dchyrdvh

We'll see how many will volunteer to visit a hospital for testing and risk facing a bancrupcy.

That's an interesting topic, but I think the article fails to address it and instead resorts to enumerating the long list of well known cliches. I'd be more interested to learn about the evolution of complexity in software projects in general, what role OOP plays there and functional programming is different.

+1. This is something tech bros don't seem to get, while politicians get very well: the majority is driven by emotions and has small cognitive ability, but they vote and thus arguments to win their vote must be trivial emotionally charged ideas. A politician says "encryption is a tool of criminals!" and those who start arguing in the rational plane have already lost; instead, the answer should be "lack of encryption enables Chinese style totalitarian communism!" - no need to explain the details, just push their "scary communism" button and let the public contemplate on the "crime vs communism" topic.

That must be one of the reasons I quit coding.

The Wuhan virus, you mean? I struggle to remember these cryptic acronyms.

Gamification, creating fake ladders, groups, clubs and shiny awards are common techniques in managing the emotionally-driven producers, aka the line workers. I'm not sure if this works with waymo employees, as they are likely smarter than those who create these kindergartens.

"Assuming that world leaders are working in the best interests of their populations" - I wouldn't make this assumption.

Apathy is a sign of burnout.

Because they are useful to do the "dirty" work. I realised that when I started running my company. There are good employees and bad ones. It's emotionally hard to fire the bad ones, but if we are separated by a few managers, it's easy to make the cold rational decision and let those managers do the rest.

I like the tech labor movement idea, as long as it works on practical goals. It could be funded by membership fees and have lawyers on payroll to make some changes in the laws. Noncompetes should be outlawed, for example. Membership should be sufficiently anonymous because I don't trust you enough to disclose my name.

The author seems be dispersing anger over a very broad set of issues. That won't work.

The authors also pressing on existing employees that they should feel guilty and take some action. By this logic, when the US does some questionable things abroad, you should renounce citizenship and leave to Canada. When the Canada's gov makes a questionable move, you leave it immediately for Norway. Eventually you discover that humanity is still mostly driven by egoism and retreat to woods.

This is worth a separate post, as there's a lot to unpack here.

It's to prevent armed riots when millions of people have no means to exist. It's definitely not to empower people to let them take more risk, start a business or anything like that. For this reason, UBI will be just enough to pay for cheapest food and cheapest housing. And if someone dares to take risks, start a business or just work, that someone will be stripped from UBI, only to prevent such activity. In the era of automation and AI, the rich don't need these millions of hyper active men who have a lot of spare time, and since they can't just eliminate them, they'll create a system in which any activity is discouraged. Call me cynical, but I'll be really surprised if I happen to be wrong.

While reading this, an idea popped up in my head about monetization. Sending a message needs spending a PoW token that can be mined or bought. The price is set by the recipient and can be different for different senders. Zero for friends, a high number for potential spammers. The author, however, has a private key that can produce PoW tokens cheaply, but still in a limited amount to retain trust and prevent diluting everyone's share to nothing. Some companies may want to send spam and will be happy to buy PoW tokens. Users that suddenly start getting spam, raise the bar, as it costs them nothing. Those companies now need more tokens and they come to you. This is inflation. As long as SEC understands what's going on, it shouldn't have problems with this sandbox economics.

35 isn't a request, but a message from a powerful politician to the people behind the sale. It's hard to guess the exact meaning without full context, but I think it's "I know enough. If you want to proceed with the sale, you have to give me the names and I'll send some of them to prison." They may try to call his bluff, but they'll be sorry if he indeed knows something.

Who am I to say that these two senators don't understand big politics, but here's my theory why the other 98 senators won't support the idea. Laws is a barrier between those who rule and those who obey. When the latter complain, the laws barrier diffuses their anger. The two senators find it too difficult to play this game and want to break this wall to rule the internet directly.

Movement distracts our attention thru vision (as we need to put effort to ignore the moving objects) and sounds do the same thru hearing. I'd compare doing highly focused work in such conditions to balancing on one leg in a curious yoga position while random people walk by and push you without a warning.