pascalxus

or maybe the chrome webstore allows an extension to do this. there are a few that do this but it looks like they're being black-balled by the chrome webstore.

"usage-based pricing provides more options for consumers than flat-rate pricing and can generate additional revenue to fund network improvements and expansion."

i don't mind usage based pricing if they show you how much you've used and ideally where you've used it. then i can simply cut out all the services that suck up all that data. For example, I refuse to install Facebook because it's hundreds of MB.

this means we need more visibility on what's sucking up so much data. and then we need to start boycotting and deleting any and all apps that insist on wasting so much data. i bet, those services and sites that are so huge will quickly clean up their act once we all stop using them. Or they'll just go out of business and we can choose some better ones.

there's enough competition in the EV sector for margins to remain fairly low. o saw a chart once. Tesla is the only one with big margins, i remember.

it has nothing to do with ideas. It's about opportunities: and right now there's not very many of those.

i didn't buy it. I got it as a hand me down.

Two fatal issues I discovered: - the apple store was so biased, even when I typed in "piano tabs", it couldn't find your app in the top 10 results. I had to type in the name of the entire app: "Piano Tabs: Learn & Practice"

Then I attempted to install it and got this: - "This application requires iOS 15.0 or later". This is a deal breaker on so many apps. I don't trust apple enough to change my iOS version. Note: this happened on a pretty recent iphone 7+

Absolutely. i so often do a search and it presumes to think it knows what i want rather than giving me what I ask for, sometimes even when I'm being quite specific. I will say it does a great job for programming stuff but a lousy job whenever I'm researching economics topics.

are you really telling me, that after humanity somewhat x100 times productivity improvement over the last 10,000 years, in one of the "richest" countries in the world, the richest 1-4% within that rich country (top 0.1-0.4% in the world, very roughly) can't take a couple years off from work because they can't afford it?

What's wrong with this picture?

There's nothing wrong with sympathy. I have all the sympathy in the world for anyone who works at a software company. Those FANGs can be especially toxic.

The fact is, how you spend your money, it's a choice, especially if you're single. For singles, no excuses. In my twenties, i rented a room, slept on a surfboard and ate oatmeal. If you combine that with a Meta salary, you could retire in 5-10 years.

I'm so relieved someone is working on this. I mean, the cars of the 60s and 70s, many of them were so much lighter. Now all the sudden, cars have become fat and heavy and bloated.

Of course it all comes down to consumer demand and regulations. I suspect Regulations have gone a long way towards making cars heavier and bigger and less efficient.

The major selling points of metaverse is that you can do work or play from anywhere (why else would you wear a 1500$ helmet that makes you look like a goofball). The push to "be at the office" is proof that metaverse does NOT work. It's truely ironic.

>>> "“They’re saying it’s ‘Hunger Games’ meets ‘Lord of the Flies,’ where everyone is trying to prove their worth to management.”

It sounds like people are really insecure about themselves financially or egoistically. You don't want to put yourself in a position where you have to have your job or you can't go without one for a few a years. and if you're ego can't handle being laid off or fired, you may want to do something about that because jobs these days don't last much longer than 2-4 years at most places: just look at people's resumes on linkedIn.

here in CA, the CPUC is trying their best to prevent people from adding Solar to their roofs. They've even got rid of Net metering almost entirely with their new NEM 3 rules.

This isn't the first time humanity has improved productivity. Productivity has already been increased by x10 or x100 in the last 10,000 years and yet the unemployment rate is at record low levels. this latest round of efficiency gains is no different.

production costs decreasing doesn't mean less wages. A widget worker in a factory who produces twice as many widgets an hour can still make the same amount of money or maybe even more.

the problem is not efficiency itself, necessarily. The problem is, what are the side effects, what are the negative impacts?

In theory, efficiency in a competitive landscape should bring down production costs which then brings down consumer costs and thus raise material living standards. The problem is, all this efficiency is in bits not atoms. Digital goods are becoming cheaper every year but real products (housing, transportation, utilities, etc) show no improvement over the last 2 to 3 decades), in fact is even getting slightly worse.

i mean by having inflation run hot at 5-10% for many years or decades, they're defaulting on their obligation to provide a stable value currency for the people.

There's two kinds of spending: assets and liabilities. assets make you richer, liabilities make you poorer. Car is the later.

It's okay to save every penny but you can't keep it in cash. You've got to buy some real asset: either real estate, gold, equities or bitcoin.

I sympathize with the article's criticism of all those things it mentioned but someone's gotta like it (gas stations, cigarettes, junk food, bible versus, lawyers, etc), otherwise it wouldn't be everywhere, and probably a whole lot of someones, perhaps even the majority of people.

in other words, shorting the dollar. it's the same reason you buy just about any asset that's not bonds or cash AKA real assets. People know, it's only a matter of time before the feds default on the value of the dollar.

We hear this ALLLLL the time. I've heard it for nearly half a decade as I waited and waited and waited forever to buy a house, and yet through all of the disasters, house prices just kept going up and up and up.

The assumption is, since almost no one can afford a house, prices MUST fall. Here's the thing no one gets: the "almost" part is very important. If, in a city of 100,000 people, only the richest 100 can afford (less than 1% of the population) a house but there's only 10 houses on the market, then prices can still continue to skyrocket.

Overall demand does not need to be super high for prices to go up. It's Demand relative to supply that matters. And in markets where supply is really really tiny then demand doesn't need to be very high in order to outstrip supply.

We are well aware of it and extremely unpleased with that. They force everyone to drive a minimum of 2-4 miles to get to the closest store and chances are it's a stupid mcDonalds or some other nonsense like that. i really don't know what they were thinking. it's almost as if the car industry paid off the city planners. I know early in US history the car industry bought up trains and put them out business which is despicable.

You'll see this huge mass of houses crammed together like some kind of concentration camp. and it'll be endless miles of uniform houses like pods in the matrix. no libraries, no parks, no trees, no community compost, (none of these things have to be expensive) nothing. but lots and lots of pavement. some of those side streets are I'm not kidding you like 5 almost 6 lanes wide, meanwhile people's front yard is less than 10 feet long.

It's a complete unmitigated disaster.

Personally, I like to plant as many different types of fruit trees, fruit vines and berries as I can and as much diversity as I can. But, I find sticking just to natives is kinda limiting. It's nice to prefer natives but I wouldn't be too religious about it.

but you also need some balance. alot of native species don't taste very good and some aren't even edible.

I'm not a big fan of using 3rd party recruiters. but, one advantage of using those is that they do a great of job of lighting a fire under the buts of all those HR folks. They find a way to create FOMO in the hiring manager and their HR process. this sometimes, greatly increases the speed of the hiring, at least in the bay area.

what i find interesting: the chart that correlates gdp per capita with energy expenditure. If energy production ever declines (like peak oil), the implied results are quite dramatic.

Imagine the look on this guys face when he's the one who gets the layoff slip while the one's he thought would get it, get to keep their job.

Don't be so sure, you're a high performer. High performance isn't just about your own performance. All it takes is for the project you're working on to end up on the dead end list and all the sudden, you'll be on the dead end list too. There's too many factors that influence a person's performance besides just the work they put in.

Working at a company like that you really have to come to terms with the fact that any second you're working there, could be your last. Act accordingly.

I take that to mean, that one definately should not be working evenings and weekends. Why do all that, for a company that's not going to value your work and look for wrongful ways to terminate you. If anything it means, you should work much fewer hours.

Yeah, the zoom replacement looks really cool. Butt...

The biggest problem I have doing zoom calls with family is an unstable internet connection at their end and I don't think the metaverse is going to be able to solve that. And besides, I'm certainly not going to pay 500$ for a headset just for Awesome VR calls, if i can just use a phone call.

The biggest potential is being able to work remotely. Just imagine all the remote work Metaverse could make possible. And 500$ headset might just be in the budget for a midsized company looking to expand it's workforce.