Trundle

Huh? You contribute with your assets. People get to use your stuff in exchange for giving you stuff.

Isn't anything bad by definition when "too many" people do it?

Have you looked in to FIRE (financial independence; retire early) at all? At your income it doesn't seem like it would take all that long to get to a point where retirement is a possibility. Then you'd be free to pursue your low cost hobby business without fear of returning to the job market in a reduced capacity.

It would come down to how important your lifestyle is to you and your spouse I guess, but if you consider an expensive lifestyle highly important then torpedoing your career doesn't sound like a smart move either.

There's also the option of a middle ground where you go to a smaller company at a pay cut in exchange for whatever concession it is that's important to you. Remote, tons of vacation days, etc. There are smaller companies that want experienced bigco talent that know they can't compete on price.

Gold diggers

She was getting plenty of attention.

She was not getting plenty of money.

Well sure, that's part of TM's value add. Musicians can get the money they want without damaging their brand.

I would like to question the "most" there though. Maybe egalitarianism is a strong theme in your preferred genre. Mine is more "get money, get paid" and "bitches aint shit".

You can't "punish people by letting them hang their own rope" when they don't actually get hung, because they're still around afterwards but now a burden. They now have to rely (more) on the social safety net, or turn to crime, or just sit around all poor and broken being unpleasant to look at.

A society that has decided to take on, at least partially, the burden of individual failure is incentivised to try to prevent it.

If you were to propose some sort of "unaccredited investors get to invest in risky markets if they agree to be put on a boat and cast out to sea if they fail" then I could see myself accepting that.

When does it become not a cheap PR move?

Is FOSTA a fiasco for those that supported it? I thought that was just the puritans getting what they wanted.

Are they? I was under the impression that they mostly work on referral fees/commission. They get paid by the hotels, airlines, cruise companies, etc instead of booking.com or wherever you would look things up yourself

With that, I thought people stopped using them because most find some value in planning their vacations themselves, and the barrier to doing so got easy enough for them to do it. There's a huge subjective component to a lot of choices involved in a holiday. A travel agent seems ideal for someone willing to give up control of those specifics, that just wants to be able to send an email that reads something like "15-28th August. Portugal. I'm thinking something involving forests" and be done with planning.

A relationship with a travel agent where it has been established that you want to be very hands off.

When the iPhone first came out you had to jailbreak it if you wanted to install third party apps.

So current free to user companies just get to hold their market forever? Are you that happy with them?

Equivalent animals certainly don't spend all day toiling. We aren't ants. I don't see any reason to believe that was the case for us.

By paying you for it.

With your opinion on Caterpillar, I feel like I need to share that I once spilt the contents of about 10 beers on top of some of their bigwigs.

You're welcome.

Isn't that linking to the results of people playing a game where they're paying attention and looking for something to react to?

"That"

That's the thing though. The behavior change is to not eat meat. If I care so little for this thing that I'm willing to have it enslaved and slaughtered for my mild culinary amusement, what is there realistically to do other than pay hollow lip service? If we gave enough of a shit to do anything of substance, we just wouldn't eat the animals.

Would the appropriate way to show reverence for the animal be not slaughtering it?

Adding hollow lip service doesn't really seem like an improvement.

Have any data on it mostly being girls doing it for the thrill? It seems like every time I like a photo and look the posters profile, they've got something else going on where the free photo was just marketing. Tons of underwear selling.

For some of us productivity is needed to be able to do the leisure activities we really want. If that's not the case then sure, just skip straight to the leisure.

Also for treatment for all of the illnesses caused by our population being fat and unfit.

I remember when some news broke about Facebook doing something or other a year ago and the common response seemed to be to make an official sounding wall post saying "I do not give Facebook the right to do X with my data", sort of like Michael Scott yelling "I declare bankruptcy!"

I can see that happening again with voice recordings.

I go to firsthand sources, or at the very least more informative write ups than news articles, for things that are going to influence my decisions or that I have more than the minimum amount of curiosity for. That rarely has anything to do with News though. High level politics - particularly foreign (US for me), natural disasters, celebrity deaths, war progress, spy poisonings, sports results, etc all have very little to do with my life.

I specifically included the water cooler part because that's what Generic News is for me. Conversation fodder and entertainment. I can live with even the filtered down information I take from it being possibly wrong.

I don't know what other people mean by middle, but what I do is take the things that are agreed on by most organisations as probably true, and disregard the rest.

Source A: An abused elephant got revenge on its handlers today, striking back and making a break for freedom.

Source B: Elephant attack! 5 gravely injured, including a mother of 3, as a crazed elephant breaks loose. Authorities still investigating.

Source C: Minister for Elephants grilled over lax elephant regulations. Angry citizens are demanding to know why legislation had not been put in place to prevent this tragedy.

My take away: Something happened, people got hurt, an elephant was involved.

Me at the water cooler: You hear about the elephant thing? Pretty crazy right.

The field morphing in to being male dominated and the existing women dropping out are two different things. Sure, what you're saying has been discussed plenty on HN. As far as I know the other posters statement hasn't.

Also, at least here in Australia, it's way more expensive to see a psychiatrist than a psychologist. I imagine if you've made your way to a psychiatrist (someone that can prescribe meds) for depression then you've already had plenty of therapy, and things are still bad enough to warrant escalation. Which then ties in to your point. If someone is making it in front of a psychiatrist for depression, suicide is probably on the table.

If Spotify isn't selling, how would an initial ask price work?

"We'll give you a share for $20"

"I'll take it!"

"No, we're not selling"

Or just use the wrong finger a couple of times.