Gpetrium

I find the conversation about leisure time throughout history to often be mis-characterized or missing valuable insights to support someone's perspective of "wanting more control of their time.

If were were to look at the working hours in a few European countries, it becomes clear that the weekly work hours has diminished from 65-70hrs in the 1870s, to 35-40hrs in 2000s [1]. This, coupled with technology solutions that helps decrease household shores, improves healthcare and decreases time to acquire consumer goods (The list goes on), it becomes clear that we live in unprecedented times in terms of leisure.

It is also interesting to see hunter-gatherer societies, which is estimated to have worked from 2.8 to 7.6 hours. Did the increase in leisure time lead to 'true human potential' for these societies? If not, what makes us believe that it will be different today? Is it possible that more leisure time will lead to more boredom, screen swipe, etc?

If we were to assume that [1] data will continue to move in the same direction, then we are likely to have further gains in 'leisure time' led by a new technological evolution.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours [2] Working Hours in Hunter-Gatherer and Other Premodern Societies - https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours#note-1

In a lot of cases, it falls under similar reasons to why the US brought thousands of German scientists during and after WW2 via Operation Paperclip [1] and others, to work in places such as NASA. It becomes a matter of compartmentalizing secrets, understanding the individual's drivers, considering the levels of risks and potential ways to mitigate it, etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Here are a few things to think about:

- A country or its institutions may be sanctioned by the sponsor's country. Increasing the difficulty of processing financial rewards.

- Increasing the number of languages covered by the sponsor via Terms & Conditions [1] and Q&A support [2] increases the cost of launching the challenge.

- Some countries have stricter and/or ambiguous digital and financial laws, increasing the risk and cost of compliance to the sponsors.

[1] https://www.openideo.com/content/cybersecurity-visuals-addit... [2] cybersecurityvisuals@ideo.com

It applies to 53% of the world population and was likely limited due to a country's laws, ability to provide support to different languages, etc.

Healthcare has often outpaced GDP growth [1][2], putting a continuous strain on hospitals and other healthcare service providers. This in turn leads to less money being spent on non-essential parts, or at least the ones that are deemed to provide lower ROI for stakeholders (E.g. personnel, patients, family of patients, etc).

It is also worth noting that the trajectory that the company you work for in terms of office change is likely to be an outlier and (in)directly creates an skewed perspective of things, which when brought back to the average environment, creates a 'shock'.

[1] US: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... [2] CAD: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/NHEX-trends-narrative-r...

For Microsoft, the investment will likely come from computing resources to support AI practices/tests, MS personnel and paying current OpenAI personnel (expensive due to their expertise). The findings and expertise will likely be used in the future to help drive improvements in Microsoft's stack (cloud computing, search engine, etc). OpenAI will be licensing some of its technologies to Microsoft

For OpenAI, it means the availability of resources for their main mission for the foreseeable future, while potentially allowing founders and other investors with the opportunity to either double-down on OpenAI or reallocate resources to other initiatives (Think of Musk, for example).

"Do people understand what "Microsoft will become our exclusive cloud provider" means?" It likely means that computing power will be provided by Microsoft and that it may have access to the algorithms and results.

If hypothetically, a brain-computer interface were to exist, it would likely reach individuals that are well-off first. As the base solution becomes more widely available to the mass, enhancements to speed, quality of information capture, processing and others would help create tiers to the product, some of which would only be available for the right price. Coupling access to information devices with real experience (which often involves spending resources), it means that there would continue to be gaps in social mobility further exacerbated by people's means to acquire the tech necessary to break through their socioeconomic status.

It would not surprise anyone if Project Dragonfly's termination occurred as a consequence of current trade spats between the two nations which could lead/has led to some animosity towards each other's products/services.

It is very likely that a majority of cited researches around the world/internet are in English or have been translated to English to allow for easy accessibility to the wider community[1].

[1] https://www.researchtrends.com/issue-31-november-2012/the-la...

If someone doesn't take good care of their yard and/or there is an infestation of sorts (E.g. ticks in relation to lyme disease, beetles destroying native plants,etc) some governments may even require you to spray the yard.

These tools are often created to augment current and future technologies. It can serve to confirm an actor when other technologies are inconclusive (e.g. Face mask), it can serve to increase the likelihood of identification via multiple confirmations (e.g. visual, audio, heart) among other things.

The cost of desalination (thermal & reverse osmosis) remains quite prohibitive for most nations due to its high capital and operating cost [1]. Unless the world finds a scientific rationale for doing something of that magnitude (E.g. Pour water in the Sahara to slow down world temperature from rising) or a major resource discovery, it would seem counter-intuitive to desertify it on behalf of 2.5m people [2]. That is not even accounting the unintended consequence such as the Saharan desert feeding the Amazon [3], a place considered the lung of the earth. It would likely be more manageable to have that population become climate refugees.

[1] https://www.advisian.com/en-us/global-perspectives/the-cost-... [2] https://www.britannica.com/place/Sahara-desert-Africa/People [3] https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-...

Most people that think about the effects of drink-n-driving tend to link it to deaths. In reality, a majority of the cost is tied to public/private property damage. In that case, it is valid to argue that a drunk drone pilot can incur serious damage to electrical grids, increased odds of moving the drone to heights associated with airplanes/helicopters among many other issues.

I think it is worth noting that historically, land-locked countries tend to be less well-off than its counter parts. Examples such as Switzerland & Austria are an abnormality due to a variety of unique factors that have only occurred in Europe so far.

Overall, the rule of law, regulatory environment and open market of Uganda and its neighbors are not at the level needed to to maximize its potential. This, coupled with the cost of borrowing (think interest rate), asset risk (E.g, forfeiture, robbery, piracy) and a few key negative economic indicators (Major balance of trade, current account & gov budget deficit) can put a dent in a country's mid-long term success.

Zoos can serve as an opportunity for people from different demographics to be able to see a small sample of what the world has to offer. It can also help facilitate conservation efforts by allowing people to have direct & indirect interactions with the animals and professionals in the area, which they would not have otherwise.

Some people have advised to "Close Zoos and encourage people to see the animal in nature" without thinking of the unintended consequence of having millions of people swarming into these animals' natural habitat. If more people were to see animals in their habitats, it would likely lead to an increase in pollution, an increase in motor injury to the animals, more dangerous animal-to-human interaction in nature among many other issues.

If society believes that some animals should not be in captivity at all due to moral/practical reasons, it is worth asking: What other technologically driven solutions can be made/used to help people of all demographics experience what it is like to be in front of X animal? The solution may be to have a moving replica, a 3D simulator or something entirely different.

If we look at Gartner's Analytics & BI magic quadrant from Feb 2019 (https://www.qlik.com/us/-/media/B0DCF50C816448EEAC8981B02387...) it becomes clear that Tableau(Salesforce) & PowerBI(Microsoft) are the driving force in the area.

The move to buy Tableau likely comes from an interest in enhancing cross-compatibility between Salesforce+Tableau, the ability to provide a more robust service offering that can compete with Microsoft (e.g. If you buy our CRM solution, we will give you Tableau for a 25% discount) and a concern that another big player would have come in and taken Tableau.

Although there is a good % of the market that works in a similar way to your business, it is worth noting that when a deal is exceptionally good, executives will create exceptions. MS Suite and some of its satellite offerings (PowerBI,Sharepoint,etc) is a good example of an exception.

There are also cases where a company will pick multiple vendors in an attempt to de-risk and/or for negotiating tactics. If you are fully dependent on a single vendor, the cost of migrating tends to skyrocket and the negotiating power moves towards the vendor.

Some may argue that to remain competitive in today's environment, some tech companies require a diminished amount of customer privacy, otherwise their foreign rivals will be able to do more and be more successful in the long run.

For the EU, if there is a belief that their tech companies can't out-compete against foreign rivals (Think search engine, social media, cyber sec, etc) and that their data could be used against them in the near future, it may seem intuitive to put privacy checkers to get foreign entities in line with your interests.

For those interested in gaining insight on working hours throughout history, I would recommend you to take a look at OurWorldInData's empirical study. It looks at weekly work hours since 1870s, hunter-gatherer work hours, productivity vs annual work hours, etc.

https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours

It begs the question, is a portion of society burning out because of the type of work, current lifestyle, our knowledge & expectation about the world, something else or a combination of factors?

Without information regarding the medical device, it can be difficult for us to provide a solution, so in my opinion you should ask yourself:

* What properties cause the device to malfunction?

* What kinds of scanners/tools can lead to the malfunction?

* What would the malfunction look like?

* How much time would she have to get medical support?

* Is there an alternative medical device that decreases the risk?

* Is it possible to get a medical certificate that shows she has the device and its implications, allowing the officer to know before-hand?

It is worth noting that some devices that can cause the malfunction may already be available for private citizens to purchase, so creating a plan of action may be the best option regardless of whether reinforcement officers intend to use it.

For now, it likely serves a few purposes: to cross-reference information in the database, as a legitimate reason to deny someone who may have lied to the officer, to uncover new information about the individual [1] & to decrease the need of a court order.

The best course of action a civilian can do is to put pressure on their govs to create a system that protects their perceived interests.

[1] Since the person can't tell what kind of information the immigration office has, they are more likely to over-present

Sometimes a perceived "lack of coordination" is built into the program to ensure the principle of least privilege is followed, lowering the risk of leakage and many other issues that may occur.

@otalp is likely talking about the distortion created by having a large % of overall investment made based on components of market index instead of hard data (e.g. financial statement of X company show below expected return, I will decrease investment). In other words, mass indexation can create market distortions depending on how they are structured.

The reality is that private entities and external actors are already using data to figure out better offensive and defensive maneuvers. If the entities of your nation do not take similar steps, they are likely to be ill prepared to "serve & protect" you and your interests, which may include a fair and functional democracy.

Some may ask "why is the military involved" the answer relates to the fact that today's military have realized that foreign actors will weaponize technology (e.g. internet, social media) to serve their goals. To ensure that the goals of your nation are protected, the military has moved more and more towards the cyberspace.

Here are a few benefits that can come from such endeavor:

* Relief efforts - How do people react in social media before, at the time and after a disaster happens? How can social media be used to connect to the ones in need? How can X entity use social media to advise groups in a risky area (e.g. landslide) to diminish damage and risk of life?

* Trolls - Are there cues that can be used to determine when someone is a troll? Can that information be used to help society become more resilient in the future?

* Training - Can this research help dozens/hundreds of personnel to gain valuable know-hows and capabilities in the cyber arena? Will that knowledge translate in a more capable entity?

Another question to ask is whether X entity follows your ideological view and whether there is enough oversight. If the answer is no to either/or, then as part of a democracy, you should raise your concern with representatives & the people around you.

I think it is worth noting that different organizations/teams may require differing amounts of work related to technical debt. This is often driven by business culture, priorities, team experience, long term business goals and many more.

From experience, a lot of people/companies have difficulties marketing what/how/why/when technical debt should be tackled for both internal and external stakeholders. This leads to a less than optimal structure where "new" or "shiny" work is preferable and rewarded, as opposed to a more balanced approach.

Shorting of a stock is used for both speculation and hedging a position. Tesla has been on a continuous downwards bear trend for the past YTD, so it is very likely that quite a bit of money has been made shorting Tesla up until now.

Just because a few players are able to buy Tesla entirely, it does not mean that shorting a position is necessarily bad.

Excel allows for the democratization of technology, decreasing the barriers to entry and allowing for easier user experience.

People/teams/companies need different degrees of security, complexity, data, etc to their day-to-day operations. Someone may be interested in fiddling with data without others seeing, others may not want to share certain data broadly (answering your point below). Excel has served as a way to unify these needs for the most part. Some other options available tends to fall on the outer-layers, where excel may not be optimal and someone felt a specialized tool could improve speed/quality/cost.

At some point, people realize that they are underestimating their projections and that leads them to re-calibrate expectations with stakeholders. In this case, there is no re-calibration, which leads "non-believers" to think he is a serial liar. The answer is likely in-between, he knows he underestimates it and he is aware that if he doesn't do so, there wont be enough pressure on the employees and the money would likely dry up fast.

To be fair, a company doesn't need to be doing a scam to fall outside the expected budget. There are many causes for budget fluctuation, for example: Inflation rates, wage changes, cost of materials, disruptions, operational errors, overtime, change requests, etc. Besides, it may not necessarily be a scam in some cases since all parties expect the cost to increase, it becomes a matter of how much of variance is acceptable to stakeholders.

Another problem in public policy is that a lot of major infrastructure/work would never be implemented if the public knew the end price tag at the start.

$400 for a month is close to $20 per day or $2.25 an hour(4 weeks*5 weekdays). If the environment WeWork gives provides a boost in your productivity, helps you network with other like-minded individuals, increases your brand exposure, provided extra amenities, decreases the cost in comparison to your current environment, etc. Then it may be worth it.