My memory of RDPD was that it preaches getting assets which generate income, not that your management of those assets would be passive. Though obviously it also did have a subtext of "scale some kind of assets that generate income to a certain point and you can pay someone else to do more of the grunt work while you look into a new opportunity."
I think you should write them back and ask that they provide you with a customer list and continually update you as they get new customers so that you may follow the advice they've given you.
I wouldn't be so sure. In this specific case, they told me to ask their customers to comply with my CCPA rights. Without that information, it's impossible for me to exercise those rights. IANAL, but that sounds like a pursuable path.
> If a service provider has said that it does not or cannot act on your request because it is a service provider, you may follow up to ask who the business is. However, sometimes the service provider will not be able to provide that information. You may be able to determine who the business is based on the services that the service provider provides, although sometimes this may be difficult or impossible.
I’ve been in the lobby of hundreds of different technology companies and my understanding is that all companies are going to give you a customer list, you just have to look in the right place.
I wonder if anyone has any incentive to make it so you can pay with cash like a vending machine. (I think some of biggest benefits could be for those who struggle to afford cars, but those folks don't always good payment options.)
I mean from the perspective of Waymo or the provider.
But would the extra complexity, hardware, maintenance and associated costs ever be worth it for very small minority of transactions that would only be able to be cash.
It comes with a bunch of extra problems as well especially around abuse.
Better off just implementing gift cards to be bought with cash. Or maybe that’s what op meant?
I definitely think sapphire is the best gemstone for rings given the huge variety of colors and reasonable synthetic rough prices. My only gripe is that green shades that look nice are hard to find in synthetics.
I don't know. If you had 50 friends, reserved space at a decent restaurant, and got a DJ you could totally have a good time for what's been solidly under $10k even until recently in most of the country. Outfits + photographer + rings add, but there's obviously a lot of latitude to have a really fun time in that price bracket depending on what you like. And there are all kinds of alternatives. We have some friends who went to Italy with a wedding party of about 8 people (family and close friends) and had a great time. I don't think it was cheap, but it was probably below the low end of the $20k if some of the wedding party paid their own way and they had a really fun Italian vacation. We also have friends who just borrowed someone's house, got a pile of food delivered and had basically a game night wedding thing.
I think people often spend too much on weddings, but even expensive weddings (IMO) are still in the same cost bracket as a relatively boring and reliable car. If buying a reliable car sets you back years... I view it more so as a sign that income levels are too low and people are trying to counter signal "poor stigma." (That said, weddings are also the kind of thing where extracting time from your kinship group can drastically lower costs. Rent a pavilion in a camp ground, have a bunch of people bring grills and some speakers and you can basically keep things pretty cost contained.) And of course upper class weddings are a whole different thing.
Just a suggestion as this isn't my hobby, but look into gem cutting. There are some tools for designing new cuts, but I think I lot more is possible than is commonly accomplished. And every gem material is different so that adds to things. Plus, the more precise the cut the better the result. And it's very math and loop driven.
I think lapidary and faceting often have guilds or clubs that let you use shared equipment. I think in terms of materials gem rough material is cheap for some gemstones and expensive for others. Obviously synthetic and quartz are cheaper than natural sapphire, but there's a whole range. In terms of equipment I think the faceting machines come in different kinds with different features and are maybe circa okayish laptop prices for a used one but get much more expensive for new ones or specialty ones. I know there are at least two kinds - traditional faceting and concave. I don't know that much about how designing new cuts works, but it's definitely its own niche thing and if you look into groups that do it they'll talk about facet designs and who designed them. I think there are some books and software that folks use, but I don't know a whole lot about it.
I think markdown has problems, but this doesn't really propose a sane solution.
The need markdown solves is document formatting without needing to know or use a tag-based markup language and remaining easily human readable and editable.
That said, this is actually not the most widespread requirement. And when people need to solve this requirement, there often not tons of options. So some flavor of markdown is often the least problematic option.
I think the thing to consider isn't really if the conquering of the Americas to some degree wouldn't have happened, but if a larger population would have changed or slowed the interactions between Europe and the Americas in various ways.
I know even with humans pre-modern populations were drastically smaller, but it's still just astounding to me how small of a population size it seems like Neanderthals had.
FWIW the populations weren't actually as small as a lot of these articles (including about human bottlenecks) allege in the popular press. This comes from a knowledge gap in the public compared to a biologists understanding here. The biologists are talking about effective population size (1) in most all these cases. This is an idealized sort of population size based on the idea of using the smallest possible population size that can fully capture the observed genetic diversity. It makes sense to use this measure, considering you are never fully sure how large a real population can be beyond its effective population size. So you just use the effective population size and implicitly acknowledge its assumptions.
This is well past HS biology though so popular press just skips that nuance and equates it to true population size.
Why was this the case? I thought they were at least as intelligent as modern humans and had more muscle mass, used rudimentary tools and had control over fire. They lived in a climate without a lot of dangerous animals or a lot of disease and disease vectors at least compared to the jungles of Africa.
I didn’t see it mentioned in the article, but I think it’s hard to fully appreciate how at risk they were to predators and that they were certainly not the top of the food chain yet. Humans and similar aren’t naturally adept for survival in the wilderness. We developed coping mechanisms but it took some time. Had to extinct a few big cats, bears, wolfs, etc along the way.
Were they really not at the top of the food chain before modern humans came along? It's hard for me to imagine big cats and wolf packs being higher in the food chain than beings that had their own social groups, language, fire, and spears and that are known to have effectively hunted big game.
They/we also are weak and helpless for large portion of early life. Can’t reproduce unless they survive a dozen or so years. And even then pregnancy and child birth are also huge risks to life. This probably really stunted our ability to grow large populations.
Fossil evidence exists pointing towards large eagles scooping up 3-5 year olds. It’s been a long time since we had to think of our toddlers safety the same way we think of a lap dogs.
I feel like it's more to say that, "getting eaten was a legitimate concern" they weren't really the single top of the food chain because there were other animals that would reasonably consider them prey. Cave lions were massive and definitely targeted neanderthals.
There's new evidences that even Sapiens "introduction" in Europe happend multiple times in the scale of thousand years with migratory waves comming from Africa/Middle East.
There's a 12h Collège de France course from Jean-Jacques Hublin that display new understandings that is really captivating. It's in French though
reply