kilotaras

ISPs are a natural monopoly [1]. Deregulation is unlikely to fix the issue. Creating (or regulating) a common infrastructure, e.g. poles and/or cable tunnels looks like a better way to induce competition.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Are you sure?

COD sold 75-80 million copies [1]. Getting 30 million regularly implies that one of third of them are actively playing at the same time. That seems rather unlikely

[1] https://www.gamespot.com/articles/call-of-duty-warzone-sees-...

Or it can do nothing of the sort, instead negotiating things like non-competes, options exercise window, etc. See screen writers or actors unions for examples.

> Still, employees receive cash dividends every few weeks (a salary), isn't that a positive?

People are usually foregoing part of the salary in lieu of options. e.g. $25k paycut (really conservative compared to FAANG) will come up to $100k over 4 years.

One can consider those $100k as cost of options you get.

> hashers: [DefaultHasher; 2],

Bikeshedding a little, but that probably shouldn't be an array. hashers[0] and hashers[1] aren't semantically equivalent and the only usage that array gets is just getting element by index. Something like `startHasher` and `stepHasher` would probably better convey intent.

Net change for person = (average tax paid) - (tax paid by person)

If that poor person tax burden is lower than average (even if it's higher percentage of income) redistributive properties of "fee and dividend" scheme would actually lead to increased income.

Let's look at some of some sectors and who would spend more on it.

Energy: the richer you are the more you spend on heating and cooling (just due to bigger homes), some extra appliances, etc.

Food: the most greenhouse intensive type of food is probably meat[1]. The more price sensitive you are the more you will switch to alternatives: either poultry (25% as bad as beef) or more plants.

Transport: unclear: older cars may have worse fuel efficiency, but I would expect more travel with more money

[1] https://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html

Your July experience is very likely just your local weather.

No data for July yet, but June was either 2nd or 3rd warmest on record depending on who reports data (EU Copernicus vs NOAA)

Previous months were:

January - warmest on record February - 2nd warmest March - 2nd warmest April - 2nd warmest, behind by only 0.01 Celcius May - warmest

See https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-maps

> read: a few motivating, non-injurious taps to make you comply

federal agent broke his hand in two places

Go to URL and tell me what is written there.

I believe that Tesla would prefer no advertising to "German court declared our claims about car capabilities a lie."

Vox published both "not going to be a pandemic" and "flu is worse" in early February.

In this particular case - taxing [carbon footprint of] electricity at source and letting the market do it's magic.

As a bonus point: taxes can be redistributed equally to citizens so it's revenue neutral.

I recently listened to Not Cool episode on geoengineering [1]. Two important points that I learned about:

- Question over who holds the dial (Russia's ok with some warming, India not so much) can easily lead to nuclear war.

- Just telling people "we're considering pumping atmosphere with a gas that causes acid rains in order to cool the planet" makes them reevaluate how serious of a problem climate change is.

[1] https://futureoflife.org/2019/09/17/not-cool-ep-6-alan-roboc...

> Overall, face-to-face time decreased by around 70 per cent across the participating employees, on average, with email use increasing by between 22 per cent and 50 per cent (depending on the estimation method used).

From Harvard study in 2018 comparing pre/post open-office.

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/07/05/open-plan-offices-drive...

There's a great talk from StrangeLoop[0] where a presenter uses Alloy modelling in exactly the same manner:

- generate a couple examples

- see something wrong

- add a rule

- repeat

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvNRlE4E9QQ

> and something like this will reoccur every year (is that right?!).

No. Once you are one of those 60% you either die or get immunity.

> failure but TLA+ proved that it was impossible to build a reliable system based on the hard requirements

That's probably the most useful result TLA+ can give in comparison to not using it.

Understanding that requirements are impossible after 1-2 weeks of modelling is way better that after 6+ months of coding.

One thing is the fact that it's expected to have both washing machine and dryer in US. This leads to additional space and ventilation requirements.

The solution would of course be ditching the dryer, but not both.

> Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions.

But then some corporation would move away from that, get extra money and eat competition who is more green/moral/etc.

Competitive economy maximizes profits in the space allowed by regulations. That's a feature, not a bug. But it also means that expecting some sectors/inputs to become unfashionable and die out is very close to wishful thinking.

Find route can probably be made way more efficient by using meet in the middle technique.

Instead of finding all 6 hops from start and checking if it's the end find 3 hops from start, 3 hops from end and just intersect two sets.

Pharma industry in Switzerland also grew rapidly after start due to the fact that it didn't have patents, unlike neighboring countries.

Depends on how many irrelevant emails Amazon send to the whole population.

See: lottery fallacy [1]

https://lucidphilosophy.com/18-lottery-fallacy/

In fact such interpretations of contract ambiguities (in favor of weaker party) are even codified in some countries, most notably the whole of EU [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem

Assuming gender has no impact on awfulness

P(all your female bossses awful) = P(awful boss)^(number of female bosses)

P(all your male bossses awful) = P(awful boss)^(number of male bosses)

The lower the number of male/female bosses, the greater the probability of all of them being awful. The opposite (probability of all of them being not awful) increasing is also true.

This is generally known as a small numbers fallacy[1]

https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Book%3A_...

Number 7 Legal-Doc-to-Google-Form is being done by Axdraft (YC W19)

Disclaimer: I'm friends with one of the cofounders.

> However, if a politician came by and promised to raise gasoline prices by 50% in order to invest $X billion into WeWork so that they could solve the commute problem once and for all,

Than you should like carbon fee and dividend scheme[1]. Tax emissions, divide equally between all citizens. The end result is unchanged populations spending power, but redistributed towards less carbon-intensive products.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend

There's almost zero monetary incentives for any startups.

Product focused on indoor pollution - doesn't help that much as people still spend some time outside.

Product that "cleans" outdoor pollution - the only way to get money from that is to sell it directly to government (maybe local). Unless you develop something really groundbreaking it's cheaper to do regulation and policy changes.

> Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap.

The consumer cannot easily distinguish between $400(dies after 10 years) and $300 (dies after 4).

The better alternative is forcing supplier to get an insurance.

e.g. we want a road that will be X feet wide and will last Y years provided no earthquakes. Maintenance cost + Z dollars per day closed comes from insurance.

Want to use old boring tech - you insurance cost is lower. Want to try something new and shiny. Your insurance rate is higher at first, but may go down in the future.

> why shouldn't that be possible?

Evolution "cares" about one and only one thing - spreading of relevant genes. Technological advances means there's almost no difference in terms of procreation between more and less heat tolerant people.