I also think UBI is necessary, but I don't have a political agenda on how to force people funding it. Maybe it's me growing in a communist country and hating it to death (communism, socialism and all the variants that treat people like cattle "for the greater good").
I see the point, but I don't see what is wrong with that, and I am relatively poor person. I see calls for equality all over the place, but nobody wants to be equal, especially not in taxation - a fix amount (not percent of something) sum per citizen is equal and nobody wants it. Equal rights, equal taxes, equal obligations, no exceptions - be it financial, demographic, military, etc.
I don't understand how some people write hundreds of text/chat messages per day. I am communicating by talking to people almost 100% of non-work, most of the discussions are face to face, I write or receive a handful of texts or chats per week, maybe a dozen per month.
I find text messages impersonal and it also takes longer to communicate clearly what we need. There is so much lost. Even chats and emails for work are at risk of creating misunderstanding, especially because English is not the native language of most of my coworkers, all these adds to result in pretty low quality communication.
I heard that lie about "sensible restrictions" so many times, now I am waiting for "sensible violence", "sensible beating to death" and so on. It is a false argument that "there will be restrictions so all I can do is suggest more sensible restrictions", what you can do is recognize that "no restrictions is an option".
It is like negotiating with a terrorist that wants to kill you and this is his starting position and then he wants to agree on some compromise, like seriously beating you. There is no negotiation.
Yes. Not often, but yes, it happens: when I am working on something where it takes me a few hours of deep focus to complete and I get interrupted, it can derail me for days. What disappears most of the time is engagement, I tend to postpone that work for next day or more.
I am paying taxes in US for over 20 years, don't hold a green card, not interested in ever getting one and not complaining that I don't have the right to vote. How are these things related?
What I did not see in the article or comments is the fact that people dictate how things evolve. People vote with their wallets (or via local councils) in ways that directly or indirectly influence the outcome. The title can also be, and still correct, "We killed the brick and mortar toy store". This makes people think more than "it's raining", which is impersonal and somewhat inactionable.
In my part of Europe doctors are paid extremely well. Construction workers also earn quite well given the lack of qualification required, a highway worker earns more than a junior developer and even more than many mid-level developers. The raise in these 2 sectors are definitely above the IT sector for the past 10 years.
Wealth distribution is a false flag. Rain distribution across the globe is not equal, solar light distribution is not equal and they impact people's life more than wealth distribution. USA and the entire planet's population is at record high in living standards and wealth, but some people are still unhappy because not everything is perfectly equal and at zero entropy like the thermal death of the universe: this is more than illogical, it is just envy without limits.
That does not address the point. You say they should pay even more to address the idea that very few people pay most of the taxes, what is the logic here?
I think they were pushed not to have children, if that matters. Pushed via economical measures that made it very hard and pushed via education/indoctrination that kids are bad in multiple ways.
My grandparents had many brothers and sisters each and life was harder back then, but it was easier to raise a large family than today. What changed? Taxes, with direct and indirect effects.
Same for me; but what they did not tell, because it was not needed at that time, is that not everyone is capable of going to an university, the admission was tough and the school was hard, so people were filtered by capabilities. 20 years later universities doubled the number of students as they made it a business first, not education first, so we got too many people with worthless diploma and no qualifications and no potential.
I live in Romania and we have high taxes on labor (but very low for journalists, so they are happy) and we have labor shortage in some areas - in my grandparent's village it because a lot of young people are working in Germany and also because people don't have kids. But we have places where 1/3 of the inhabitants live on welfare and that is less than 100 km away, also in rural area.
Are you sure the wages don't rise in high demand, low supply areas? We all just read the 7 figure salaries for people in AI stolen from one big company to another, what is that?
Yes, companies are picky, but it is slowly changing. They cannot afford to be picky anymore, but change takes time.
The article is low quality. It talks a bit about the problem, not about the cause and it does not help anyone.
The example at the beginning seems to be a now classic "I have a degree in an area where supply greatly exceeds demand". There is demand, there is supply, but there is a misalignment of qualifications and interests. If "well-qualified people" means fresh graduates in domains with low demand, then the qualification does not matter. In areas like constructions and handymen there is a serious shortage, if not a crisis, in the entire Western Europe. There are jobs, but not the ones most people want.
Too many people go to universities for a degree without checking if there is demand for these degree. Many that I know go to universities just to have a degree, they don't even care what is the domain. I have a childhood friend that is regularly unemployed, he is a historian, but he does not like working in archeological sites and there is not enough need for historians. At the same time we cannot find enough people for construction works, it is hard work and most people don't want it (diversity and equality does not work in such jobs, never did).
People living in rural areas were capable of fixing most of their houses by themselves. When I grew up I spent most summers in a mountain village where people were self-resilient, I had all sorts of woodworking tools in the shed and other than electricity there was nothing my grandpa was not fixing himself and it was the same for all our neighbours.
Now a couple moving from a city to a rural area needs to learn to do this work or not move to a village. The population decline in most places makes it clear that availability of services is only going to get worse.
This is subjective, there are companies that are mostly an investment vehicle and companies that have a strong motivation to make changes in the world. Investors, especially passive investors like pension funds that are only interested in returns, should know in advance what they are getting into and decide if they want to buy shares or not; it should not be "I will buy shares and try to change the company".
I worked for a company where activist investors bought enough shares to have influence, then practically messed up with the company in a way that today, 10-15 years later, the company is a shadow of what it used to be - fell from top positions in Fortune 500, share price is lower in inflation-adjusted money, management is extremely politized and unprofessional, most professionals left or retired. I don't think this is what we want from SpaceX, in the end this is the company that moved the needle in space launches and cost per launch/kg, it's not a ketchup company that not too many people will cry about.
(partly off-topic rant) One can argue this is a false premise fallacy. For most of the time states did not have this information about their citizens and the world progressed quite nicely. The only argument to know stuff about citizens that don't drive (increasing numbers) nor travel abroad (different problem altogether) is to tax them?
One of the foundational differences between humans and cattle was you cannot brand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock_branding) humans. Not physically, because we do it digitally and I see a slippery slope.
> They also need to understand the effects that having a child has on a woman's body.
I thought they were built for that. For tens of thousands of years women had on average 7 children or more, it looks like the process is very reliable. These days birth-giving mortality is very close to zero, also post-birth care is quite good, so we are in a better place than ever and still concerned?
If the population halves each generation the biggest problem is total societal collapse. The children and the elder cannot be sustained by a small number of people of working age and the infrastructure cannot be maintained by a dramatically dropping population: even with AI and robots, roads don't fix themselves and train tracks don't get fixed by robots. We will not even have enough doctors and nurses to care for the seniors and no economy to make retirement possible (money will be worth their value in paper as there will be no people to provide services and goods for it).
If someone things the population on the planet is too big, then plan for a reduction that is manageable and change the pay-as-you-go pension system that exists in most of the world, that is based on working age people paying the pension for retirees. Even at replacement rate the pension systems will collapse, they were built in a time when the average number of children per woman was around 7 and the age of retirement was higher than average life expectation.
I was a manager of others who were also called "managers" (they were Project Managers and App Managers) and I was still writing code when needed. These days most managers in IT in my company are non-technical to the point they cannot write a single line of code in any language. Their managers are so non-technical they don't understand SDLC or anything related to what their people are supposed to do. Times changed, what is a manager today changed.
I wonder how the best manager was not qualified to understand what his team is doing, if they do it right or not and was also not able to help them in case there was a technical challenge. This is not how successful companies operated when they became successful, before getting bloated.
10 GbE has a good performance/$ ratio, better than 25 GbE, and it is 10 times faster than the basic (for today) 1 Gbps. If you need more go for 25, but the availability of cheap cards, switches and cabling (DACs, AOCs, transceivers) is lower than for 10 GbE. For me, 10 GbE is the baseline for the year 2025 at home.
I think you are mixing it quite a bit. SFP+ is still Ethernet, also SFP28 gives you speed (25Gbps) RJ45 will never do, so the extra card for the extra speed is mandatory.