Apropos of nothing, it's "jerry rigged". Jury-rigged is a corruption which is why it doesn't make sense. The phrase originates in World War 1 when jerry was slang for a German (and might itself have been a corruption of the word German).
Thanks, I actually always thought it was Jerry, but I see jury way more often and just had it in my head that I must have been wrong. :D The internet giveth and taketh.
Isn't military work mostly done by private contractors? It's not like the USAF actually owns and operates its own plane factories.
Some companies do approximate market operations internally, any company that has a notion of internal billing or where teams talk about internal customers is to some extent like this.
Companies not using market principles internally isn't a strike against markets, if you believe Coase's theory of the firm i.e. companies form at the break even point on transaction costs
No, why do pro-EU people lie about this so frequently?
The rules say that to join you must adopt the euro. The EU has chosen not to enforce this rule on legacy members for now, but certainly would enforce it on Britain and anyway good luck selling "we want to join but we plan to illegally ignore the rules" to either the EU or the British electorate.
Reality is the EU wasn't every opportunity in the UK and it's blue going to rejoin unless there's essentially some undemocratic coup. The moment is explained what thinking would entail the proposal is dead.
The rules aren't "unenforced". Sweden, and the other non-eurozone countries without an opt-out, are complying with the rules. There's no rule requiring the EU members to meet the convergence criteria.
Instead of accussing me of lying, you could've just looked up the relevant treaties.
Brexit had literally no impact on this, and will likely help significantly. Remember that the eurozone has been an economic disaster for most of Western Europe outside of Germany, and now Germany is sputtering out too. The UK was "allowed" to not adopt the euro for legacy reasons but the EU would likely have demanded entry and many other harmful policies had the British accepted the argument that they couldn't leave even if they wanted to (which was the core of the remain argument).
> the EU would likely have demanded entry and many other harmful policies
That's not how it works. The UK and EU were bound to one another by various treaties. There was no mechanism for the EU to make such a demand, whereas an exit from the EU is a defined path.
If the UK wanted to rejoin then the EU would be able to make such a demand.
There are a lot of people who don't believe in local control or the concept of an independent nation state. They imagine that in their preferred future all governments are merged into one, and regional differences are reduced to food, drink and local dances. Up until Brexit they imagined this future as glorious, popular and inevitable. After they realized it wasn't all that popular nor inevitable, and have been on a rear guard action to blame everything on it ever since. They hope that if they lie big enough, often enough, the lies will stick and one day this horrific aberration can be reversed. Hence why Brexit is often described as the cause of every problem the UK has even if those problems existed before then, or if no change is visible on the data, etc.
One of the interesting things about Apple vs. Microsoft in the early days was how differently the two companies handled the mindblow that was the GUI work at Xerox PARC.
Apple adopted the UI conventions, and refined, polished, and extended them to create first the Lisa system and then the Mac. But early Mac OS ("System" in those days) was very much based on a procedural, Pascal-based API without much in the way of object orientation. Your app had to handle the close button and the resize grabber itself, for instance -- actually listen for mouse events, determine if there was a click in the appropriate region, and close the window or buzz in a loop drawing the resize rectangle. Utility functions were provided to help with this process, but it still had to be part of your main loop. Dialog boxes were defined with Pascal records.
Microsoft, by contrast, hired some of the Xerox PARC engineers away -- guys like Charles Simonyi. The design of Windows reflects this, as Windows more closely reflects the Xerox PARC work at an architectural level. It had from the very earliest days something like an object system. A window belonged to a window class, which contained a single method (the window procedure or WndProc), that processed messages from a flexible and extensible message system. Windows could even be "subclassed" by substituting a different window procedure. This more flexible design allowed the system to provide the necessary decorations (minimize and maximize buttons, a system menu, resize grips and even scrollbars) and the client window would receive messages from them to let it know that, for example, it had been resized or scrolled. The actual mechanics of how these decorations worked could be delegated to the system. The API was still in C, not OO like we know it today, and was a bit cumbersome to use -- but it had more of those object-oriented ideas than early Mac did.
Of course, Steve Jobs didn't make the same mistake twice, and for his first post-Mac system, NeXT, he had it based all around object orientation.
It doesn't? It says judges openly advertise things like "I will no longer evaluate and thus never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist" along with many other positions. It also says they routinely award wins simply because they happen to like a particular "K", all this sounds a lot like a collection of instant win buttons.
The article says a lot of things, some of which are even true. Debate judges are volunteers and there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people who've done it. I don't doubt there are judges who make bad decisions, but that ideological quote, if it's real, is definitely not representative of how debate is actually judged in most or prestigious tournaments.
(Also, even that isn't an instant-win button! Any decent debater can spin an actually-you're-the-imperialist argument in almost any circumstances, and sadly paying attention to judge biases is also routine. And FWIW at something like a state championship tournament there are a lot more normie judges who won't vote for a K, no matter how well argued, than there are Maoists.)
Isn't the big win of superconductors that you can build batteries with them? Like, you just pump them full of power that goes round and round forever with no or trivial losses. I always heard that this was why they were interesting.
It is an option, but there are two downsides:
- such a current generates a huge electromagnetic field. So it won't work for a car battery, but may work for grid storage.
- price - there is a limit to how much current you can store, and so far this was the limiting factor - i.e. we don't really care about room temperature superconductivity in this case, but we care about the price of materials to build such batteries
I'm pretty sure you can pick coil geometries that cancel external magnetic fields. There may be some stray fields, but they can be quite modest with tight manufacturing tolerances.
It's an interesting idea worth exploring. The two places where I think feasibility may face challenge is in the energy density gated by critical current density and magnetic field and in raw discharge rate (giant inductors are not known for being able to change their current quickly).
Knowing peak capacity and aging is also tricky since you can't measure critical limits without hitting a quench (a very, very bad scenario). You'll need to maintain healthy margins so you don't have things blowing up on sunny days or after so many charge/discharge cycles.
