jackvezkovic

This EU regulation diminishes the incentive of researching and developing a new technology in this area. This is a fact.

And no, innovation usually does not come from a bunch of companies sitting down to cooperate on a new version. First there is individual innovation, then there is consolidation, even if these come with changes from the original.

actually, I think the guy knows exactly what it means: automate stuff with AI and replace jobs

Big nuclear power plants are not the ones behind regulations. Big oil and carbon-based power plants and others are the ones that lobby for nuclear power plant regulations.

It's "Security Through AI Obscurity"

Bonus point: everything gets documented for future references if needed. Also, when I am on holidays but still have that itch to check how the team is doing, I just check that channel.

We also have a remote team in different timezones. What we do instead is just the slack version of a "stand-up". Everyone writes whenever they start what they did yesterday as bullet points, what they will do today and if there are any blockers or important reminders. Doesn't take 5min of each ones time, keeps everyone in the loop and helps managers intervene if some other sprint task needs to be prioritized instead. Cost-benefit seems to be fine for us. Sure, you will still get the example mentioned, but that is still low cost after all. You can always reply in threads if something needs more detail.

There can always be leaks, anonymous sources that confirm something is still ongoing, despite what was publicly announced. Brand image is important.

Cool stuff. Just tried out 'average votes count per length of tagline': https://app.veezoo.com/shared/30d67d9d-4e97-4bb1-a6ec-e7d6e2...

Missing a mobile version though.

So, if we in the future are able to clone a Mona Lisa perfectly, will it be as worth as the original? Does it decrease the value of the original?

Exactly. When the international community makes it clearly more (short term) economically advantageous to preserve the Amazon, then we will have a more sustainable solution.

It is actually quite simple to understand. Don't be arrogant in proposing to "buy" a part of another country, because "they don't know how to take care of it". This is the kind of mindset that is counterproductive for the environmental debate. The Amazon belongs to Brazil, the same way that the Swiss Alps belong to the Swiss people, the oil reserves in Texas belong to the Americans, the plastic filled rivers that go to the ocean belong to China etc. There are no simple solutions - low hanging fruits - to the environmental problem. You could easily argue that we could just forbid the US of extracting oil from Texas to help save the planet. But that doesn't seem reasonable either, does it?

Once again, that doesn't mean Brazil should just burn the whole thing to the ground. But the way this will be accomplished is not through hypocrite, neo-imperialistic BS politics. But rather through economically sound negotiations, international agreements, multilateral commitments, that are advantageous for the parties involved.

It's not whataboutism. It's a matter of principles. International pressure to "buy" a part of another country under the flag of environmental protection is not a reasonable option. It is a quite extreme measure. Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed. For me, it all sounds like outsourcing environmental responsibility. Just put in perspective the cost/payoff of this proposal. This arrogance in the argument that the Amazon is not from Brazil and shouldn't be trusted with them is bad for the environmental discussion that needs to happen. Can't we really not think of better solutions?

I find it incredible how people are eager to protect the environment in other people's countries before taking a deep look in-house. Suggesting to buy a strategically important area of Brazil under the umbrella of saving the world is just purely naive or hypocrite. China and US are the main contributors to global warming. Not even the Amazon as it currently stands can keep up with that. Shouldn't we apply sanctions to both of these countries then? Or form a coalition to buy Wyoming (the state with the highest CO2 emissions per capita) e.g., since it is in the interest of the world? If the Amazon rainforest does not belong to Brazil, then why do the natural oil reserves in Texas or Alaska belong to the US?

Just to clarify, I am not pro bringing down the Amazon rainforest, only raising the flag on the tendency to outsource responsibility when it comes to the environment.

That moment when you step out of your safe Scala world just to realize that people still face NPEs.

The state spending money to provide you a search engine to select the information they want to show you? Just sounds like a terrible idea.

> I don't care if they are Brazilians or Norwegian. If you leave an open hole for someone to fall down you are being negligent.

We agree then.

> _Brazilians_ don't leave uncovered holes in the street because of something entirely logical within their own culture. _They_ leave because they are lazy...

I guess it is fair to say that your point was quite hard to grasp based on your last sentence, seeing the other comments as well. If you say "Brazilians don't leave uncovered holes because of...", then it seems you are making a point about the whole population in a generalized sense. Therefore "they are lazy" also refer to this generalization.

> They leave because they are lazy...

Probably sounds better in the original German.

These proofs by anecdotes are really fast food for the biased mind.

Just as a thought experiment, if Brazilians are inherently 'lazy' as you say and it has nothing to do with the environment that they are in and its incentives, then are they also lazy abroad? Do they also forget to put signs when they dig holes? Do they do a worse service in restaurants? Do they work less than their coworkers? Are they also consistently late? Is this not the case because they are from a biased sample of non-lazy Brazilians that leave the country? Or maybe Brazilians are not inherently lazy?

Just a few questions for the debate.