IAmNotAFix

They've been suing anyone who actually maintains a living instance of Popcorn Time. Maybe they hope that by removing the source code from something as popular as GitHub, this will at least diminish the frequency at which they need to sue.

Three years in and my conclusion so far is that work is nothing more than a mean to earn a living, and my free time is the time I can actually read/program about interesting stuff. The pragmatic attitude is therefore to stop caring much about work and especially not give it more time than expected.

Lots of jobs for developers but very hard to find a job that is actually inspiring at all. I just stop struggling to find a sense to it and stopped giving a fuck. It's relatively big money for relatively easy work, we shouldn't be complaining in a first place.

> The first couple hundred lines of code of your project will have a much larger impact than the last few thousand lines of code ever will.

With this explanation, the author explains the diminishing returns by the fact that their value decreases ("impact"). I disagree: returns diminish because their cost increases. Assuming a thing can generate 100% of some value, the range 0-20% generates as much value as the range 80%-100%, but the latter range is more costly than the first range.

The return of centering the buttons is significant, because if they're not centered then the product will look unprofessionnal, which is not good for business. It just happens than the cost of centering them is high, in this case as high as setting up the REST service in a first place.

The return of having your company survive is extremetely high. It just happens that this cannot be done with the first few dozens employees but with hundreds more, which is of course way more expensive.

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." (Goodhart's law)

A team that ships often is arguably doing great (because complex things that work are made out of simple things that work, and early feedback is important), but you can definitely just ship random shit and be satisfied with it if you've set your mind to ship often without regard to the proper way it should be done. Shipping often is easy, shipping often good things is hard.

Nobody gives a fuck about not being able to watch 4K. They just want to not pay 4K when you can't get 4K.

Nuclear is probably the best solution, but it only works if you somehow manage to calibrate its impact on people's psychology (or just hope for no disaster to happen in the next 100 years, which is hard to to be sure about). The standard procedure in case of disaster involves a massive evacuation, cleanup, and confinement, which are costly[1], deathly[2], and traumatizing for the population[3]. All of that is probably still worth it in comparison to the consequences of global warming in regards to many factual metrics (number of deaths, purchasing power, etc), but I'm not actually sure it's worth it in regards to the only metric that actually matters: how much of a disastrous state people perceive their environment to be in.

In the case of Fukushima, Japan, which was beforehand in the process of switching more and more of its energy to nuclear, changed their stance overnight to switch back to all-fossile, because of pressure from the public opinion. If a nuclear disaster would come to happen in a country like France, the situation would probably be an absolute disaster, with people on a major psychosis and a state unable to realistically switch to another form of energy.

[1] The cost of a nuclear disaster in France (similar to the one in Fukushia) has been estimated at 430 billions euros, which is 20% of the country's economic output. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-disaster-c...)

[2] Fukushima's evacuation caused 1,600 deaths, that is more than the deaths caused by the tsunami itself.

[3] Following the Chernobyl disaster, there was a large increase of PTSD instaces, psychosomatic diseases, alcoholism, suicide, etc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk...)

TL;DR: you need to somehow make people chill about nuclear if you want to argue that nuclear is a satisfying source of energy. It might still be the best option nonetheless.