wickedwiesel

If I may offer my opinion as an outsider from the EU: something like this may actually open up the traditional Left vs Right spectrum to something that is more closely resembles the existing diversity of opinions and values. For instance, here in Germany, these days coalitions between 2-3 parties is the rule rather than the exception. An interesting side effect of this has been that issues which at any given time were not the focus of the major parties can still be addressed by the smaller (often junior) party of the ruling coalition, e.g. the Green party who pushed the topic of environmental protection as a junior coalition member already in the late 90s/early 2000s.

A PAW is a "privilged access workstation", i.E. a dedicated, hardened machine just for the purpose of admin tasks. Due to the specialized tasks it needs to run, the workstation can be

- cut off from general purpose Internet etc.,

- a non-mobile device,

- etc....

See for instance Microsoft's documentation: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/sec...

Sorry, maybe I am missing something here. For local admin, I agree re context switching etc. But for O365 admin, we have a similar setup and I admin O365 through a separate container tab or Powershell where you need to connect to Azure separately anyways. Seems straightforward to me.

Happy to see that this comment has reached you in person. Please pass on my compliments to your team. It looks like they are doing a good job.

In our SMB we went with Nutshell CRM [0]. The starter version has all the features minus sales automation. The UI is fine, they have well written docs [1] and their security docs is actually insightful [2]. Things like an well written API and an actual, live and up-to-date status page etc. make it look like a decent run SaaS business imho.

[0] - https://www.nutshell.com/pricing/ [1] - https://www.nutshell.com/security/

This is a two-part answer.

First, the big difference about GMOs is that "farmers must purchase fresh seeds as retailers sell them only as hybrid cultivars, which prevents growers from replanting them the following year." [3] You can imagine that this makes a huge difference in how farmers need to operate. Farmers do not store seed anymore like they used to but need to buy new seed ever year. If world market prices of their commodities drop they will not even be able to afford new seed & pesticides for the next crop, especially since prices for GMO seeds and brand-specific pesticides are a multiple of non-GMO seeds. With non-GMOs, farmers retain the possibility and the legal right to the re-seed next year. That is why this cycle is more vicious, especially for low-income countries where credits and loan are hard to come by.

> You haven't mentioned any evidence which would inculpate Monsanto.

Secondly, I explicitly linked an article titled "Death and Extinction of the Bees. The Role of Monsanto?" which is one of many others like the Guardian, citing University of Texas research [0], the German Office for Environmental Protection [1] highlighting the negative effect of RoundUp/Glpyhosat. All of these detail the negative impact of Monsanto's product on biodiversity in general and bees more specifically. So the evidence is not only about the negative impact of Monsanto's main product RoundUp on bee population but also Monsanto's documented efforts to prevent effective regulation and scientific discussion.

For instance, the so-called 'Monsanto papers' "reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products."[5]

Monsanto doesn't really help here and became the first company that has been "banned from entering the European parliament after the multinational refused to attend a parliamentary hearing into allegations of regulatory interference" [4].

[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/24/monsanto... [1] - https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/landwirtschaft/Dokumente/20... [3] - https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2014/... [4] - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/monsanto... [5] - https://www.sci-hub.tw/10.3233/JRS-180028

> But thanks to their scientific innovations, they feed the world. It's difficult to realize how many lives they have saved or improved, but they are probably on the top 10 list of most impactful entities for increasing well being and diminishing suffering.

How can you be so sure about this? Monsanto's GMOs depend on the use of their tailored pesticides. It's their whole USP. The negative impact of the current use of pesticides, of which roundup is a bestseller, is _immense_. The vicious cycle of pesticide use, GMOs and debt is horrible for farmers in low- medium-income countries and often leads to suicide. Just pesticide poisoning accounts for a yearly death toll of 200,000 to 250,000 people according to the UN [0] and the WHO [1].

This does not even go into the topic of loss of biodiversity where pesticides play a vital role. According to the OHCHR, if we were to eliminate bees by using neonicotinoid pesticides as usual, we will likely see a collapse of "the very basis of agriculture as 71% of crop species are bee-pollinated."[2] Monsanto and its practice have been directly linked to the demise of bee populations [3].

Monsanto and the like are again, cashing in all our chips for short-term gain. This is not innovation. This is a growth hacking at its worst.

[0] - 2017, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF... "pesticides are responsible for an estimated 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year" [1] - 2006, https://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/Pest... Worldwide, an estimated three million cases of pesticide poisoning occur every year, resulting in an excess of 250,000 deaths. [2] - https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... [3] - https://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-be...

It is really interesting to see how this is different from country to country. The Wikipedia overview [0] is fascinating!

Of course, as as European, it is mind-boggling how little (none) paid leave parents get in the US. I also like how Spain is now giving fathers the same paternal leave as mothers maternal leave (16 weeks).

I do think that parental leave is a really interesting instrument to enable parents to find a way for a more equal-opportunity take on careers. My wife and I deliberately split our time off 50/50 (7 months + 7 months, all paid leave in DE). Besides spending time with my daughter, which was (and continous to be) a mind-altering experience, this allowed both of our careers to progress similarly. I highly recommend it.

Also there is this more graphical representation at the BBC [1].

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#By_country

[1] - https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190615-parental-leave...

Yes, India and China may be "greener". But, as the referenced article [0] states: The greening in China is from forests (42%) and croplands (32%), but in India is mostly from croplands (82%) with minor contribution from forests (4.4%). Main driver for greening according to the authors is an increase in food production.

It is not re-forestation as the Forbes' author wants readers to think: Both China and India went through phases of large scale deforestation in the 1970s and 80s, clearing old growth forests for urban development, farming and agriculture. However, it is clear that when presented with a problem, humans are incredibly adept at finding a solution.

The hubris!

This means we actually observe net deforestation, globally, but also in China [1] and India [2] if you look at tree coverage indicators from Global Forest Watch. Global Forest Watch also uses satellite images, from a very similar timeline, so it should be comparable and raise serious doubts on the positive message of the Forbes article. To preserve biodiversity and combat climate change, we need more forests, not just more "green" land.

[0] Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7

[1] China Forest Watch map: http://bit.ly/2HGOXtI

[2] India Forest Watch map: http://bit.ly/2qT4e0g

(edits to improve formatting)

There are several examples of cash rewards for rat hunting like in Jakarta [1], but the "classic" version of where this went wrong is the "The Great Hanoi Rat Massacre" of 1902 [2] where rat hunters would just chop off live rats' tails to score the reward instead of killing it, because it would diminish their future income.

[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/nov/21/jakartas-rat-...

[2] - https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/hanoi-rat-massacre-190...

He writes in his FAQ [1]:

> I don't want the administrative workload coming with donations. I don't want the project to become in need of funding in any way: no dedicated home page + no forum = no cost = no need for funding. I want to be free to move onto something else if ever I get tired working on these projects (no donations = no expectations).

> Have a thought for the maintainers of the various lists. These lists are everything. This can't be emphasized enough.

[1] - https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Why-don't-you-accept-...

You can make this point about these "side effects" for other countries as well. You will find plenty of commentators making the point that the US' War On Drugs has effectively been institutionalizing racism against blacks in the US, like the ACLU [1] or individual civil rights scholars calling it the "New Jim Crow" [2]. Others even claim that it may have had roots in a motivation to target "blacks and hippies" [3].

Whatever the reason, statistics describing the outcome of legal disparities between crack and cocaine in the US [4] seem to support the claim that the US justice system and drug laws in particular tend to reinforce racism and social exclusion.

Whatever the war on drugs was supposed to achieve, it certainly seems to be achieving something different altogether.

[1] - https://www.aclu.org/other/race-war-drugs

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow

[3] - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-nixon-drug-war-...

[4] - https://americanaddictioncenters.org/cocaine-treatment/diffe...

Supply Chain Transparency is an important topic in many companies' sustainability and business & human rights efforts.

For example, the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business & Human Rights and some related legislation like the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, or the UK Modern Slavery Act require larger companies to disclose how they prevent/deal with Forced Labor in the Supply Chain. Transparency about your supply chain is generally considered best practice.

There are many other examples of proactive companies, like Marks & Spencers interactive world map of suppliers [1], Adidas Global Factory List (xlsx) [2], Unilever's list of palm oil suppliers [3], ...

[1] - https://interactivemap.marksandspencer.com/

[2] - https://www.adidas-group.com/en/sustainability/compliance/su...

[3] - https://www.unilever.com/Images/unilever-palm-oil-supplier-l...

For this kind of information you can look at rankabrand.com

> 9. Does the brand (company) have a published list of direct suppliers that have collectively contributed to more than 90% of the purchase volume?

Microsoft, "Microsoft provides a list of its top 100 supply chain partners.", [2]

Samsung, "Samsung does not provide a list of direct suppliers"

HP, "HP publishes a list of suppliers that represents over 95% of its production supplier spend.", [3], HP even discloses what type of product they procure and how many workers work on HP manufacturing lines

[1] - https://rankabrand.org/electronics/Apple#detailed-report]

[2] - http://bit.ly/1EWC6XW]

[3] - http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetDocument.aspx?docname=c03728...

edit: formatting

As you probably know, Google does have quite clear policies on the matter.[0]

You and your colleagues could raise that these are there for a reason, approved by senior management, and there to help you respect your users' rights.

I like the sound of "Applications that affect or change your user experience should make clear they are the reason for those changes." or "It should be clear to you when you are installing or enabling software on your computer and you should have the ability to say no." or "We believe you should be asked explicitly for your permission in a manner that is obvious and clearly states what information will be collected or transmitted."

All of these sound relevant to the grievance of the OP.

[0]: https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/software-principles.htm...

Treating team members and colleagues as human beings who bring their whole self to work is, imho, essential to enabling people to deliver their best work. Understandably, but somewhat irrationally at the same time, companies as they mature tend to put formalized processes over individuals. The reason for this may be to institutionalize knowledge or scale better as the company grows which I do see the point of. An unwanted mid-term impact of this very often is what you describe, thinking of humans as cogs in a machine, thinking of success as an increase productivity KPIs and increase in company valuation. For me, this means to establish a positive culture in new companies/teams/etc. where our own values can align with the team's / company's values.

If you look at the latest data (2016) from the UNHCR you will see this picture: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/G3qnc/2/

Neighboring countries in conflict regions tend to be most heavily affected by migration as conflict is a primary cause.

Some numbers (also available in the link above) to give perspective:

  Country or territory of asylum	Refugees per 1 million  USD (GDP)	Refugees to 1,000 inhabitants
  Lebanon	19.48	169.16
  Turkey	3.35	36.04
  Germany	0.19	8.3
  Denmark	0.11	5.89
  Canada	0.06	2.68
  United States	0.01	0.84

Atmosfair (https://www.atmosfair.de/en/offset/flight/) has received positive press and reviews (https://www.test.de/CO2-Kompensation-Diese-Anbieter-tun-am-m...) in Germany.

Its calculation also includes the flight class, aircraft type, flight type (charter, scheduled) and they documented it as well (https://www.atmosfair.de/en/standards/emissions_calculation/...). We use it to offset our business flights. It's a charity and donations are tax deductible under German law.