The really sad part is all the missed positive externalities. Think about what could happen if a few companies owned up to it and said "hey we'll let you have one day a week helping children with their homework or working on a shared vegetable garden or... or... because [insert outreachy marketing speech]"
How do you enforce the use of a formatter in a project -- pre-commit hook? pre-receive hook? both? And is there a convention to put a specific dotfile at the project root to hint at your IDE/editor that it should use a certain tool for automatic formatting?
The French École Normale Supérieure will pay you around 1200 euros per month to study there. There are strings attached though (10 yrs public service commitment).
> The "Social security" pays around of 10% of most usual costs, the mutual fund pays the rest...
What? The basic insurance scheme pays at least 60% of a set of reasonable, negotiated fees and the "mutuelle" covers the rest. There are a few corner cases (complicated dental work, optics) but these are being addressed. Usually the out-of-pocket expense is minimal to nil (a "forfait moderateur" of around 1 euro per doctor's appointment for instance)
Not sure. An ariane 4 rocket exploded due to a leftover cleaning rag in a water line. I would guess the launcher + payload price would top the price of an F16?
Yes except that it is not black and white, working or not working. There could be a real case made for working less and directing efforts towards technology improvements that result in less environmental damage. To me, it does not make any sense to think in absolutes.
That's been debunked by examples where hiring (literal) team players that are not shining on their own enhances a team above the level of an 'all-star' team. So why do we keep repeating this nonsense?
Is there a prescribed SW development methodology at large technology companies? (e.g. Google). Google in particular seems to be heavy on tooling but, perhaps intentionally discards SCRUM et al from the outset.
True. There should be a hard cap on the amount of pollution (carbon emissions, etc.) that an individual may generate each year, wealth notwithstanding. Of course, this would be almost impossible to enforce and trivial to circumvent :(
Not really. You have what already exists for handling investments, e.g. you pay Yomoni (a tiny startup) to make decisions for you but your money is handled by one of the big banks e.g. Crédit Agricole. Your point is somewhat valid, but also amounts to "there is a government-enforced monopoly for large companies in the airliner production space". Damn right there is. For the same safety reasons.
Where did you pull your $100 figure from? Suppose this accounting of environment and labor results in paying say $50 for a shirt that would be durable, then this might simply be awesome. Fewer, more durable goods that in the long term may be cheaper through automation. The answer to slavery may or may not be automation but certainly isn't "well, though, that's capitalism for you."
Maybe because entrepreneurship is not the path to solving humanity's pressing problems? For many USians, health care is a pressing issue but maybe the best chance at improvement is through "EU-style" socialized medicine? My main problem is being afraid to lose my job and therefore my home -- could this be solved by a combination of basic income, better training schemes, and a general reduction in working hours? Other than that, my main issues are noise and pollution -- I guess cleaner and quieter cars would help but fewer cars would be a lot better. How do you make a profitable company around that?
What would be a good way of promoting social / socialist policies in today's current environment? Also, while the idea of an earning cap does not seem to grab you, what about enforcing a cap on a given individual's ecological footprint?
OK, so Bitcoin is censorship-resistant. Good. But a practical alternative that would allow high-volume, cheap transactions could blow it off the water. This is weird; I keep seeing 'justifications' of Bitcoin's current value and future success that, to me, can simply be reduced to a sunk-cost fallacy. I have read for instance that Bitcoin's worth 'is the area under curve of the energy expense of the miners' (sunk-cost fallacy) or that it has a "pareto-like" quality, being the first largely capitalized cryptocurrency, that would make it immune from failure.
Are there any justifications for Bitcoin that cannot be explained by a cognitive bias?
Recently Amazon upped its minimum order for Prime Now (2 hr delivery) -- used to be 20 euros, now it's 40. I cancelled my subscription because of that, but the customer service was courteous and refunded the unused months fairly quickly.
> My father told me that con men preferred to go after smart people, like doctors. The reason is that smart people thought they were too smart to get conned, and hence were more gullible.
Another reason for going after high-status professionals (proxy for 'smart') is that they may be less likely to use violence as a method for dispute resolution?
Also, if they have to maintain a reputation of savviness, they may be less encline to make it public knowledge that they got swindled by pressing charges.
Precisely! Offering this as an option (a simple option, not a new business model in itself) would tap into a user base that uses ad blockers already anyway. So yeah, that would establish a sort of ceiling and communicate some information to competitors, but not much more. Anyway I'm convinced there's a solid rationale for not doing it, but I'm not sure what it is.
Why would it be more expensive? Google's annual revenue is 13 billion for around 1.3 billion users. That is $10 per user per year or less than $1 per user per month. Google certainly has a rationale for not providing a subscription option, but it is not 'raw revenue'
That's an open question that Google could solve by providing said option. One dollar a month for the complete suite of google tools with no tracking or ads whatsoever? Sign me up, right now. I pay 10x that amount to Spotify for a decent but less useful service. Hell, I'll go to $2/month.
"censor" is a loaded term. Why not "forbid"? Also, what if the solution to an abusive government is not a technological tool but a plurality of governments, many of which promote (some vision of) human rights? Central power, authority is not inherently evil.
See friends, exercise, and if the issue is serious enough, do not put off seeing a psychiatrist or another health professional.
Strangely enough you do not see an Ask HN: what are you doing for your T1 diabetes ? -- people will just see their doctor and inject insulin. Yet we do not treat mental health that way.