There are zoning and planning because, well, people actually live in those places, and it's natural for people to want some control over their environment. Is that really such a bad thing?
It's like drugs, and prostitution, and all of the many things that seem so trendy to want to 'free' from government these days. On paper, the ideas look fantastic and efficient. That is, until a 24-hour strip club / pot dispensary opens across from your kid's elementary school.
Government sucks because it is by nature design by committee. It's inefficient and ugly. Yet, what's the alternative? Maybe AI at some point, but until then we have either collaborative government or authoritative.
But back to the article. One thing overlooked is the pressure on city officials from developers to get rezoning rules waived. And, there's often a lot of corruption in that process, also. For instance, most cities know that residential units cost more in services than other units. And, usually the taxes are structured (too low) such that the residential tax is insufficient to pay for the supplied services. The city planners know this and they account for it in their zoning plans. But, the developers later pressure cities to allow rapid expansion of residential. And, ultimately the plans become broken by too many new units.
In Canada towns have strip clubs in the main commercial area across from banks and grocery stores. It's not an issue. The windows are blacked out and the mere aura of a strip club doesn't somehow damn children. Heck in the D.C., liquor stores are precriously close to playgrounds yet it causes no trouble. People who buy liquor have children too, and if not are still part of the community and thus tend not to do whatever it is you think those who buy legal pot will do.
There's an SM club and a store for adult toys right across from the kindergarten and the school in my area. It's mostly windows with blinds, only the signs are a bit of a giveaway. Sometimes late in the evening you see folks dressed up according to their planned activities, but I have yet to observe any ill effect on me, any of the children or anybody else. I bet a lot of people still haven't noticed what kind of action happens there.
Sorry - was just using that as an example to illustrate that most people have some preferences about what they want and need in their environment. The purpose wasn't to demonize strip clubs or pot houses. Some people may prefer a strip club next door. To others, it may be a church or a parking lot or a factory that they don't want.
Some people don't want free markets to be a force in their lives - pushing up against their personal preferences. And, those people have as valid of a position as those that do, particularly when in a community of like minded people. It's ironic that libertarian minded people try to wash away this fact - some communities want central planning and zoning, and others don't.
It ultimately comes down to how much you think that 'majority rule' should be able to force things on other people. Some communities, in the past, wanted all the non-white people to stay away from certain neighborhoods. These days, we view that as abhorrent.
I'm not a libertarian by the way - I'll happily argue for regulations and government solutions to other problems where I feel they make sense. But in this case, I think we have gone way too far in regulating and dictating things in the US.
S. Korea and Japan make some great films that are also globally profitable and influential. Seems like there's something else going on that is stifling China's film industry.
What is the point of these types of arguments and opinions if they don't have any evidence to back them? I don't give a shit if it's functional or object-oriented or procedural or whatever comes next. I just want a language that is proven, via empirical evidence and reproducibility, to solve my particular use case better than any others.
And, given all the use cases I have, I'd be amazed if one class of language can do it all. I'm guessing it's impossible.
It's way better for my engineering team to know how to use a bunch of different specialized tools, and how to use them together, than to focus on one type of tool.
If you're in a position to negotiate the terms of the option contract, then sure, you're right. But, someone with that kind of negotiation position isn't the article's target audience anyway.
Unusual options contracts usually have to be presented to, sold to, and approved by the board. So, unless you're extra special, you're going to get the boiler plate contract. And, the boiler plate contract has gotten much less attractive over the years - filled with enough clauses to make the options effectively worthless.
If you can assume that your CEO, the board, the acquiring company, and the lawyers are generous, and that the company will be unusually successful, then maybe it's worth it for the average employee to take options into consideration. But, that is a lot of assuming.
I'm not sure why any of this is relevant (it has nothing to do with what I posted). I'm not suggesting that everyone should try to negotiate unusual terms into their contracts. Aside from the conversion to 90-day expiration of vested shares post-termination, I really don't object to anything about standard equity plans.
The only things I think most people will need to negotiate wrt comp is their salary number and the number of shares in their option package, both of which the hiring manager usually has some flexibility in. And when that flexibility isn't enough, one can also try negotiating simpler things like number of vacation days, a more liberal work-from-home policy, etc. (that is, things that don't require a legal or board review).
My only true mistakes were people mistakes: Being too cocky. Underestimating the capabilities of my seniors. Competing with my co-workers rather than cooperating. Not learning to communicate effectively.
People wouldn't mind as much if they had the same kinds and amounts of data on the their observers as their observers have on them.
I kind of work in this field, and it's easy to know a lot more about a stranger than they know about themselves. Given the law of large numbers, I can make lots of accurate predictions of a person's future behavior, and I'm not amazingly smart. I'm also careful to not spy on people because that's just creepy. But, I'm certain that there are people out there using similar types of data who are 1) way smarter than me, 2) creepy, and 3) devious.
(BTW, the data that I use has all PII removed, but it's trivial to identify individuals, if one is motivated)
