https://www.peachpie.io/ - the live demo shows that it compiles to IL which yes, could be decompiled as a starting point of you wanted to extend it in C# (or VB.NET) instead of working in PHP.
The article explains why. In Albanaia, where he was going, there have been issues with people pulling money out of the bank and then being robbed shortly after.
Sounds like an organized crime problem, where bank tellers are tipping off criminals about good targets.
His solution was to take it out here, where it's safe...or so he thought.
Regulation puts you between a rock and a hard place: regulators are either people without industry experience who don't understand the relevant dynamics (e.g. GDPR, SESTA, SOPA) or people with industry experience who have incentives or predispositions towards favoring the industry.
The best solution to that is simply to regulate as little as necessary, and leave as much up to the market as possible. A good example is infrastructure and utility deregulation in the U.S. and western Europe in the 1980s-1990s. There was a time when government regulators would set, e.g. prices for electricity. Today, electric markets are mostly deregulated, with only distribution utilities remaining as regulated monopolies.
> Are there any decent plausible solutions to the problem of regulatory capture?
It would be interesting to see research on various solutions around the world. One obvious solution is paying people market rates for their work; then they don't have an incentive to work in industry. One way government has done that is by providing job security and regular hours as a perk to compensate for lower pay.
In the U.S., the Republican Party (I'm not saying it to be partisan; it's just fact) had been trying to cut pay, cut job security, and also cut personnel, which increases the workload. It's not hard to see where that might lead.
Patent examiners top out at like $140’s pretty much. Nobody that’s GS scale makes over $160. Starting salary at big law firms is $180 + bonus. So you have a fair pint there.
Also, as far as time bars, the PTO does something like this. Former examiners are not allowed to apply for a patent for a term after they leave. Doesn’t really solve the problem, but it’s something.
The USPTO also bars former examiner's from working as an attorney on cases in the area in which they previously examined for two years after they leave the USPTO. I do not know how carefully this rule is enforced.
I think this has more to do with how our brain processes words written in a phonetic alphabet.
When reading words we are familiar with, our brain treats the word as a single symbol linked to meaning (or pronunciation).
When we encounter words that we aren't familiar with, the brain has to revert back to "manual mode", sounding it out to see if there is a link to any known meaning.
If you use one of the spellings you currently consider bad regularly, it will eventually be recognized as a symbol and treated as such.
For instance, reading "knife" shouldn't provoke a negative reaction unless you're not familiar with the word; despite it having a silent K which is just silly.
According to that article, the brain remembers visual/tactile memories equally well and better than auditory memory.
So in order to prove learning styles exist, we'd need to find people who provably have better auditory memories than visual memories.
I've not seen any studies or data for this, so I'd hesitate to call it a myth until I did, since on the surface the idea seems plausible. Wish the paper referenced in that article wasn't paywalled. Be curious if it's been shown that all (or a large majority) of people tested show the same result (visual/tactile > auditory).
Frankly, no one wants to talk about chronic ailments. ADHD (the so-called fake disease) for example.
Nevermind that they are a real part of why premiums are likely as high as they are.
Nevermind that it is essentially a life-long tax for the patient.
Nevermind that the law deprives those who suffer from a case for which narcotic therapies work and CBT doesn't into profit slaves to drug manufacturer's and their 'attending' prescription writer.
They have a solution to the problem (that generally works out better for the supply chain than the patient)! How dare you suggest it isn't the best approach! What are you, some communist? /s
But alas, if we don't say it no one will listen.
So...
As the parent said...
"If it worked like normal insurance, people with chronic illnesses would still go bankrupt."
Car insurance is not comparable to health insurance. It's apples to oranges. Car insurance reduces risk, by exchanging the cost of an unpredictable potentially costly event (an accident) for a regular much reduced cost event (monthly payment). The benefit is predictable expenses and budget.
Health insurance only works this way for the healthy. For the chronically ill, it's flat out cost reduction to have it and a profit loss for the insurer.
My insurance pays out more than I pay into it every year. I had one year it paid out ~$250k.
Unless we stop mandating care for the sick unable to pay for it, healthcare is socialized; it's just a matter of how efficiently socialized it is.
Insurance companies overcharge the healthy to make up for their losses with the chronically ill, and hospitals overcharge those who can pay to make up for their losses with those who can't.
I think you overestimate the capabilities of a software engineer. I'm a backend developer. I can design and implement the backend of enterprise level systems (APIs, Service Bus, Scheduled Jobs, Automation of operations, etc).
But you still need a front end designer, a front end developer to write the clients users actually interact with and a domain expert who understands the needs of the people the software is being made for.
Sure, some people can probably do all of those things. But I haven't yet met someone who could do them all as well as a specialist.
Only opportunity I've had to work in startups, is when I'm working with a domain expert and a front end developer who happens to know enough about design to be the UX designer as well.
Best case scenario, that person is also a domain expert, or I am. Either way that still involves me finding someone else with the drive, passion, time and energy to pursue a startup.
Oh and that's ignoring all the legal crap you have to deal with in a startup.
Freelance = Let them deal with all the bullshit and take their money to solve a problem you can solve well.
Startup = You have a team of people with a common vision. Or one person with the capital to hire them all... which has been my most common experience (they usually are domain expert too). Maybe you get rich, maybe you lose all your invested time/money, maybe you get screwed due to not understanding the legal documents you signed.
Startups are hard. Hell I had a group of guys that each had complementary skillsets and we considered starting a company that consulted for startups (helping them understand what to do, and guiding them through the process). Unfortunately two of them passed away :(
