Because Iceland is a member of the Schengen zone. It's possible to travel between countries in the Schengen area without going through border control (although I don't know about the specifics of travelling to/from Iceland).
That was part of my earlier point, they are already issuing a visa, and a visa to Iceland is a Schengen Visa. This seems to imply that they only want nationals from certain countries.
Contrast this with Spain's digital nomad program, where they don't require someone to have a powerful passport, all they seem to care about is having a job outside spain.
I traveled from US to Iceland to France without knowing this and honestly thought I somehow bypassed customs when I got to France. So, this is correct you can go from Iceland to other Schengen zone countries without any checks (I didn't show my passport or do customs at all)
From my understanding of the article, the BoE aren't concerned about their own infrastructure.
They're concerned about all the major retail banks using the same cloud provider and then that provider having a major outage.
Individual banks having an outage is an issue but one that can be handled. Three or four of the main banks all going down at once could be catastrophic.
Firstly, never and never in your lifetime are two very different timespans.
Second, just because those houses from 2008 recession are now worth more than in 2008 doesn't mean they have been steadily increasing in value since 2008. There have definitely been downturns in the property market. One in particular that springs to mind is the impact of Brexit on house prices in London. Sure, eventually the price might recover to the point that homes are worth more than pre Brexit. But if you are trying to sell in the meantime that drop can have a significant impact on your ability to move.
Ok never ever have housing really prices gone down. Look at any chart of average home prices in the US if you bought a house at any time and waited 10 years you definitely made money. Even in neighborhoods where >50% people were in foreclosure their homes are worth more then ever.
If you can find anywhere housing prices are less then in 2008 please say so.
The Brexit thing is just guesswork on your part those properties will be sell at the same prices they were listed at probably nobody actually purchased them in the first place just for speculation.
Look anywhere in rural areas of high tax states in Great Lakes/Midwest/Northeast, such as southern Illinois or upstate NY. Even homes in CT/NJ away from the urban centers are down in real value, maybe flat or slightly higher in nominal value.
Certain regions of the country are hot, certain regions are nowhere near. Even the differences in the regions of the US where house prices are rising exhibit a wide range from many areas only experiencing slight changes to others in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It depends if your region has the amenities people with money are looking for or if it has access to large numbers of high paying jobs.
No region doesn't matter look at the actual statistics on this. I looked at neighborhoods the had above 50% foreclosure rates and those houses STILL increased in value in the long term.
You can argue the real/nominal value, but housing cost are a cause of inflation in this regard not an effect, all prices are relative to the price of shelter for individuals.
If I wanted to create a market in trains I wouldn't hold a bid to run a specific line or route. I would hold a bid to operate specific times on a given line. e.g. Operator A would run the 7:00,8:00 and 10:00 and Operator B would run the 7:30, 8:30 and 10:30.
There are still limits on how much competitiveness that brings to the market (Operators have very little control over delays) but it would encourage the operators to compare in terms of on train service (and potentially ticket prices as well).
This is something that actually really frustrated me about the Brexit referendum. I remember reading an opinion piece in the NZ herald from a women who explained why she was voting in favour of Brexit. What it basically boiled down to was that she was jealous that EU citizens had freedom of movement with the UK and she didn't.
But conversely during the time that she was allowed to be in the UK, she had the right to vote while EU citizens didn't.
Like you I don't think commonwealth citizens who voted for Brexit were being racist, I do think it was sometimes vindictive though which doesn't really make it much better.
One thing I would say on claiming health reasons is, from the employers perspective it might be taken more as "I'm not ready to return to the office" instead of "I don't want to come back ever".
They are still going to expect you back at some point so this may result in just kicking the can down the road.
Yeh I'm sure 220k is a great salary for NZ. But in terms of purchasing power, how does it compare to $70k-£80k in the UK (I don't know, as I said haven't lived in NZ for 6 years)? I'd also be interested to know how common it is to be on 200k+ as a dev in NZ
Not sure about purchasing power, but from a salary perspective I thought that kind of money simply didn't exist at NZ companies. Maybe at Amazon or Microsoft in NZ you can get paid that much though.
My reading of GPs comment was more about the cause and effect of any corresponding price increase, not whether Netflix would actually increase their price in this scenario.
For a physical good, if you have a surge in demand as more people can afford you're product you start running into supply issues. This will likely result directly in a price increase as you can't increase profit by just selling more when you don't have anymore to sell.
In the example of netflix, the supply issue almost completly disappears. They don't HAVE to increase the price to increase their profit. Yes Netflix may decide that with the flood of new customers they can put the price up and maintain or increase their profit.
The point I think that is being made is that their isn't a physical supply issue in effect "forcing" them to increase the price. They are doing it because they want to, not because they need to.
Sure, there's no "force" to increase the price. But finance and marketing wonks read books like "Pricing and Revenue Optimization", and seeing a big upswell in demand are tempted to do the math again and see what the new maximum profit point is if they have pricing power.
"The organisation then tested it out by getting a number of ads mentioning winning prizes, or cocktails, or asking teens if they were “summer ready” approved for advertising to those targeted demographics."
So it sounds like they could go further than just identify who the target audience based on under 18s who are interested in alcohol.
I was recently in France and was told by a local this was actually an issue with the covid outbreak. There is a department that decides on the gender of new words and they determined covid (or some variant on that) to be feminine.
Every couple of years they release a statement that causes a flurry of changes in the documentation of a few projects I've worked on. Always in really curious ways too, exchanging words that are common to French people in our industry with words uncommon to everyone.
I kind of appreciate the quirkiness of the whole thing.
Gramatical gender has very little to do with the words it describes. For example, in a particularly confusing twist:
féminisme (feminism) is a masculine noun, wheras
masculinité (masculinity) is feminine.
It's mostly due to the pronunciation and spelling of the word ending. Although in this case, the Académie Française decided feminine because COVID is an acronym, and the last word of that acronym is disease, and disease is a feminine word (la Maladie) because of how it is spelled.
The issue with Covid is that we all started to say LE covid for a few months until June/July or so, maybe because we say LE coronavirus, and then they come and tell us we must say LA Covid.
