gwelson

I am definitely a layperson when it comes to organized sports, but from my POV it seems like competitive cycling attracts WAY more fraud/cheating/doping/etc. than many other kinds of sports. At least I have heard about it a lot more. I wonder why that is.

This looks nice but nearly identical to Obsidian. How does it differ from Obsidian's features?

The thing that bothers me about this line of argument is...there already are a lot of people! We've had _massive_ population growth over the past few centuries, especially in the last 100 years or so. We have 8 _billion_ people now...and I personally don't see a lot of the benefits that the author talks about. I really don't think going from 8 billion to 10 billion or 16 billion or even 50 billion people would really make a meaningful difference in "the number of geniuses" or the number of people to populate a subreddit for a niche hobby, to draw on two of his examples. We have lots of geniuses now and we have lots of people on subreddits already.

We can already see that many (most?) societies are really quite bad at dividing finite resources/wealth/capital/land/etc. in an efficient (let alone equitable) manner among the billions of people in the world today. Are we really supposed to believe that resource management would magically become better/more efficient/more equitable somehow with even more people to divide them between? My hunch is that the vast majority of new people that got added to the global population would be relatively quite poor, whereas the global number of billionaires and millionaires would stay relatively flat.

Yes things like whale oil and bat guano are resources we've progressed past the need for...but we can't progress past the need for land. Or water. Both of which are in relatively short supply for many people, especially in places that are more desirable to live.

Large population centers have historically tended to form where they are for a reason (proximity to water, natural resources, natural recreation/beauty, desirable weather/climate, etc.), and most of the world's large cities are already pretty tapped out in terms of population. You can't magically fit a billion extra people in New York or Shanghai or Paris without it having disastrous repercussions for the people already there (and the new people). Sure we could build new massive cities in presently rural/unpopulated areas, but I think there's a reason that lots of people don't live in those places now, and if a billion-person city was shoved into South Dakota (to use an example of a very sparsely populated place) out of necessity, I'd imagine many people wouldn't be too happy about having to live there.

To be very clear (and preempt any bad-faith readings of this), I'm not endorsing the view of dramatic population reduction or anything like that. I'm just saying that the idea that massive population growth is always an inherent good strikes me as quite wrongheaded.

I can see the appeal of the screen, but would want it pretty strictly limited to the time, calendar events, and maybe something like what Spotify song I'm playing at the moment. Products like Tidbyt (https://tidbyt.com/) do a cool job at this sort of thing as well.

That said, my big concern when seeing products like this is what happens if the company making it goes out of business and shuts off their servers. Presumably the screen in my desk would become useless as I'm nearly certain there must be some kind of underlying cloud-based API for it to interface with to get data.

Definitely a cool idea, especially in terms of smarter management of standing schedules and built-in power management, but the screen seems like a big potential failure point, and it would really suck to buy a beautiful desk like this and not be able to get super long-term (10-15+ years) use of it

This is somewhat misleading as the initial part of their page says `BU meets 100% of demonstrated financial need for all admitted, first-year students who are US citizens or permanent residents.` — BU is part of a small number (in the dozens maybe) of private US colleges/universities that are "need blind", which can basically be thought of as "price discrimination" from microeconomics. Wealthier families would pay full price, while less-advantaged students pay a more reasonable amount of money. At these schools the total out of pocket cost ends up being roughly comparable (if not less) than going to a state university would be. I went to a similar school and the out of pocket cost was far less than going to my state university as an in-state student would have been, and I got a much better education.

Obviously $80k is still an obscene amount of money, but I don't really have an issue with kids of millionaires + billionaires having to pay that much to attend.

I think that what this means in the long-run is that this small number of very highly resourced private colleges (Ivies, a lot of the small New England liberal arts schools, Duke, MIT, etc.) will be able to sustain "normal" people going there on the need-blind aid, and lower-ranked private institutions (out of the top 50-100 schools) will probably close if they can't afford to offer that level of aid.

Agreed. I also think that once you grow beyond one employee (yourself) as a founder, you acquire a deep moral and ethical (although not legal) responsibility to the wellbeing of your employees. The very notion/term "exit" has always made my skin crawl, at least in the context of "serial entrepreneurs".

Treating a company - a thing that often dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people depend on for their livelihoods - as nothing more than an assert that can be bought and sold at the whims of a founder is fundamentally gross to me. Sure, not every acquisition leads to layoffs, but many (most?) do and I think that's abhorrent.

I know it's how the world works, but I don't think the culture of starting a company to get acquired for a nice "exit" should be celebrated and I think policy measures that can stop or diminish this culture are fundamentally good.

Another note on this, I've had a few very thorny Amazon customer service issues in the past, and at a certain point I found the only solution was to email the CEO's office. I emailed `ajassy@amazon.com` and CC'd `Jeff@amazon.com` (Bezos) and `Dave@amazon.com` (Dave Clark, head of consumer). Got a response nearly instantly from an extremely helpful executive assistant who was empowered to do basically whatever and was a single point of contact moving forward. Even offered to hop on a call and explain what went wrong on their end and how they were fixing it moving forward (an offer I politely declined). I got my issue resolved and a fairly generous gift card for my trouble.

This sort of thing happens all the time at the apartment complex I live in (in the South Bay Area, California). We have an outdoor "mail room" with an automated package locker. I'm not sure if the package locker is usually full or simply hard for drivers to use, but often the delivery drivers will just leave a pile of like 30-50 packages next to it.

Honestly, I don't blame the drivers in the slightest. If I were treated the way they were treated and paid what they were paid, I wouldn't care about doing my job the right way either. Hell, they're so monitored by algorithms and surveillance devices that they probably don't have time to do it the right way even if they wanted to.

Things like this are going to keep happening and keep getting worse until the middle class/upper middle class realizes that our current lifestyle and access to "cheap" services is being held up by a systematically abused and underpaid labor force that isn't given the time, compensation, respect, or basic decency to support doing a good job.

This is Amazon/Bezos' fault, not the driver's.

but that's thing...what is "social activism" here? I don't think having a single tweet or post from your company's account saying "happy Pride month, we love our LGBTQ+ Coinbasers" is activism really....it's just like, a nice thing to do. No one is saying Coinbase or any company should pay their employees to go make phone calls for Bernie Sanders' campaign on the clock. It seems like people are inventing some kind of strawman of "paid activism" that no one is asking for.

The thing I hate about this line of thinking is the supposed "distractions" of being mission-focused are nearly all related simply to basic rights/dignities for marginalized groups. I don't think anyone is saying companies need to take a strong stance on every political issue, but merely saying "we as a company believe the lives of our Black employees matter" or "we as a company welcome and accept our LGBTQ+ employees and don't tolerate anyone who doesn't" are just...basic things you need to do in 2021. They aren't a distraction, I would say not saying them is a distraction.

In all of the discussion around the blog post from Armstrong last year and the similar discussion around Basecamp, I never once saw an example cited of these so-called distractions from being mission-focused that wasn't just affirming the basic dignity of a group of people. I don't understand why doing so should be controversial. Anyone who doesn't fully and unambiguously support the right of Black people to not be killed randomly and of LGBTQ+ people to exist simply doesn't belong in polite, modern society. How is this controversial?

I simply cannot imagine working at a place that doesn't recognize the humanity of their workers. Utterly baffling and heartless mindset.

Out of curiosity, is there no way to wear a helmet over a turban? I've had Sikh friends who wear warm winter hats over their head coverings, for instance. No disrespect to Sikhs reading this, I'm genuinely curious.