Society doesn't "decide". It's a decided by the labor market. Nobody wants to pay programmers six figures.

It's a myth that we think teachers are less important than programmers because they make less on average. There is just a larger supply of qualified teachers willing to work at lower prices.

Wait until you find out how little art history masters holders make. Amount of training is irrelevant to how much money you get.

The CEO isn't supposed to be pretending to be a different person.

Not really. Unless the product has a powerful network effect, people can easily enter. If that weren't the case, starbucks would have run every coffee shop out of business by now.

This doesn't work. The problem is that you get periods where the work is relatively easy overall so 5 points ends up being tasks that take 2 days. Then you pick up new difficult features and estimate everything relative to all of the new hard tasks and you end up with 5 points meaning 5 days.

Sure you can gauge relative difficulty of tasks between each other, but in a regular developer's day-to-day life the range should really be 1-100 or so rather than making stuff fit into 12 points or less.

Weird. I thought Bush finished out his term.

Yes. How would you decide on any other number and justify overpayment to the shareholders?

>They certainly benefit from all the European infrastructure and academic research that they are not contributing back to.

Sounds like Europe has tax problems then. Pass some laws.

Unless it looks like the NSA gets Apple and Google to put in back-doors, the products are still significantly safer than Huawei which is just an arm of the government.

Then why are you talking about a garbage company? Your whole comment is building an analogy.

>Although I’d like to know which step in my story stops qualifying as one.

This is where it stops qualifying:

>Instead of taking the land, the government just declares that it’s legal for the garbage company to dump trash on other people’s land, and the owners just have to deal with it. This is quite different in the details from the original subsidy, but the overall effect is essentially the same.

The government saying "it's legal to do X" and all companies in any industry and any individual (what we're talking about is CO2 emissions) are allowed to do it, it's not a subsidy. It's just behavior with an externality that the government doesn't tax.

All of them?

>This isn't a tortured analogy, it isn't an unconventional use of the term, these things are economically equivalent.

No they are not. This isn't the equivalent of a tax break that other companies are being taxed for. It's a think for which no taxes exist for anyone. No industries are being taxed for these externalities.

It doesn't fit any of the dictionary definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

>Most people don't know the word "externality," so using a less precise term that they do know is not in any way deceptive.

It's not a less precise term. It's the wrong term. Might as well call it a bailout if you're going for political outrage.

But that's the problem. It's not a "town" in a colloquial sense for anyone who grew up outside of major metro areas. If 170k is not enough, then there are no cities in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, nor South Dakota.

- data costs for bandwidth costs hasn't gone down at the same rate

- A big chunk of an ISP is labor costs, which do not go down over time

Don't preempt people that might disagree with you by claiming they are in cognitive dissonance.

NULL & VOID, etc.

It is entirely reasonable that the system would not accept an empty string for the plate so the process folks worked around that by instructing all employees to write NULL if they couldn't read the plate.

This isn't what 'pedagogical focus' means though. Just writing down the stuff that helped you out very rarely covers what is necessary to help people out in general.

A pedagogically focused approach would also cover the assumptions you had going in and provide clear references to expected prerequisites. It should also cover the "why" for a specific approach if there are multiple approaches, which is very frequently left out of internal documentation wikis.

>Huge amounts of cheap debt allow companies to buy lots of stock, driving up prices.

Companies don't use debt to buy stock. Taking on the debt to do that would depress the stock price the same amount that the buying would attempt to appreciate it.

>All of this causes massive asset price inflation.

This would be reflected in the CPI.

>Stock prices are detached from actual revenue

No they aren't. See UBER/LYFT/AAPL.

>so the FED gets to claim "there is no inflation"

The Fed does not claim that. They claim inflation is nominal near their intended target.

Finally, stop saying FED. It's not an acronym.