And in this case the jury found them on the hook to pay for the results.
I'm not sure what they were expecting. Direct action agains an oil pipeline in ND is gonna go over about as well as direct action tourism in Florida. If by some miracle you get a judge sympathetic to your cause you won't get a jury that is. The local people want this industry, generally speaking.
I loved the winters. I loved the people. I loved how its natural beauty was subtle and rewarded the patient, unlike El Capitan or the Black Hills. The economy was fine before oil appeared.
My point is not that oil fails to generate revenue. Clearly it is a lucrative business. Instead, my claim is that the state economy was remarkably robust, productive, healthy, and well-optimized for middle class quality of life pre-2007.
Does it sound surprising to you that it was perfectly normal to rent a perfect acceptable two bedroom apartment in a safe town on the interstate for $300 a month and still easily find dignified, decent paying jobs without 1000 applications?
I've lived in many cities and work in tech now, and I can confidently say that, as it concerns the professions and jobs that unambiguously sustain and improve life, no community on the planet was more productive than my home state. There is more to the story than some shale.
My pet theory based on personal observation is that there's a strong inverse correlation between nature trying to destroy your shit and insufferable people.
London has a very high ratio of extremely nice houses on a road opposite council houses, or former council houses. There can often be a very large mix of housing in one area.
FWIW ancient Rome was also like this, and for example in Pompeii you can find extremely fancy houses with frescoed dining rooms right next door to single room hovels. They didn't have subways or mobile phones though.
It seems to me to be quite the feature ... well, everywhere except the USA. Certainly all over Europe, one finds this mix. In the USA, you generally only find cheap/low quality/small housing stock adjacent to expensive/high quality/large housing stock where there's some municipal or other border, and the two just can't avoid being where they are.
London tends to get that because it has never really been planned. It just grew over the course of 1600 years and absorbed other areas as it went. There are plenty of areas where a row of £20m+ homes are opposite blocks of 3-bed flats that go for a hundredth of that price.
Hundreds of years ago, before the rail or underground network, you still needed plenty of working class to live near where the rich people lived as the rich people still needed shops, servants, etc.
Having the city split into individual boroughs means that each borough had to provide for the full economic spectrum. The really expensive boroughs still have plenty of social housing and arbitrary divisions of land mean that things but up against each other from different boroughs.
However, new developments don't always get it right, when big green-field or brown-field sites are converted to residential they often struggle to get the correct right, and you end up with bigger areas that only cater for a subset.
National planning laws are also circumvented or gamed. If a new site requires a certain percent of "affordable housing" the developers will often agree (with the local borouhgh/council) to roll that over with another couple of projects and then build most of the "affordable housing" all in one place, and the diversity of individual areas is diminished.
As you say, there are plenty of other places in the world where this is the case, most of them in countries/cities that have existed for hundreds or thousands of years.
Imagine living somewhere that people who work service or retail jobs (or nursing or teaching or all manner of underpaid but essential professions) can also afford to live!
Because it means that you don't get areas of extremes. (well not as much.)
It also means that local services can't be compartmentalised so that only rich people get decent services.
For example, southwark uses the same police force to cover the southbank (cultural centre) the £5m apartment blocks, as well as the shithole council estates (well they aren't shitholes anymore.)
The problem with 'well just don't buy it' is that in many product categories, enshittification has become so entrenched that there are no longer options to avoid it. The availablity of product features is driven by market forces, if it's no longer profitable to sell a TV that doesn't require online connectivity for the purposes of ads, then such TVs will no longer be sold.
Alternatives like using monitors designed for digital signage come with drawbacks. Expense, they don't have desirable features like VRR, HDR or high refresh rates, since they aren't needed for those use cases. Older TV models will break and supply will dry up.
In the long term, this problem, not just TVs but the commercial exploitation of user data across virtually all electronic devices sold, isn't something that can be solved with a boycott, or by consumers buying more selectively. The practice needs to be killed with legislation.
VRR is Variable refresh rates, so if there is nothing going on in the content, they can bring the refresh rate down and save processing, thermal issues and energy. If there is a lot going on(say a game), they can ramp the refresh rate back up super high.
There are a few different "standards" around VRR, not every device supports all of them.
Their explanation of the reason for VRR is bad. The primary reason people want it is gaming where the game is not locked to a specific frame rate. Without VRR, the timing of a frame being delivered isn't necessarily going to match when the display is expecting a new frame. This leads to one of two effects. Either the display is forced to hold an old frame for longer and pick up the new frame on the next refresh cycle, which creates stutter. Or the display switches which frame its using partway through the refresh cycle, which creates a visual tear in the image.
I have never felt that way, and I’ve worked on a variety of projects at a variety of companies.
Everyone has a bespoke mishmash of nonsense pipelines, build tools, side cars, load balancers, Terragrunt, Terraform, Tofu, Serverless, Helm charts, etc.
There are enough interesting things here that you wouldn’t even need to make a tool heavy project style software engineering course - you could legitimately make a real life computer science course that studies the algorithms and patterns and things used.
I disagree with the characterization of structural corruption. Every rationale actor will seek to capture all the benefits and pass on the risks. The real corruption is when decision makers know that they can’t be held responsible through corporate or political structures. See also [moral hazard](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard)
reply