North America’s wild bird population has declined by 30% since the 70s alone, long after once populous species like the passenger pigeon were hunted to extinction.
I think the line about streaming is less of the author being a jerk and more of the author resetting the dialogue concerning the average tech know-how of Gen Z relative to previous generations. Of course for every IT geek in the author’s generation, I’m sure there are at least two in Gen Z, which the author could have acknowledged.
Things I have avoided over the past year: wearing uncomfortable clothes, being unable to use a restroom because it’s occupied, sweating from the heater, shivering from the AC, being held hostage by coworkers who talk at me about their personal lives and grievances, unpleasant noises, unpleasant smells, being asked trivial questions, the drama of coworkers who can’t behave professionally, ugly decor, uncomfortable seating, traffic, car troubles, parking woes, and unhealthy lunches. I realize these are small problems in the grand scheme of things, but we’ve proven we don’t need to deal with them, so I just won’t from here on out.
I would say that’s a strange response since the article implies the exact opposite of your assumption: that is, a right-leaning editor is applying their politics to entries on left-leaning individuals and organizations.
It seems to me that the issues you raised could be addressed through simple technological solutions or better management, assuming your company actually wants to embrace remote work.
New hires afraid to ask for help? Make it clear that it's part of their job. Developers need to see another developer's screen? Screen share over Zoom. Multiple employees don't know how to use a tool? Provide a one-hour presentation. Rinse. Repeat.
Just look at AAPL or, heck, even SPY returns over the last decade. These opportunities were equally available to rich and poor alike, and they certainly didn't require a team of analysts working around the clock to uncover.
I thought the argument was that fire allowed us to process meat and acquire the calories needed to be more productive.
Regardless, your argument seems to be that eating meat is better than starving. That isn’t an argument for eating meat. It’s an argument for food security. Guess what food security depends on. Reduced emissions.
Whether your claim is true or not, there’s more to a product than the underlying technology. Frankly, this line of discussion reads as sour grapes and reflects poorly on the Linode team.
LastPass was great when it was free, but 1Password is the better value now. Even Bitwarden provides a better looking UI. Glad LogMeIn made this change public before I moved my startup over to their service out of loyalty (i.e. laziness).
I think your comment was not well received because it compares the stock market to laws of physics and gravity, limits GME investor psychology to a) hubris or b) ignorance, describes a market exchange as a Ponzi scheme, proposes that millions of people may have been hurt by this event without defining what hurt means, and (now) expresses the view that anyone who is decent at mathematical or analytical thinking would automatically agree with you.
He could have exited for tens of millions (somewhere around 30 or 40) but held. As for my own two cents, he wasn't holding to make a point or pump the stock, but was instead sticking to his guns and following his own publicized strategy of not entering or exiting a position all at once. People read too much into his screenshots without bothering to know much else about him (e.g. his YouTube channel).
edit for clarity: The 13+ million that he did exit with is therefore a smaller chunk of what he could have made.
Looking at the author's most recent posts, I'm betting he triggered a false positive with whatever classifier is being used to identify alt-right agitators.
His posts included the following keywords or phrases: "capitalism", "socialism", "political and economic elites", "Christian Transhumanist Association", "New God Argument", "Gospel", "heirs in the glory of God", "God ensures the right spirit is associated with the right body during human-mediated procreation", "gun", "Bitcoin", "Trump." I'm also thinking that if the word "decentralization" mattered at all, it was because of its proximity to "revolution" on the political dimension.
I don't want to get into the argument about whether Facebook should be doing this or not. I do think the author is severely mistaken for assuming Facebook cares about his personal, fringe ideas on social media, considering the actual societal issues being navigated by the company right now.
It's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would argue that calling white supremacists "Nazis" is as bad as supporting the ideology of white supremacy. One is semantics and the other is a hateful fantasy that deserves no place in society.
The background information is interesting, but the lack of any base rates and the use of apples-to-oranges comparisons makes the author’s argument seem like one made in bad faith. The author omits that 20% of shelter dogs are still euthanized each year, instead using the overall population as the denominator. And the 5,700 dogs being purchased in auction by rescue groups over ten years is pretty insignificant considering that 1.6 million dogs are adopted each year (and the author even highlights the possibility that the dogs may in fact be abused but sees this as hypocrisy on the part of the rescues). The rest is anecdotes about puppy mills. What would have been convincing is an actual example of demand not being met by the supply provided by pounds, or even better, statistics on a possible shift in demographics from mixed breeds to pure breeds in pounds.
Also describing strays as living successfully on their own is absurd. Sure some haven’t starved to death or been crippled by random acts of violence by humans. Any one of them would still prefer a home where their physical and emotional needs are met.
I took an elective wildlife conservation class while earning my Master's. I had no right to be there, because I was surrounded by the brightest, most pragmatic minds I had ever met. The work that my classmates had done to stop destruction, or to sustain populations through novel solutions, was awe inspiring. We don't see it here, and there's an obvious reason for why that might be, but there are amazing people out there who are making the world a better place than it would otherwise be. The least I can do is not just give up. Thank you for doing your part. I really appreciate it.
I agree that voting (for the party that accepts climate change) is a helpful step that US citizens can take. But why prove my point by seeking to tear my idea apart? We need more action, not less. Isn't voting and picking up trash in a park better than just voting? Isn't voting, picking up trash in a park, and reducing meat consumption even better?
I have been told on this forum that the men and women working in wildlife conservation are in it for vanity or for self gratification. Relatedly, I have been told on this forum that there is nothing that regular folks can do about climate change.
But then events like this happen, and no one reflects on how fatally pessimistic this community can be. Are we ourselves not capable of forecasting the effect of a burning state on migration patterns? Are we as a society not blessed with enough resources to intervene? If we could all agree to do something—no matter how trivial—to minimize the destruction, instead of doing nothing and attacking the ideas of those who do anything, maybe the aggregate effect would be that events like this are avoided.
If you’re in this fight, please let me know how else I can help. I’m going to check on my bird feeders in the meantime.
On the other hand, there’s the suffragettes, the Civil Rights movement, the Velvet Revolution, etc. If less people made excuses and instead joined the youth, change might happen.
I wish the lower and middle classes would stop begrudging each other’s thousands and start focusing on the millions and billions being raked in by corporations and the rich.
“Apple is doing it to be Apple” is my understanding as well. As a developer, I understand the terms before making business decisions. As a consumer, I buy a product as advertised. What I hope for in both cases is consistency. I want Apple to keep being Apple, for better or for worse, because my decisions were based on that constant. Epic wants Apple to not be Apple. I’m not sure if I want Epic’s Apple.
People are saying this was a bad business model, but looking at the numbers it clearly wasn’t—-unless we’re also acknowledging that the bad part of the model was relying on Google to stay true to its stated policies.
I assume it was downvoted because it attempts to reduce a complex issue down to a single dimension while providing nothing of substance for the OP. It's also misinformed, by creating the false dichotomy of saving a tiger or saving a forest, and by ignoring that wildlife conservation is a lightning rod for public support that leads to wider initiatives.
Lobbyists require data. Existing wildlife laws require enforcement. Political support requires mobilization. All of the above can be helped by smart, enthusiastic developers. If more people help out, we can save the tiger and the forest.