erispoe

While Amazon clearly does not have their workers best interest in mind, this is not a short-term profit driven company. On the contrary, Amazon is focused on growing and solidifying its long-term position at the expense of short-term profits.

"The New Atlantis" is not a peer review publication. It's, by its own description, a "small journals of ideas". Very far from "actual research".

That's something that your solicitor would know and advise on. There is still no reason to talk to the police without an attorney/solicitor present.

> e. Friends and family and supporters can participate - especially from their retirement accounts. This is really important - the wealth creation being broad has a real good-news feel. Sharing the wealth.

It's a really bad idea to do stock picking, or any other risky investment strategy, with your retirement account, and a really bad idea to promote it. One company goes bust and suddenly you lost your retirement savings. Or your parents did and you'll have to explain them why they'll have to continue working in their 70s and 80s.

That's a bit misleading. Lobbyists have to be registered and controlled in the European Parliament. Of course Elsevier is going to talk to MEPs and try to influence them. I would much rather that process happened under public scrutiny than not.

Depends, in regulated industries you might have to adapt to product state by state in the US much more that you would have in the EU, where a lot or regulations are now more uniform.

Homeownership isn't necessary to achieve financial security and/or build equity. The idea that it is, all the time, everywhere, a necessary step does not hold. In countries where the state does not heavily subsidize homeownership via tax incentives (Switzerland or Germany by contrast with USA or France), many households choose to invest in other assets. On the contrary, the fact that states have to subsidize homeownership to make it a competitive investment for households (at the expense of renters paying taxes and not benefitting from incentives), is evidence that in a tax-neutral environment, homeownership doesn't make much sense.

Singapore is misleading, because 82% of the population actually lives in public housing (HDB). I suppose they're counted as "homeownership" because they are leased for 99 years [1], but that's a strong authoritative state with central planning and management of housing. Lease doesn't build that much equity because at you get closer to the term the value of the lease naturally declines. And you're not free to sell or buy to who you want.

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

Some of the countries with the lowest homeownership rates [1] are also amongst the most financially secure on the planet. In Switzerland only 43% of households own their home and swiss households are, on average, way more secure than their american counterparts.

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

> Immensely more job security (Henry Ford didn't have an "exit strategy").

Ford is a public company. That's an exit. An exit is whatever makes your stock liquid, not the end of the company.

Deterrence is very different than ability to project operations around the globe. I'm not sure that the Swiss Air Force, or air forces of smaller countries in general, is an effective deterrent.

As it stands right now, the Swiss Air Force is a 9 to 5 operation, and they operationally can't answer threats at night. Not sure that fancy F-35s would change that...

But this content would still be stored and distributed, even if it's not displayed on public front-ends?

Your first link is extremely prudent at drawing conclusions. it may well be that too much consumption of pornography decreases one's ability to get to the same degree of arousal in real life. But the meta-study doesn't say anything about the effects of being exposed to pornography as a teenager, and even suggests that these effects are only temporary: quit watching that much porn, and you'll do better.

Your second link is about correlation between consumption of pornography depicting violence against women, and expressing views supporting violence against women. It does not say anything about causation. It's not very surprising that men who support violence against women would consume pornography depicting exactly that.

The two links you provided say absolutely nothing about porn exposure as a teenager. Even if there was a detrimental effect (which the 2 studies don't say), it doesn't mean that monitoring and filtering is an efficient solution, especially at the expense of a healthy relationship with your kid where they trust you enough to have a discussion about something that shocked them.

I'm curious, what do you think is the right age to give full access?

It's not so much about the breach of trust than about raising independent, well-functioning individuals. There's good evidence than sheltering kids and not allowing them to experiment on their own terms, including by experiencing the consequences of their own actions, does not create well adapted adults.

Parents who install monitoring systems are prioritizing their own short-term well-being and peace of mind at the expense of their child's future. They're eating their marshmallow right away.

"My house, my rules" arguments are absurd when it comes to raising kids, and totally disregards the end goal of raising independent individuals.

It's artificially constrained supply. It's really hard to build new housing in the Bay Area.

Most large European cities are very walkable. London, Paris or Berlin are really walkable and host millions of people. On the contrary, with the exception of North America, larger cities are usually more walkable than small settlements and rural places.

It is true that Sheets isn't as powerful as Excel. But it's a good substitute for 99% of users. And for people dealing with complex models/large amount of data, they should probably use a proper programming language (Python, R) and version control.

You say you're able to achieve 12k over the industry average, and take 7% of the first year salary. It's hard to assess how much of that 12k is due to selection, and how much is due to your work. In other word, what value you actually deliver.

Let's say the industry average is 120k (in California). If you deliver 12k extra, and take 7% of the total, you're actually taking more than 9k out of this extra 12k.

Recruiters do it on top of your salary, not as part of your salary, and the pain is felt by the company, not the employee.

It's not about the distance. It's about the number and diversity of things that you have access to.

If you have access to 10 identical Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants with a 10 minutes drive, you have less access than if you have access to 10 very different restaurants with a 10 min walk as it's typically the case in a dense city center.

I agree that the relevant metric is time. In a dense environment, you typically have access to more and more diverse things than in a less dense, car dependent suburban environment, in the same amount of time.

Density means access to more things/people with the same or less resources (walking is significantly cheaper than driving). That's what freedom is.

Icelanders pretty much all speak english. Having a common language does not mean having a single unique language.

From what you posted:

> ART ON THIS PLANET HAS BEEN HIJACKED BY ROTHSCHILD COMMIES AND ZIONISTS . .

That's not "a diff perspective", that's anti-semitism. Please don't post anti-semite stuff here...

From a space efficiency perspective, you can put much, much more people in a bus than in a car. Nothing is going to change that fact. Buses are not creating traffic jams.

The greater Zürich is 4M inhabitants, so it's more like 5 Zürich in the Greater LA. Switzerland in general is extremely transit friendly.

The difference is that life here is organized to revolve around transit. When you have to take public transit to places that are not designed around public transit, it's difficult. When all or most of your activities are better served by public transit than they are by car (try parking your car in Zürich), planning your day around transit is a breeze. Train stations in Switzerland are major retail centers. It's rare to not have a supermarket at walking distance.

Plus kids are much more autonomous. You don't have to drive them anywhere when they can safely take a tram by themselves at age 10.

Within the EU and EFTA, SEPA transfers are free.

> Soda Tax in New York that made people go to New Jersey: > https://nypost.com/2014/06/26/highest-court-in-ny-refuses-to....

This article doesn't say that. How many people would pay a toll/transit fare and spend an hour on the road both way to get a larger soda?

> I'd imagine this leads to people mindlessly buying more and more stuff, to use up that money before it loses its value.

They don't spend it mindlessly, they still allocate it relative to other opportunities. Low but positive inflation makes a lot of investments relatively more attractive, therefore incentivizing people to invest in economic activities, instead of sitting on their cash. Deflation creates a dearth of resource available to invest.

Plus it's a redistribution mechanism. If all you have to do is to sit on your cash for it to grow, then it's a rich becomes richer system. If you have to invest that money, there's an uncertainty, a risk, and opportunity for people to multiply their starting capital.

Some early bitcoins buyers are saying exactly that: "I got in early, I'm set up for life, if you didn't get early enough too bad you're gonna stay poor". It's not really how we'd like an economy to function.

> [...] people would have to spend it only on whatever they actually really need or desire. Is that bad?

It's bad if you want a growing economy. And usually technical innovation comes from relatively niche investments that no one really needs right now.

That's a false equivalence. Fiat currencies are used FOR Ponzi schemes of course. But they are not THE ponzi scheme.

The question is, do you believe in the inherent usefulness of a specific crypto? If the only way to make money from a crypto is predicated on other people putting more money in it later on, that's the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

You don't hold onto euros and dollars because you think you can sell them later on for more money. That's why central banks have inflation targets: so that you're incentivized to use currencies as an exchange instrument, not as a store of value.

What do you mean by labelled accurately? The AI only predicts how an individual self-labelled on a fairly public dating service, not how this person feels or behaves in any other way. There are so many headless torsos on Grindr (or any other gay hookup app) because many men don't want to self label as gay when they look for sex with other men. These men could very well be looking for women on Tinder.