id02009

I live in Poland and struggle with this question myself.

I don't want to die or kill so the suits on the top can then negotiate new post war order, which would almost certainly perpetuate this BS in the future.

On the other hand: appeasement leads to more bullying, and might cause even bigger conflict on the future (we've seen this happen in WW2)

Real time relationships, the logic of love.

This reminds me of late 2000s, when a WYSIWYG editor had a potential to completely brake the pages layout with a single unclosed tag. Two steps forward, one backwards.

The question is: would anyone pay low seven figures just for the privilege of hiding the same thing? They'd expect this investment to return few times. They'd either start pushing "better" (different) version to subscribed people, splitting the community. Or, as you mentioned, introduce ads. But I don't think just acquiring a channel to display ads was the goal (the article mentions the goal to grow subscriber base), because it's a fad that will fade away- good chances are this will happen before they manage to show enough ads to recoup the initial investment.

would hurt... their careers. I presume.

IIUC she'd fire anyone who'd challenge the hype or raise issues in the company. Not sure why you'd feel bad for her.

Not necessarily. If there's an instance of someone blowing the whistle, and there's no investigation it's completely reasonable to suspect that the whole integrity of the process might be iffy.

Blocking the article (instead of opening relevant books to show that in fact it was just exception to otherwise solid prices makes) makes even stronger case that the prices is not honest.

There's more made up stuff on there. Like a claim that unregulated markets are quickly filled with monopolies etc. Yet the only monopolies I see today are set up and protected by the government. And those have abysmal level of service and are really hard to use.

What do you think about this idea, could it work?

Create a Job Board where you pay engineers to be on. Or pay for each message that is sent (engineers in high demand will be messaged more, and get more $$ for getting more job messages).

Just an anecdote, but I remember my aunt and uncle farm. No economies of scale at all. My uncle would leave to work, and I remember my aunt's day. Prepare breakfast for kids. Let chickens out. Go to shop (on foot, they had no car) bring necessities. Go tend the vegetables garden. Cook dinner. Take care for elderly mom. Uncle back from work, it's 3pm, she was already busy for 9 hours. I think at this point she allowed herself to watch TV.

I know it's from 1990s, but it feels weird to claim that 15th century work was less, when you would not be able to buy a shovel in a store...

Exactly my thoughts. Mere clothes washing was a full day activity. Go to the well, bring water. Chop wood for heating. Milk cow, tend to chickens. Fix the fence... All this coupled with less then abundant available calories, and the slow paced work does paint a different picture.

Maybe they were not that relaxed, but slow paced work came from the necessary energy conservation?

I use DDG for years, and it's at most once a month when I can't find something and need to fall back to Google. Maybe I got used to the suckiness? Or maybe it's relative?

My teacher describes this issue as such: meditation is like going to the gym. You don't send someone with broken arm to the gym to make them better. Even though gyms are generally good, they should be avoided when you're injured.

Psychotic or neurotic mind needs healing, not intense training. This knowledge is present in genuine Buddhist schools that are not for profit organizations. The mindfulness industry have, sadly, the wrong incentives.

As a Buddhist myself I hope this article helps a lot of people.

That's my worry, and I had similar experience. No publicly visible "internet points" are surprisingly discouraging.

I also have a feeling that SO model does not fit here at all. It seems like "in essence" SO is a way to connect to an expert, and knowledge base is a byproduct. In teams settings: you just have slack.

IDK, reading stuff like below makes me discard the whole article:

> Saving money, whether in or outside of a bank, does NOT contribute to growth

Literally next line

> Taking out loans and new debt contributes to economic growth.

Where does the money for a load come from though? Does the author not see the connection there (making him kind of unfit to explain complex economic mechanisms), or just dishonestly ignores this part to support his thesis (which makes him unfit to waste my time)?

It is dishonest. The liquidity is not being injected everywhere at once. Those who get to spend it first enjoy the full purchasing power at the expense of everybody else.

Also imagine a person keeping 3000$ for a rainy day. He can't buy stocks, because rainy day could come at a stock dip. Losing 23% of that money in 5 years (assuming 5% inflation). How is it a failure of an educational system, not monetary policy?

OMG, excellent catch!