HN user
Getting the president of a country to push other countries to take the vaccine is next level go-to-market strategy.
some profit.
Ha! We’re talking 10s of billions.
Personally, I’m waiting for the Monsanto vaccine before I take it.
Biden has vowed to vaccinate 70% of the world in the next year
Imagine the profits Pfizer is going to have. Hell of a quarter.
Qualtrics gave engineers RSUs in 2015 when they were still private.
Same. Couldn’t view the link and won’t be installing an app I have no intention of using.
rationalist and never believe conspiracy theories
That’s irrational to NEVER believe them. How do you know what is or isn’t a conspiracy theory? Whether it was fact checked by our overlords?
Maybe Tesla was actually innocent and they are counting on the Streisand effect. It’s a stretch.
I’ve never seems a timeline-view calendar in the terminal like here: https://github.com/SitanHuang/ledg
What libraries were used to do that? I don’t see a package.json
That’s just a client though, right? They write JavaScript too for clients.
It’s probably production level services, not just projects.
The vilest? Not even. That was a mild 4chan thread.
Facebook/Instagram?
even offered $100 to get the vaccine
Must be one hell of a pandemic if that is a greater incentive than immunity.
It wouldn’t be inconsistent to advocate for voter ID laws and let minorities disagree.
His point was not speaking for minorities.
a free, readily available vaccine
Nothing is free. How much did pharma companies make from the vaccine? I don’t know the answer.
This isn’t a brutalist site just because it has little color.
Square is a public company. Not a startup by any means.
both sides
There’s not only 2 sides.
I stopped reading any news or social media (outside HN or stocks) since New Years. I don’t feel on a side anymore.
You used the term “homeless” after saying you hate it?
Nobody mentioned cars.
This little 125cc motorcycle get 125-150 mpg. Tops out at 55mph.
Related, I was just talking about why middle/high school years seem to last longer than now. The variety of the time spent was probably a factor (Playing in the band one day, focusing on decathlon another). Life is monotonous these days.
From the article:
We asked whether it is “fair or unfair for people who say grossly offensive things to be at risk of losing their livelihoods?” Nationally, 48 percent believe it is “fair,” but this figure rises to 65 percent for social democrat-aligned Labour voters, compared with 39 percent for right-leaning Conservative voters.
Meaning right leaning are more likely to live and let live.
this is a huge argument
What was the argument. I didn’t see an argument. That fact that expensive apartments exist?
let them pay in blood for the privilege
Why? Follow this thread of envy and it ends at a guillotine for anyone with wealth.
So she admitted that political climate at work contributed to her emotional/medical leave?
Sounds like she would be more fulfilled at a non-profit.
Sounds like she was spinning her wheels doing things that don’t necessarily make the company money, was bound to have conflict with management.
There is a new Pokemon game coming out called "Pokemon Snap" where apparently the whole game consists of traveling through the game world and taking photos of Pokemon
At first I thought you were joking as if we were in the 90s again with this tamagotchi thread. People were equally confused by the original Pokémon snap, they said the exact same thing as you. Originally, kids were disappointed that the first 3D Pokémon game was a photography game, but it ended up being a memorable hit.
I played the hell out of that when I was 9 years old.
So it’s not “empowerment”. It’s equal outcomes. It’s not “leveling the playing field”, it’s removing the playing field. If that’s your goal whatever, but dressing it up behind platitudes is dishonest.
The measures she proposes would likely raise wages for everyone
Then it’s not realistic. How can companies afford to raise their highest expense?
This will put a cap on skilled negotiators since it creates a fixed range.
Call it a “benefit”. I could see how it “benefits” more workers, but I wouldn’t call it “empowering”.
It does make good negotiators more powerless.
How does this empower women? Sounds like lowering the bar for everyone.
The author even said she’s likely to undervalue her own worth. This proposal is a business straight up telling them their worth. Opposite of empowering. She wants prices listed like a McDonalds drive thru. She wants it easy.
Real empowerment would be teaching women how to properly negotiate a salary.
It’s not empowering to stay in t-ball.
If they don’t want to do it themselves then some of our billionaires will be happy to invest and own huge portions of the upside.
This is a colonialist policy
nations can’t even do some kind of sanction to promote clean tech without some social justice moralisms? It’s so tiresome.
The plane is going down. First class goes down with coach.
Competition is good for consumers
On the whole, yes, but not for all consumers.
If some people lived near a beautiful meadow and river, and everyone else lived in the desert, then competition (e.g. opening up a direct train to the meadow) would hurt the ones living in the meadow.
For example, if Elon Musk succeeds in landing the first person on Mars, his coin price should theoretically go up. And if, in contrast, he makes a racial slur during a press conference, his coin price should theoretically go down.
Yes, and when people are making emotional/ideological financial decisions, I’ll buy the dip.