>The very simple problem is that there is no way of providing hard spend caps without giving you the opportunity to bring down your whole production environment when the cap is met.
And why is that a problem? And how different is that from "forgetting" to pay your bill and having your production environment brought down?
>a factory-made carrot cake is labeled UPF, but a home-baked one isn't, even though they're practically the same thing).
Actually they are not. "Practically" is carrying a lot of weight there. The factory baked cake will have a lot more extraneous ingredients and usually has a larger quantity of sugar and fat. Similar to how restaurant food generally has a lot more salt and fat than home cooked food.
Yes, right off the bat a factory made carrot cake will very likely contain dough conditioners, colors, and preservatives that no home cook would put in their scratch made version.
The direct impact of those extra ingredients alone or in combination is not entirely clear at this point, aside from building evidence that people whose diets include more of that seem to be less healthy.
Yep just a glance at the ingredients shows obvious differences. Other issues I've seen studies about include contaminants from conveyor belts, and for many snack foods, processing into smaller particles, effectively making them partially pre-digested.
Well, they should track population growth. You cannot effectively serve a larger population with the same resources, otherwise we would continue to have two lane freeways everywhere.
Here we have the "stupid" bit of my reference. No, the budget should not track population growth, because improved technology means that occasionally the cost to provide the same service to an individual decreases, whereupon the budget should also decrease. Or, for instance, a military threat or other transient event (eg COVID) that necessitated temporarily elevated funding levels expires, and the budget should decrease accordingly.
The converse being, of course, that sometimes transient events or large shifts (eg increase in costs of materials used to make some important good that the government procures) make things cost more, and so the budget should increase in proportion to those beyond population growth.
Improving technology has not increased housing stock or transportation options. Everyone still needs a place to stay and ways to get to/from work. Another issue is that using technology to reduce humans in the loop is what gets us "your call is important to us..." levels of customer support.
If the number of people who need to apply for id/license/passports keeps increasing, then the number of people servicing those requests also needs to increase (or we need to stop complaining about the dmv). No amount of technology is going to replace that need.
Your repeated fallacies and factually inaccurate assertions just hammer home the fact that people who think that government budgets should monotonically increase are either stupid or malicious.
> Improving technology has not increased housing stock or transportation options. Everyone still needs a place to stay and ways to get to/from work.
Completely irrelevant.
> Another issue is that using technology to reduce humans in the loop is what gets us "your call is important to us..." levels of customer support.
Factually incorrect. The customer service experience that I get from Google is orders of magnitude better than anything that I've gotten from a staffed government agency. The experience of interacting with them is just straight-up better than the DMV, despite the fact that it's extremely difficult to get in touch with anyone at Google, while the DMV employs tons of people.
> If the number of people who need to apply for id/license/passports keeps increasing, then the number of people servicing those requests also needs to increase [...] No amount of technology is going to replace that need.
Factually wrong. There are numerous real-world examples of processes like those that massively decreased in the amount of people needed to service them - things exactly like getting a passport or processing your taxes, or cashing a check/withdrawing money (the latter of which are now completely automated). And, as such, the number of people needed to service those requests does not necessarily need to increase.
Reality itself disagrees with you - I would stop digging yourself a hole before you show that you're insane because you don't live in the same world as everyone else.
> The customer service experience that I get from Google is orders of magnitude better than anything that I've gotten from a staffed government agency.
Really? That’s the exact opposite of my experience. How do you even contact Google?
I have had consistently great experiences with government agencies from my local utility to the IRS. With a government agency I call the clearly posted phone number and immediately get an actual person who solves the problem. With private companies I have to navigate byzantine phone trees or fight with brain dead chat bots.
>To effect cuts, you can either cut the budget without improving efficiency, leading to a loss of scope (which is what the current administration is doing, and is not great)
Um, $11,000,000,000 for ICE is not a cut. $850 Billion for the department of war (an increase of $25 billion over last year) is not a cut.
But yes, CFPB's funding for 2025 which gets reduced from about $823 million to about $446 million is a cut. Which will be great for consumers because we can now start paying extra fees that will boost corporate profits.
Or they could be inadvertently flipped if the "locking" version was not installed:
(see the avherald link):
>>India's media report that the investigation is NOT focussing on a human action causing the fuel switches to appear in the CUTOFF position, but on a system failure. Service Bulletins by Boeing issued in year 2018 recommending to upgrade the fuel switches to locked versions to prevent inadvertent flip of the switches, as well as the FAA/GE issued Service Bulletin FAA-2021-0273-0013 Attachment 2 relating to loss of control issue (also see above) were NOT implemented by Air India.
> Recommendations
The FAA recommends that all owners and operators of the affected airplanes incorporate the
following actions at the earliest opportunity:
1) Inspect the locking feature of the fuel control switch to ensure its engagement. While the
airplane is on the ground, check whether the fuel control switch can be moved between the
two positions without lifting up the switch. If the switch can be moved without lifting it up,
the locking feature has been disengaged and the switch should be replaced at the earliest
opportunity.
2) For Boeing Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900ER series airplanes and Boeing Model 737-
8 and -9 airplanes delivered with a fuel control switch having P/N 766AT613-3D: Replace the
fuel control switch with a switch having P/N 766AT614-3D, which includes an improved
locking feature.
>Service Bulletins by Boeing issued in year 2018 recommending to upgrade the fuel switches to locked versions to prevent inadvertent flip of the switches, as well as the FAA/GE issued Service Bulletin FAA-2021-0273-0013 Attachment 2 relating to loss of control issue (also see above) were NOT implemented by Air India.
You've linked to something regarding an ECU component. Nothing about fuel switches. "This Service Bulletin provides instructions to replace the EEC MN4 bridge ball
grid array (BGA) microprocessor"
Because that maintenance check is an optional one as stipulated by Boeing. I don't think most users of the 787 themselves carry out the check, so singling out Air India for this alone is just bad faith
No other app can get to that backup data though except the original one that made the backup. Not even the owner of the account is allowed access to it (which I'm almost sure is a GDPR violation)!
I'm not saying it's impossible that Google just grants their own app an (IMO indefensible) exception to this. But the potential shitstorm would be massive, so I assume they probably use some other way, such as screen recording or accessibility features.
>When you speak a foreign language than English, you accent is bound to be messed up. Look at Indian Americans or Pakistani Americans or other people who speak dual langauge. There is always something off about their accent.
in the case of Indian Americans or Pakistani Americans, I've seen that it's not about the accent, but about the vocalization: there are some sounds that are exclusive to English that simply don't exist in Indian languages. As an example: the "f" or "v" sound - made by lightly touching your bottom lip to your upper teeth and then blowing air through (unvocalized for "f" and vocalized for "v").
Similarly for "th" - you stick your tongue out between your teeth and the sound of the air flowing through that restriction is what defines the "th" (vocalized or unvocalized). I guarantee that if you start making these sounds in these ways, you will be seen as closer to a native speaker of English.
And why is that a problem? And how different is that from "forgetting" to pay your bill and having your production environment brought down?