The verification issue though for import is a big one, we couldn't just trust a JSON file the user has uploaded to have real references, there would be nothing stopping them writing their own glowing references.
I still have an active CS account (Taiwan-registered) and can cross-check the references for any imported profiles. If there's a huge rush then no doubt my account could get blocked for bot-like activity, but I'm willing to do the verification for the first few thousand.
At the moment I would think its not likely for you to just scrape the profile on CS and then paste that in the right filled. Its something that if someone wants to exploit they can code anyway, its mostly there so users spend less time filling forms.
We did something similar for Thingiverse at the time shapedo.com was in the 3D printing. It worked fine and we had a few hundred people migrating. True validation comes from people accepting friendship requests and some form of endorsement.
> there would be nothing stopping them writing their own glowing references.
Verification wouldn't be trivial, but a Trusted Human, could check that both their CS and their import match, at a glance - or the public profile could be extracted to partially automate the process.
I'm one of the Trustroots contributors, you're right about the governance topic, we have a do-ocracy approach right now (described a bit at the bottom of https://www.trustroots.org/faq/foundation). I'm actually keen to evolve this, with a more specific approach to community-governance, but this thinking and these talks take time.
It's possible to export my data from CS. Would the Trustroots community be willing to have a CS data import option, for bringing in old CS references and friends?
This is a big deal actually. From what I've heard, One of the reasons why Hospitality Club fell into decline, was that the code-base was closed source and the original developer was reluctant to let go of it.
The open source bit allows the ultimate step of forking the whole project, and that is important to me to be able to do that, but it's not a trivial step at all, and a lot of the usefulness is in the name recognition and the userbase.
But really, I want to contribute to the original project, and given I am not the original developer, it still relies on the them (and any other founders) to open up contributions. Fortunately, in this case, they have :)
> This is the real issue. Governments restrict housing supply for whatever misguided reasons and prices go up, those prices make it a good place to park cash. Government should stop picking winners and losers.
Restriction of housing is not limited to Government, housing developers also do it:
"[Kate] Barker reached a similar conclusion in her interim report, where she noted that in order to maximize their profits, developers control the rate of production and ‘trickle out’ no more than 100–200 houses a year from a large development. ‘This may not be desirable from society’s point of view,’ she wrote." (from https://www.annaminton.com/bigcapital)
Personally, I trust the reasons that a Government would limit housing more than I would a for-profit company who are probably operating in the interests of investors who don't live in the affected areas.
Even more than Big Government control though, I would prefer the people that live in an area to have the biggest say into how things are run.
Corporations who collude with or otherwise use government/laws to manipulate markets in their favor are even worse in IMO.
The fact still remains though that the housing developers wouldn't be able to trickle out homes at their whim if the government enforced limits on housing weren't preventing other developers from competing.
It is just a convention, not a rule. It is very common in classical music for a piece in a minor key to end on a major chord (called a Picardy 3rd) or in some cases to end on the dominate 5th - which is a major chord. The latter though, isn't usually the absolute end of a piece because it leaves you hanging (rather like ending "Happy Birthday" on the word "to" - and leaving off the "you").
It depends on the size and the stability of the basic income. If a bank knows a customer will get $X/year for the next 5 years, giving an upfront loan to allow that person to create a business becomes a lower risk proposition. A basic income could easily expand the number of low to medium-risk borrowers and expand the amount of savings present to use as a base for lending.
I'm not an economist so I'm sure there are variables I'm not accounting for, but here's my opinion. I think the difference is that an endless supply of money (we know it's not truly endless, but a large influx of cash) allows commerce to occur and people can buy/sell more than commodities. The mere existence of a bank doesn't improve the lives of citizens if said citizens have no money to purchase food/goods and no assets to offer as collateral to take out a loan in the first place. There needs to be some sort of economy in place before a bank will benefit a population anyway. The bank could also benefit because residents now have assets to leverage when seeking cash above and beyond their basic income since I'm assuming starting a business may cost more than donations or a basic income would provide.
> an endless supply of money (we know it's not truly endless, but a large influx of cash) allows commerce to occur and people can buy/sell more than commodities
I'm not an economist either, but I think the concepts you want to look up are 'money supply' and 'velocity of money'.
I don't think this works. Presumably cash has a lot more utility than rice or shoes, for example. These people can always use more money (i.e. bank loads in your example), but once they have x shoes or y rice, the utility of new shoes or rice is very low.
> Presumably cash has a lot more utility than rice or shoes, for example.
It has a lot more fungibility, which should also mean that the marginal utility of cash drops slower (as a function of total utility from that source) than for rice or shoes.
Gitboard as a whole uses jQuery, but not the component. I will have to clean up the code a bit it seems, will do that in the coming days and publish the component.
> Deaths per 100,000 people is probably the wrong figure to look at to determine the safety (or lack thereof) of driving.
Kind of. It's useful to see the per distance and per population figures. You are likely to drive more when you are in the USA compared to Europe (due to the culture and bigger distances to travel) and this increases your risk.
If I was analyzing my total risk of dying in a road accident, both figures would play a part.
The full name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - calling it "Great Britain" is just wrong (it excludes Northern Ireland and all other smaller islands). You would also hope an official website can get it correct.
Although entire languages get it wrong - in German the UK is translated as "Großbritannien". Edit: they do have translation for UK ("Vereinigtes Königreich") but I've never heard it said/written yet... I think I'll start using it.
A worse version is when "England" is used to refer to the UK. It's very common, maybe less so in official contexts.
There's a massive difference between the two. The Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish (plus islanders and whatnot) tend to get pretty peeved when you refer to them as English.
I accept that people outside the UK might not care, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. There's also a significant difference between making the mistake in casual conversation and on a formal document.
There's not a massive difference. These are people who speak (for the most part) the same language, have (for the most part) the same religion (Christianity), live a few miles from each others, listen to the same music, watch the same tv shows and read similar books at home and school. Sorry, but for outsiders, you are the same people and for the most part, they'd be right to think so. People are not that different, especially people who have so much in common as the inhabitants of the UK, get over yourself, you're not that special.
I'm sure you don't know and care that southern Peruvians from Arequipa like to be called Arequipaños and wouldn't like being mistaken with Northern Peruvian from the Jungle etc. Thing is they're the same to any outsider.
Calling all Americans Yankees is exactly like calling all Britons English. It's not a slur unless used as one (Yankees are, roughly, people from New England/northeast U.S.) but many people will take offense when incorrectly labelled so - even if "no one cares". You could imagine a Breton's reaction to being called a Parisian to be roughly similar. Or a self-professed Catalonian being described as Castilian. Or an American asking about best place to get currywurst or bangers and mash in Paris, I mean all these places are pretty similar anyway, y'all listen to Eurovision, sorry if that offends you...
It's not offensive. Of course it's not. It's just blatantly incorrect. Your taking a group of 4 countries + some islands and referring to them by one of the 4 countries names. It'll confuse people. They now have to think: when he says 'England' does he actually mean England - which would be the obvious meaning - or is he one of those people that has no understanding of geography and is actually referring to a group of several countries? If you refuse to use the correct terminology, even when you are very obviously wrong, you're just confusing people unnecessarily.
This distinction has traditionally never been very important in Germany, so people didn't habitually make the distinction.
That's exactly the point: you have no idea about usage and connotations in German, but still consider yourself an expert who should have the power to prescribe a foreign language.
As an aside: we're also lumping together (dancing) balls and (foot)balls. And lots of other things.
This is the first Germany has been brought up in the conversation. At no point was I discussing use in languages other than English and at no point did I argue that. It seems you argument has fallen apart and you have resorted to changing it.
The political country I have citizenship in has a name, it's written on my passport - it is not "England".
Maybe you can see the problem if I explain it in this way: you can become British (meaning "UK-ish"), but you cannot become English.
Not only is it technically wrong, but it also contributes to perpetuating the dominance of England over the other parts of the UK.
I try to clear midconceptions/misunderstands of other countries when I know better, I would invite you to do the same now you know more :)
Hopefully I can soothe some your resentment of my accusation too - I have been learning about Germany and the forms it existed in before the unification of the states in 1871 - the culture goes back a lot further than this, I am currently learning German and planning an extended tour by bicycle (when I have learnt enough) so I can get more deeply into this topic.
Because for Swiss people like you, Welsh people like us don't like doing business with Bavarians who call us English. Maybe if you weren't Austrian, you'd understand.
Your examples are completely wrong. The Netherlands is sometimes mistakenly refered to as Holland because this for a time this was the accepted way of referring to the country and its people. It has never been the accepted way to refer to Scottish as English or Welsh as English or Northern Irish as English.
The American comparison would be more suitable if you referred to the whole of the USA as Washington DC.
Interestingly, it used to be pretty common in the US to refer to the Netherlands as Holland--maybe even the norm. Anecdotally, this usage seems far less common today. I have to confess that I didn't know until I looked it up just now that Holland was a region within the Netherlands.
In English--I have no opinion about other languages--it would certainly seem odd to refer to the entire of the UK as "England." For example, you'll get looked at funny if you say you're going to Edinburgh in England next week.
[Edit: My recollection is that it also used to be more common to refer to the "U.K." as Great Britain.]
Because Holland is a region within The Netherlands. Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales are completely separate countries. Holland is not. NI/S/W are not part of England.
Calling it a kingdom is also wrong. It has only a queen, not a king. But really, I'd be surprised if any typical person outside of UK knew the difference. I'm a British citizen (of the 1st kind) but had no idea till now that Northern Ireland is not part of Britain! Let's all just call it England because that's so common already.
