thucydidesofusa

Sadly, hybrids make sense to the degree that batteries don't. Although an electric motor and its rudimentary cooling system are trivial compared to a combustion engine and it's attendant systems, it starts to make sense when you consider that 1 gallon of gasoline buys you the energy available from a ~40 kWh battery.

Heck, battery electrics arent' even strictly dominant over hydrogen electrics. Hydrogen makes a lot of sense in some applications, what does it say about batteries if people are willing to go to the hassle of developing fuel cells just to get around chemical batteries?

It seems ill-fitting to say the Washington Post, NYT, and Huffington Post are 'conservative', perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that they're entrenched in the status quo? You can see that pretty clearly when there newspapers write about companies that compete for attention. I don't think I've seen a favorable report about FAANGs out of the NYT since Tim Cook came out of the closet.

Heh, now assume the creator makes $80k/yr and lives in California.

Marginal tax rate - ~38%?

$5 subscription.

30% to Apple: $1.5

30% to Facebook: $1.05 (of the remaining $3.50)

38% to the Government: $.93 (of the remaining $2.45)

Leaving the creator with: $1.52

No country has ever solved their junky problem even with those things.

To some degree, we have to get used to junkies existing in jurisdictions that aren't inclined to lock them up. However, we can't spend our way out of the problem. San Francisco spends ~$40k/yr/homeless [0] , if that's not enough to solve the problem, then it's just too great. We cannot throw money away on problems created by cities that abet $4k/mo rents for one-bedrooms.

You missed an operative word "business specific". Most conservatives / right wingers / free marketers disdain business specific tax incentives - the common criticisms is that it opens up government to cronyism and allows the government to pick and choose winners.

The former governor on Florida is on record as saying that he won't ever make a deal with a specific company but it's very important for him that Florida be so favorable to businesses-writ-large that they don't have to make deals for any specific country because Florida should be the best state for any company to do business.

It matters when profession A and profession B are as related as data science / data engineering / software engineering.

I'm not arguing that there's no distinction between the fields, just that people who excel in one can usually do a passable job working in the others. Or rather, you have to have passable skills in the other fields to excel at your chosen field.

If art is important to building empathy, our problems might stem from art's recent pivot to shock over beauty and virtue signaling over the cultivation of virtue.

I'd wager that most people's wake up call would be weather that's more extreme than climate change will likely produce. I imagine climate change to be worrying when plants don't grow around me and that probably will never happen, some just plants will recede into colder ranges and plants from warmer ranges will come in.

This isn't the right solution for every place, but it's the right solution for Minneapolis. There's no shortage of land and quasi-affordable housing in the suburbs / exurbs - people who want that can move out and get the house they want for the money they'll collect for their more-valuable Minneapolis house.

But Minneapolis has been very dense for awhile and other bordering cities have done an excellent job at managing density and quietness - for example, the two adjacent cities Edina and Colombia Heights have been offering peace and quiet to Minneapolis residents since the freeways went in.

This is kind of off topic, but is anyone surprised/confused by people's reaction to this?

The Saudis have been bombing Yemen for the last ~3 years and nothing really happened. Then they assassinate a journalist and all hell breaks loose?

I'm a Tesla shareholder and I'm extremely hopeful, an independent chairperson could really cut down on the nonsense that makes the company off-putting to some investors. Just as Google needed an adult in the form of Eric Schmidt, Tesla needs someone who can collaborate with Musk. Eric Schmidt would be perfect but he's probably conflicted out because of Alphabet's Waymo. Though I'm hopeful that they'll find someone who can help Musk achieve goals and instill some discipline and sternness where needed.

However, it could go awry. If the independent board member were to try to combat Musk and get the company wrapped up in internal struggles, it could go badly for the company.

But his Chinese nationality doesn't preclude him from being a good steward of the land.

Or is there some rule about who can tend to what land beyond the legal issues of permission and authority?

It's because anti-trust laws aren't well-equipped to deal with modern monopolies.

the US's legal framework for anti-trust come from the Sherman anti-trust act of 1890 and the Clayton anti-trust act of 1914 (note the dates). The jurisprudence basically holds that being a monopoly isn't illegal per se, but what's illegal is abusing consumers - traditionally the cause of action in anti-trust lawsuits are that a corporation does something anti-competitive to increase prices. Facebook is mostly available at no cost to consumers (or at least, consumers don't have to pay to use the products) and so they avoid anti-trust scrutiny.

To see it in practice, check out [1]. Some Japanese auto part suppliers were acting in an anti-competitive way and what got the DOJ so chuffed was that consumers had to pay more for cars and car parts because of the behavior.

The Yale law journal has a great expose on the tension between our 19th/early-20th century understanding of abusive monopolies and the realities of 21st century commerce [2] and basically the core issue is that anti-trust laws are powerless to stop a company from acquiring the power to become an illegal/abusive monopoly.

The EU has actually been much more skeptical/hostile of the arrangement between Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp , and the best legal thinking on using anti-trust norms to break up big tech comes from the EU. Unfortunately, I don't know much about it and I'll invite any expert to weigh-in.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/japanese-auto-parts-company-p...

[2] https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

This article seems too focused on the idea that even if you're not passionate about something today, you can be more passionate about it tomorrow and it's easier to become passionate if you don't have a fixed mindset (imagine that!).

But it still overemphasizes the importance of passion in a career IMO. I think the best career advice is to declare what's important and find a career that seems congruent with that. If the important things in your life don't pay much or require money, be prepared to select a career that's lucrative but tolerable / benign.

Personally, I'm not leaping out of bed to get to work, but it pays well and I like that it supports my hobbies. I certainly wouldn't have chosen this career if I had followed my passion. However, I think I get to enjoy my passions more because I have some financial resources to pursue them and I get to enjoy them more on my own terms.

The reality is this - work is lucrative either because it's unpleasant (plumbing), hard to acquire the skills (doctor / some lawyers / software engineering), performance oriented and intensely competitive (financial trading, top level management). Things that people are passionate about tend to be pleasant, easy, or doing things that are broadly appealing. It's hard to imagine that being passionate.

The only people who should follow their passions are people with passions that are lucrative to follow. If you love managing projects / products, follow your passion. If you love horses, consider doing something lucrative so you can buy your own horse.

I view the police as dangerous but recognize their danger as a necessary cost for effectiveness.

I'm afraid of the police, but I'm more afraid of no police.

It's standard procedure but also a transgression against this woman if a man does it and isn't sufficiently attractive.

Not yet. But there's clearly some trend towards making smaller and smaller transgressions into #metoo issues. I'd hate to find out that I rolled the dice on ostracism (or worse) just to be friendly to someone who doesn't care enough to reach out to me.

In fact, it's much riskier for me to reach out to them than for them to reach out to me. If they're too stupid to realize that, I'm not interested in being their friend. And if they're perceptive of my risk and they still expect me to submit myself to it for their convenience or whatever then I'm not interested in being their friend.

A sizable fraction of restraining orders are granted on women's feelings. And look at conversations around the social relations of men and women - women have rights and men have responsibilities. Women get to abort fetuses and unilaterally give children up for adoption, men get locked up if they dont pay child support.

If you're a man go into public with a woman and get her to cry. Measure how long it takes until someone angrily asks you "what did you do".

It's funny how that works. I heard one man say to a woman that he didn't schedule a meeting for a particular time because he saw that she had a conflicting meeting.

Later that same woman described (to another woman) that the man had been "creeping on her calendar". If it weren't for society's deference to women's feelings, that would probably be read as a hostile comment.

>Invest in social events: It can take a lot of time to set up opportunities for your team to hang out , but casual socializing is awesome for the extroverts on your team and crucial for retention... and go out of your way to include everyone.

Going through this at work. The extroverts took over my department and now our (mandatory) team meetings have (mandatory) fun events that give extroverts time to brag about what they have going outside of work and give the extroverts an audience who can't refuse (the introverts who do the work). And it's awful for people who dislike forced socialization at work. And these are like 11 am meetings on Tuesday so it's dry and interrupts concentration workers.

But this article didn't seem very interesting - these points have been discussed before and it struck me as the bleats of an attractive-enough women who's upset that she has to put in effort and other people aren't giving her the attention she feels entitled to.

Say what you will about traditional corporate cultures, but things seem to work better for everyone when the decorum is universal, clear/well-documented, and free from empathetic demands.