British English speaker here - I'm having difficulty identifying the word you're referring to here. Or are you referring more to definition and statistical presence in common usage?
Since "gotten" isn't in the list, I'm going with "someplace". It even seems unusual to me as an American, as I would write either "some place" or "somewhere". If the phrase is also unusual in British English, that's definitely something I had never noticed.
Is "gotten" the only word that exists in American English but not British English (apart from "someplace")? Your comment strikes me as trying to bring up a pet hate in an unrelated conversation.
I'm sure it's not the only one, but it's the one that immediately came to mind. I thought it might be in the list because it's close to a foundational word in American English.
Sorry that you chose to read my comment as hatred. Yeah, that's not a real apology.
IANAL, are you? This sounds like something you'd need to plaster with a LOT of disclaimers, especially if you're straying away from standard t&c/tos documentation.
Discreet industries have quite specific legal terminology (in my experience) and machine learning is probably better suited to weeding out mistakes in documents rather than interpreting the contents within them. It's the interpretation that earns the big money. The example you've given is useful - but useful to an audience with specific prior knowledge and an existing familiarity with the licence landscape. Expanding beyond this is probably going to be an exercise in unintended consequences.
The idea has a lot of merit and would be truly disruptive it it could be achieved, but if lawyer jokes have taught us anything, there is no shortage of motivation to reduce the worlds reliance on lawyers, but nobody has yet come up with a good solution (to my knowledge).
Reminds me of mathematics. Shortest solution is usually the best (many Pythagorean theorem proofs) but they take effort and time. Law is also formal languages using logics.
"Law is also formal languages using logics"
In theory yes, but contracts are not math and even though the consequences of disputes are costly, there is enough subjectivity within legal language that arbitration and interpretation by third parities is often required. i.e., two parties can have differing opinions on the meaning of the language and there can be enough uncertainty that costly proceedings are justified. (I'm talking specifically about civil rather than criminal law, and excluding cases where an interpretation of evidence is required)
I'm not sure about how contracting works where this guy is, but in the UK if you're contracting you can (generally) be let go by the end of the hour if your management wants it. Nothing illegal about that at all.
Also, I can see how someone who's paying this guy a day rate might not take too kindly to an article written by said day-rater that looks rather like "don't worry about how long you'll be paying for this project". He's asking them to pay that day rate for an undetermined length of time for undetermined outcome.
Completely unrelated but as a British English speaker I was amused by one of the linked articles - http://www.inquisitr.com/3341656/pokemon-go-accident-man-acc... - I think the writers don't realise how many asterisks they actually need to use in this article, given some of the more localised swear words being used in the quotes.
agreed - though I think the grandfather comment was probably referring to the UK marketplace and the US experience of subprime credit sales is somewhat different at the mortgage level. Payday loans are a different story all together and have the a similar, or even more vulnerable target market here in the UK as subprime mortgages in the US. However payday loans are not usually offered by traditional banking vendors in the UK and as such banks get off the hook here.
Having personally had a £10 unarranged overdraft turn in to over £200 of fines, the idea that UK banks get off the hook is ludicrous. They've been forced to tone it down now.
Yes, I've been stung with these sort of charges myself in the past here in the UK - the banking code has cleaned up this practice a bit in more recent times; however I think it's fair to say there's a material difference between being stung for £200 and having your house being ripped from under you by sharp banking practice. I recommend watching the film "99 homes" - it's not a perfect film by any means but illustrates many of the coal face issues of mortgage repossession in the US.
> however I think it's fair to say there's a material
> difference between being stung for £200 and having
> your house being ripped from under you by sharp
> banking practice
There's a debate to be had about "no such thing as free banking" - I'm very familiar with the world of prepay in the UK and retail banking practice is a big headwind here.
The big deal in the UK, a few years ago, was that a person would go overdrawn, deposit money to cover it immediately but then get charged an overdraft fee by an overnight process. This fee would put them overdrawn, leaving them liable for a second overdraft fee - which would be charged the next night...
This was ruled to be illegal and banks had to set up whole departments to process return claims. I suspect this is the main cause of the big headwind.
It was slightly more insidious than that - they were processing debits before credits, and charging a fee for insufficient funds if your balance dipped below zero (or below your overdraft limit) in the process:
Also, when you had a bunch of outgoing positions a day, they (used to?) ordered them from biggest to smallest, thus hitting you with the maximum number of overdrawn transactions.
They also charged a fee for standing orders that didn't go through because of limited funds in your account. Instead of just ignoring them.
They have to make money somewhere. If it's free checking account, then maybe the account interest is low, or maybe the connected credit cards have high interest, or maybe they do a hard push on loans, or... Basically banks are not charities - in the best case, the everyday banking is simply a loss leader for something else.
In principle I agree, that makes sense. In practice, we've had freeish banking for decades in the Netherlands and it's excellent. Further the other services are all decent, too, there's no real push on loans or creditcards. Mortgages are popular but the rates are very sensible (such that it's cheaper than renting atm, even disregarding the capital gains on your home). Below a short overview.
I was flabbergasted to hear about overdraft fees when I first saw them feature in social justice documentaries (e.g. Spent: looking for change).
My interest is low, but that's normal in 2016. .5% to .9%
Any CC payment I make is deducted from my checking acc 30 days later, no interest. It's essentially a normal debit card with 1 month free credit. After that it's 12-14% interest per year. That's very high of course, but it's not exploitative like a payday scheme. Further, keeping CC debt is quite uncommon here. And I can borrow up to $25k at 8.9% say for buying a car. That's pretty steep but not high compared to other countries, it's also not a very popular product. Mortgage interest is currently 2.9% fixed for 30 years.
As for my bank account, I pay about $15 a year for it. There's no costs to depositing or withdrawing money, putting it in or taking it out of a savings account. I mostly bank via an app on my phone, and payments arrive in minutes or hours. I don't pay anything for the shared acc with my gf either. For the CC I pay an extra $15 per year or so I think.
Now if this was a new startup in a growth phase where it's burning cash and offering free services, sure, but this bank was founded in the 1880s and has had roughly this pricing scheme as long as I can remember.
All in all I think I've paid maybe $250 for all by banking in the past 10 years.
Rapidly? Slow constant fall for 3 years against USD (actually the same as 7 and 10 years ago), pretty stable against EUR, starting to go up against GBP. It's all relative :)
Yes, exactly. Credit is by far the biggest the driver for income in the financial sector, and consequently its biggest source of pain for those swept up in disasters of their own or others making. Anybody thinking of starting something disruptive in the fintech industry needs to have a very clear understanding of the absolutely central role that credit plays in the entire system.
this is certainly currently the case for the UK, with protection of deposits up to £75k for private account holders (http://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/products/banks-building...), though I'm sure we could find plenty of antecedents if we cast the net widely enough geographically and historically.
completely irrelevant point of clarification: bank underground refers to the London Underground (metro station) stop immediately in front of the bank, rather than some sort of anarchist agenda (but given UK civil servants general ambivalence towards authority there may be a slightly sly nod to the alternative reading of this).
Although, there was at one point an anarchist organization called the weather underground: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground I understand they had a "brick reallocation committee" that reallocated bricks through windows.
As objectionable as such behavior might be, I find the understated names pretty amusing.
I would suggest you find out a little bit more about the BoE. It's not an investment or retail bank, it's a central bank which is more about influencing economic policy and other banking policy than pushing money around. Interestingly the UK government decoupled the bank from direct control in 1998, which greatly reduced the risk of wild interest rate fluctuations driven by political motivations, which had caused a lot of pain in the previous decades.
They're public bankers. It's an arms-length institution wholly owned by the UK government, which has mandated them to set monetary policy to meet statistical targets as a means of de-politicising monetary policy.
It works quite well, certainly better than when it was directly run and the UK had a lot of inflationary instability.
The BoE provides political air cover for political decisions. In no real sense is it politically independent. It can be relied on to do absolutely nothing to promote economic policies that could benefit the majority of the population at the expense of bankers, land owners, rentiers, and speculators.
The bank itself is owned by the government but has independence from it in certain matters of policy. There are certainly many employees who come from private banking backgrounds but the bank is not a private bank.
