Arnt

GP is saying of that if a particular job isn't well paid now, it won't be in the future. In other words, if you want to find a well-paid job in the future, look for the kind of job that's well-paid now. GP doesn't say why, but do you really wonder why?

Say you have a fancy printer and can print fake monthly passes. You can print a hundred fakes today "dated" November 23, valid for December 2026, and sell them until the end of November to people who can use them in December.

Ie. the end of the month November, not the end of December. I suppose you could also sell the remainder at a discount in December.

Yes, they're worth more.

A single ticket has to be printed and used in the space of a few hours. A monthly pass can be printed at any time and sold until the beginning of the month, for a much higher price. Much more risky for the transportation company.

So, if I read that correctly, they're promising that whatever Chromebooks run in 2035-6 will work on the hardware that was sold with ChromeOS in 25-26. And there'll be an upgrade path. Right? That's what they're saying?

It's even worse, you can learn 2000+ years old math on Youtube.

Nuclear has several major cost problems if it's own. Insuring against a major accident is prohibitively expensive, the kind of inspection+maintenance regime that's necessary for safety isn't amenable to cost reductions. The list goes on. Basically:

Nuclear isn't similar to the things that grow cheaper as the operators gain experience.

What do you think is a reasonable price/earnings ratio?

If you want an explanation: that kind of name-calling is an attempt to use your authority to diminish someone else's standing. It has up to two effects: it either diminishes that someone's standing, it diminishes yours, or both. I think the effect is decided mostly by how much authority you as writer have in the opinion of the audience.

If you don't have much, you risk a reaction such as "oh, that writer is just another name caller in the peanut gallery".

Sorry, no.

What I'm saying is that we'd pass the point of no return independently of what China did, or India, or Africa. The countries that started emitting CO₂ earlier went on emitting, and that's enough for us to pass the point of no return. Everyone has to stop emitting CO₂. China's behaviour just changed the date a bit.

Changed the date both directions, I'd say — China's building all those coal plants shifted the date in one direction, and China's building all those solar panels shifted the date in the other. The world's biggest change for good is IMHO the Chinese solar panels.

I had to look that up. Wow. Does someone rent out rack space in Mount Hagen, or how did you come to have a server there?

I subscribe. There's a newspaper downstairs, I'll fetch it later. The paper news is better than the screen news, and I'm not going to try to explain what better means.

IMO it matters roughly as much as it's common. Do you know any country where, say, 10% of public companies have non-voting stock your can buy and voting stock your cannot easily buy? 20%? 50%?

Indeed, shares can have different voting weights. And that matters, if you care mostly about the corner cases.

Eh, I know someone who did that. I needed to use that software and didn't enjoy the experience. Claude reverse-engineered it between breakfast and lunch. Now I have a pleasant interface, all vibecoded.

That's a succinct and good summary by the AI.

It's one share, one vote. And you have a choice: You can ask the company to pay you (ie. apply for a job there), or you can pay for a share in the company. Either way, the decisions are made by those who pay. And that can include you — anyone and everyone has the right to start a company and to employ others, anyone and everyone has the right to ask for shares in the company as part of negotiating compensation.

I employed a painter a few months ago, and I decided what colour the kitchen now is.

Companies have a largely democratic component at the top, called the board. Voters (those who own the company) have representatives on the board. Some boards also have representatives from the employees, that varies.

Slowing the growth from a high level just means accelerating towards the point of no return, but moderating the acceleration.

It doesn't mean stopping before the point of no return. It means continuing towards the point of no return, and going faster, but not increasing the speed as much as before.

Blaming China here is disingenious.

I don't know about standard behaviour, some people consider behaviour normal that I consider slimy.

I heard at the time that a WP Engine employee had told someone that his/her pledged "full time assignment" had shrunk to a small number of hours per week after a while. That's hearsay, I heard it from someone who doesn't work at either of the two companies and it must be third-hand. But if that were the case, and if the pledge didn't say how long the full-time assignment would be kept up, some people would say that the promise was kept. Those people probably also would say that you shouldn't trust a handshake agreement, and please have a lawyer check the written agreement, and if you run an open source project, copy the policies Oracle has for JDK.

What I say is that there's a conflict waiting to happen, if one of the parties expects the pledge to be kept up for a significant period of time and the other expects to tiptoe away shortly later.

Would not have done so yet you mean.

The other biggest emitter is still barely decreasing its emissions, far less halting. A slight decrease in the rate per year does not save us from the point of no return.

Only to the extent the company pledged to do so.

It did pledge, and the follow-up on that pledge was minimal.

He read the commit logs and understood much of what he read. That's deep understanding of the product. That alone puts him in the top few percent of CEOs.

IMO.

This sounds as of AI has wider appeal. Like those bland mass-market beers that nobody likes very much but nobody hates either. Restaurants have those on the menu as a second choice.

While a real, published, author has taste and appeals to some people, not to everyone. Journal editors make sure of that.

Answering users on forums looks like a very, very tiring job. Kudos to the companies that keep up the forums.

And... ouch what a bug, too.

There might well be a defined test like this one, from a different jurisdiction: 179 seconds is standing, 181 is parking.

I assume they want the developers to dogfood the software they work on. Not crazy if so.

I am Norwegian and have voted by mail within the country. Or maybe I didn't vote by mail. I handed in the envelope with the vote form at the post office, if you want to be precise about it. But if you want to argue that Trump is joining a large club of countries that restrict voting, then I think you ought to look at the substance, not the detail. And the substance is that I handed in the form at the post office.

My father does not go anywhere to vote. He fills in his form at home.

The restrictions are such that people can vote, and that's what matters.

How odd.

Isn't gas typically expensive, and used only for peaks? Yet these people say they want to use it for their base load.

I come from one of the countries on that list, and from a quick glance mine is one of the more restrictive one. Yet I've voted by mail in ~10 elections and the restrictions haven't bothered me, ever, so based on a sample of one the restrictions have no practical effect. They didn't block me from voting, they didn't even inconvenience me.

Do you think Trump's restrictions will have no practical effect, or are intended to have no practical effect?

I love that cursor.