stability of atoms themselves - requires quantum mechanics.
I do think it is pro-establishment but as a remainer I was exasperated by both the outsized presence Mr Farage got on BBC programming and also the uncritical nature of the coverage of the post-Brexit negotations and treatment of dissenting MPs, so I am not convinced at all the BBC had a particularly pro-EU position.
I think you could argue it had a sort of pro-Cameron lean to it for a while simply because he initially positioned himself as quite a boring centrist, but I don't believe there was any policy alignment generally.
Less sure re: the scottish independence vote but I think in that case the BBC was sort of paralysed by what the outcome would mean for it, and that may have made it difficult for it to comprehensively handle.
I've been doing UK self assessment tax returns every year for over 15 years.
It really does just take 10-15 mins for people that have one job (as an employee) and typical investments - savings accounts, shares, etc.
The income numbers are already there and if I want to check it's easy: my employer gives me a form with the same numbers in the same numbered boxes.
I just need to specify how much income I had from bank interest.
The tax witholding system usually works as well - the main exception being straight after starting work for the first time or changing jobs, when you can have a temporary code. In these cases I just called HMRC and told them what was going on.
The employer gives my pay numbers to HMRC and HMRC give my employer a tax code that determines how much to withhold each month.
In a non-interactive case, what is supposed to be reading a response and deciding which links to do some something with or what to do with them?
Let's say you've got a non-interactive program to get daily market close prices. A response returns a link labelled "foobarxyz", which is completely different to what the API returned yesterday and the day before.
How is your program supposed to magically know what to do? (without your input/interaction)
Why does "your program" need to know anything? The whole point of hypermedia is that there isn't any "program" other than the web browser that agnostically renders whatever html it receives. If the (backend) "program" development team decides that a foobarxyz link should be returned, then that's what is correct.
I suspect that your misunderstanding is because you're still looking at REST as a crud api, rather than what it actually is. That was the point of this article, though it was too technical.
> Why doesn't fielding's conception make sense for non-interactive clients?
> Why does "your program" need to know anything? The whole point of hypermedia is that there isn't any "program" other than the web browser that agnostically renders whatever html it receives.
Seems like you're contradicting yourself here.
If a non-interactive client isn't supposed to know anything and just "render" whatever it gets back, how can it perform useful work on the result?
If it can't, in which sense does REST still make sense for non-interactive clients?
Quite a few people who have been vociferously pro-EU and in favour of their protectionism, tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers have been going crazy over the US imposing tariffs, even though the US rates are far lower than the EU's.
A similar group has historically been strongly against government corruption but recently have been attacking efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government.
> even though the US rates are far lower than the EU's
What does "far lower" mean to you? Can you give examples? Because to me, the view "Trumps tariffs are only matching what foreign nations already do" is just factually wrong.
Personally, I just think blanket tariffs as a significant form of government income is highly detrimental, from a foreign policy perspective (=> alienates allies, encourages retaliation), as a tax-substitute (because it's basically a regressive "tax-the-rich-less" scheme, which, given meteorically rising wealth inequality, is the last thing we need) and also for economic development (because there is neither the workforce, nor the actual desire, to build up low-margin manufacturing in the US-- making those products 30% more expensive is not gonna change that meaningfully).
> A similar group has historically been strongly against government corruption but recently have been attacking efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government.
I don't have a lot of beef in this, personally, but if you're talking about doge:
I just have to look at their website, and what I see are numbers that don't add up at all, containing a lot of cuts for purely policy reasons, wrapped in highly partisan messaging.
I'd be strongly against that even if they advocated for wheelchair accessibility and gay rights on their twitter, or w/e.
Corruption, to me, is if you buy influence on government policy by spending money on officials, and that is exactly what I see under Trump.
This is a lie. And no, VAT is not tariff. And no, Trumps formula does not measure tariffs.
> efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government.
There were no such efforts. There were efforts to knee cap both transparency and agencies that used to act against corruption. Trumps previous administration was drowning in corruption and there is no reason to think this one is different. Musk is effectively giving government contracts to himself.
Both of these are basically strawman arguments - there are legitimate, non-tribal reasons to be against the actions taken re: tariffs and the purported anti-corruption tasks. For example, a person can be strongly against government corruption but also be strongly against the current efforts/methods being used for a multitude of reasons. And similar for tariffs. (Not having those debates here, just pointing out that I don't believe those examples hold up.)
That is only a very recent change though, 1 October 2024[1].
Before that it was very much privatised, 1990–2024[2].
Technically in the background I suspect you will find very little has changed since October 2024 since (a) not enough time has passed (b) things like TUPE means you will end up with most of the same people doing the same things under a different logo, at least for a little while until changes get phased in.
No, read the article again. They didn't need to pass the same test to the same degree - the criteria was also changed to have "qualified" and "well qualified".
It's worth nothing that this change happened before the questionnaire was instituted. (The paper referenced in the article was from 2006, I haven't dug enough to find a date for when this change was made, but the narrative in the article also establishes this act as happening in the '00s.) Additionally, from the Conclusions:
"Reweighting was based on data collected from incumbent ATCSs who took AT-SAT on a research basis; some of these employees achieved overall scores less than 70 (that was one of the reasons for the reweighting effort – a belief that incumbent employees should be able to pass the entry-level selection test)."
I don't think this proves that the update to the test was good or bad in overall competency, but I do think it's worth investigating if the test should be updated when existing employees are unable to pass.
Quantum tunneling is key to many devices as well.
Then of course there's the reality that the mere existence of everything we see around us - the stability of atoms themselves - requires quantum mechanics.