>Is there some good reason for this approach (need to get config updates into the wild as quickly as possible to combat zero-days or zero-hours?) or was this just a massive oversight?
I'm curious of this too. Has there ever been a scenario where zero-days could have caused so much damage that it'd warrant this speediness in patching? In a cost-benefit analysis would it justify x% of patches like this happening in preventing whatever security issues could occur without this type of infrastructure?
I don't think that necessarily is a a bad thing. Just because someone can theoretically afford a mortgage payment now its pretty difficult to predict say 5+ years out whether or not that steady job will hold, especially if they're young and have a short credit history. The down payment adds a cushion for that risk. There's less inherent risk to renting, you're looking at a commitment of 6 months to a max of maybe 2 years for most least terms.
Being too risky with handing out mortgages is partly what lead to the housing bubble in 2008 afterall.
If they're really certain their job will be stable long term PMIs shouldn't really be a deterrent, most PMI can be terminated after meeting 20% in equity.
> Being too risky with handing out mortgages is partly what lead to the housing bubble in 2008 afterall.
Being aggressively risky with little downside was a bigger root.
I worked in a mortgage comp for a bit before the big crash. "You want a 150% loan-to-value loan, no money down, no intention of proving income or ability to repay... sure, that'll be 7% instead of 5%. Sign on the dotted line..."
I was blown away when I learned about 'no down, no doc' loans, which... yes, it's another variation, but... the interest rate was all of ~2% higher, which seemed in no way to cover the risk. But no one cared, because everything was just sold to someone else, and packaged up in to CDOs, and resold again.
Someone who has 'only' 18% of a purchase price down, good credit, and steady income... to be charged extra PMI - possibly for years, because "we need to re-valuate the property 3 more times".... seems to be just more price gouging, not actually addressing real risk.
My rent for a 1 bed, 1 bath apartment is higher than the mortgage on a family member's 4 bed, 3 bath. _That's_ the issue: homeowners are putting less money into an investment vehicle while renters are burning even more money.
If rent actually reflected the value received versus owning a home I'd be less opposed to it.
You don't need 20% down. This is a lie that keeps getting perpetuated.
I put 3.5% down on my first house and even with PMI the mortgage payment is less than rent.
To add insult to injury, the massive housing inflation of the past 2 years got the LTV well above 20% which then allowed me to remove PMI lowering my payments even further.
The real risk with renting to a person is if they refuse to pay and refuse to leave. Most places you still have to let them live there for several months while you go through the eviction process. And in retaliation they can destroy your house.
This analogy is interesting do you think there are some lawyers that consider themselves 10xlawyers haha. It make sense that a lot of it would be similar to documentation and meetings and various agile ceremonies and not just 2200 hours of straight legal argumentation and writing.
Biglaw clients aren’t suckers. They don’t pay $800/hr for agile ceremonies. They go over their bills with a fine tooth comb and have ML systems to detect padding.
The Harry Potter game was a little bit more complicated, I think PoGo was probably the simplest, at least at launch, I'm not sure what its like now, and other than being a super well-known IP is partially why it was successful IMO. I guess you could probably point to that also being one reason why the HP game wasn't as successful despite also being a popular IP. I haven't tried Pikmin Bloom.
Every time this stat is brought up I always think it doesn't convey the full context. Even though its in terms of per capita, it's still an absolute amount, I think a better data point to illustrate if the US was overspending compared to outcomes would be what % of disposable income is spent on healthcare vs outcomes.
For example, let's say the US spent 2x on healthcare as some country, but had 4x the disposable income, would this still be overspending or would it be more efficient given the amount relative to income? The closest I can find is health spending as % of GDP but that doesn't capture what a person's income, since it includes government spending too, so it obfuscates whether or not the inefficiency (if any) lies in private or public healthcare in the US.
Let's say the US spent 2x on healthcare as some country, but had 4x the disposable income, would this still be overspending or would it be more efficient given the amount relative to income?
Healthcare spending in $ per capita doesn't capture how much people earn in that country or how much of a burden it is relative to their income so its kinda meaningless without more context. It's like saying the US economy is better than 85% of the OECD because its in the top 5 gdp per capita.
There's a very consistent definition for what that means with plenty of papers and institutions that use use roughly the same definition. Here's one phrasing of it by the OECD[1]. Basically it's just income minus taxes, what part of that is remotely vague?
Discretionary income might be an even better measure but that has more wiggle room on defining what is a necessity and not.
I still don't see how that's a good metric, in any way, for judging health care costs. "Disposable income" takes nothing else into account such as other costs or predatory behaviors in the healthcare system
Its literally just money after taxes, and most people are living paycheck to paycheck
You can't judge how much of a burden healthcare costs are unless you account for how much of a person's income or some proxy of it healthcare is. Just saying that the US spends more per capita than other OECD countries doesn't say anything without more context. IF you want to show that the healthcare spending isn't efficient in the US you have to at least show that it's not just because everything costs more there or that everyone earns more in the US (gdp/capita is higher than ~85% of OECD in US).
You say this like the profit seeking in the US is some sort of natural phenomenon that we can't avoid. We can adjust costs based in cost of living and local currency, profiteering is what sucks resources out of the system
Physicians in the US are protected, there's only a limited number of slots every year in med schools. This is fake scarcity
The problem is you can't practically do that for many compounds either because of ethical reasons or because it would take far too long and would in the mean time impede progress significantly.
Take plastics for example, they're as acutely non-toxic as you can get you're not having any readily measurable adverse health outcomes from handling it, touching it, and even consuming foods directly in contact with it. And yet there are still things we would have missed even if we adopted this whitelisting approach. We would have never captured the problem of microplastics that we see today, the mechanical and chemical breakdown of plastics in the environment leading to far higher consumption and presence of it in our bodies could not have realistically been studied or predicted even if we took a whitelisting approach.
Now you have to consider what the effects of whitelisting everything would mean for productivity and progress. Imagine how much more everyday things would cost if plastics had to be whitelisted before being allowed in any products. Even now knowing about the existence of microplastics, it isn't clear that the effects they have decisively outweigh the benefits of plastics.
First of all I am mostly talking about plastics in the context of food packaging.
I would be more inclined to agree with your argument regarding progress/innovation if there were more novel plastics coming to the market for food packaging but that isn't really the case and there hasn't been anything ground-breaking since PET.
Whitelisting at this stage of maturity isn't just the right thing to do, it's also easy and beats playing whackamole if you decide something needs to get phased out.
>I would be more inclined to agree with your argument regarding progress/innovation if there were more novel plastics coming to the market for food packaging but that isn't really the case and there hasn't been anything ground-breaking since PET.
disagree. there are new plastics constantly , and using bio-degradable plastics in packaging is getting a huge push within the industry for the past few years.
One example would be bovine-gelatin-films which are a new replacement for 'saran-wrap' style wrapping plastics.
a push for biodegradable plastics has been active since the U.N. listed it as a goal.
one imagines it would be hard to fully vet every proposed idea, there are thousands. Time will tell which will be human-kind.
Bovine gelatin is made from the animal’s brain tissues and it was a major transmission vector in the UK CJD disaster. At least that was the story then, apparently the truth is not so.
When those materials were the standard we also didn't have a lot of the medical and technological equipment today that arguably reduced both mortality and morbidity across large swaths of a much, much larger population. Plastics are used widely in electronics and all of the accompanying tech improvements too it isn't just simple as packaging, so it isn't a "solved problem" if you want to go back to those materials and replace everything plastic has become standard for in today's technologies.
> the largest gain in life expectancy occurred between 1880 and 1920 due to public health improvements such as control of infectious diseases, more abundant and safer foods, cleaner water, and other nonmedical social improvements
The plastics, which might as well be considered solidified gasoline, are also a tremendous hazard in home furnishings[0]. The flame-retardants slow the burn a little, but still highly combustible compared to traditional materials. The science is pointing the finger at the same flame retardants for raising cancer rates among firefighters around 10% higher than the general population[1,2].
I'm curious of this too. Has there ever been a scenario where zero-days could have caused so much damage that it'd warrant this speediness in patching? In a cost-benefit analysis would it justify x% of patches like this happening in preventing whatever security issues could occur without this type of infrastructure?