grn

1. It's reasoning a'la "It's economically inefficient therefore it's less likely to happen". In my opinions, governments are absolute experts in implementing economically nonsensical policies, international conflicts included.

2. Any link between nations can be weaponized, i.e. imposing tariffs, banning imports/exports, and so on. The greater your dependency on me the more ways I have to harm you.

3. Such weaponization will naturally harm your own citizens but you, as a decision maker, will bear very little cost.

4. The easier it is for me to replace you with an alternative the more likely I am to use that against you -- this is classic BATNA. You don't like my export quota? So what, I've got more interest than I can handle and you can build your batteries without lithium if you don't like that.

[1] https://github.com/gregnavis/active_record_doctor

I’ve never had a one-page resume. It was two pages until recently. I’ve played a lot of roles (backend, front end, kernel, system level, infrastructure, product design, leadership, consulting) and a longer resume makes it easier to show that versatility — its my major selling point.

I think what to put there and how to phrase it is MUCH more important than length.

> A water spider is a Lean production personnel role centered around timely and accurate stock replenishment. The water spider team member is similar to a mobile Kanban system that refills the production line with the required materials to maintain a steady flow.

I imagine search engine could offer publishers an API to send content for indexing without having to publish it. Google and others could even charge publishers for that and then published could ask readers for subscriptions.

    Location: Szczecin, Poland
    Remote: Yes
    Willing to relocate: No
    Technologies: Ruby, Python, C, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Linux
    Résumé/CV: http://www.gregnavis.com/resume.pdf
    Email: contact@gregnavis.com

    GitHub: https://github.com/gregnavis/
    LinkedIn: http://pl.linkedin.com/in/gregnavis

Only in fairy tales. The conclusion in economic textbooks is always the same: if you're rich the opportunity cost of having a day off are _much_ higher so the more you can create in an hour the _less_ likely it is you'll have a day off. That's why CEOs of larger companies have assistants or, in case of mega corps, helicopters or planes.

Practical conclusion: if you're an independent professional schedule a fixed number in a year of weeks for vacations. If you plan for it you'd be less likely to hesitate than when making the decision on a week-by-week basis. (Said a person who had longer vacations about 5 years ago)

    adoption = integral of popularity over time

It'd be great if anyone could point to interesting resources on this issue. It seems to be an intriguing intersection of law and economics.

The question, therefore, is: what is the simplest alternative installation method for OS X and Linux?

That sounds really impressive. Congratulations!

I have mixed feelings when it comes to Dell. I use Dell U2713HM. Initially I got the first revision which had issues with a buzzing sound emitted when displaying a pattern on the screen. It completely died after a few weeks. I got a replacement (third revision) and haven't experienced any problems since.

I haven't owned a Dell laptop. How good are they when compared to other PC laptops and MacBooks?

Absolutely agree. You rightfully point out broad simplifications that I made, though I think we agree that there's still an incentive for companies to build better products. Even if the price of the new bulb lower than 2 USD, but above 1 USD, the produces has an incentive to sell it - lower sales costs (you need to do it once), lower warehousing costs, etc. On the other hand the new technology can be more expensive than the old and offset these benefits.

I sense that you think manufacturers don't have an incentive to produce quality products like bulbs that can be used for a long time. I think you're making a mistake which I'll try to illustrate with an example.

Suppose light bulbs cost 1 USD each and last 1 year. I invent a new light bulb that is the same except it lasts 2 years. Would you say selling it would be a bad deal for me? Of course if I were to sell it for 1 USD then it certainly would be. But the value of my bulb to consumers is at least 2 USD, because it's equivalent to buying and using two competitors' bulbs! Manufacturing costs aren't relevant - if my bulb is cheaper to produce then it's even better for me.

You shouldn't look at the cost of production because it isn't the only factor. Take a look at e-books, for example. Sometimes they're even more expensive than paperbacks!

Not necessarily. What about manufacturing costs? If manufacturing a CFL/LED is more labour or capital intensive then it's production uses resources that could have been used to produce other goods. If that's the case then a ban on incandescent light bulbs has a hidden cost.

You shouldn't look only at the visible effects but also at those invisible. A great essay That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen [1] by Frederic Bastiat comes to my mind. It explores this kind of situations.

[1] http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html