I wonder if the card companies themselves would be happy with those rules. I don't think it's a grand conspiracy. I think they are just looking at the business and realizing that the amount of money to be made from it (especially with chargebacks) is very small compared to the potential lawsuits/headlines of facilitating child pornography and as a result have been conservative.
If they were forced to allow it then it would give them cover and also their competitors would be as well - so there'd be no competitive disadvantage.
It's also very weird that the same type of people who normally talk about corporations/governments covering up pollutants do not talk about how many people could die from a potential lab leak.
Every single pandemic before SC2 was of natural origin. You have to make a much more persuasive case than "people could die from a lab leak" to ban research that could plausibly reduce the death toll from the next pandemic.
Are you not familiar with the 1977 flu pandemic? About 700k people died. You can argue about whether that was a "lab leak" or (as Gronvall prefers) a mere "vaccine accident", but either is unnatural.
Even in the 'steelman' case of a lab leak in the '77 H1N1 - it was a natural virus that later escaped and caused the pandemic. Even if it was some accident involving the 1950's H1N1, that means the natural 1950s H1N1 was capable of causing a pandemic...
We really need to come to terms with the fact that whether we research them or not, there are going to be increasing numbers of pandemic-capable viruses spreading in human populations.
If I tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and then visited a nursing home without a mask, exhaling the natural virus all over the home's vulnerable residents, then I'm pretty sure you'd say I'd done something terrible. I think you'd be right. It's obvious to most people in most circumstances that even if a pathogen exists in nature and naturally causes some degree of death and sickness, a human who enables that pathogen to cause a greater degree of death and sickness is doing something bad. This is especially true if they're doing so maliciously (e.g., in biological warfare), but still true even if they're merely reckless (e.g. my nursing home visitor, or that flu shot nurse who reused the syringes).
So why does this intuition fail when the virus passes through a lab? The 1946-1957 flu virus was indeed natural, but the 1977 pandemic of that same virus was near-certainly not--without the activities of the scientists involved, the virus would probably have stayed safely in the freezer forever. The scientists also had the option not to put it in the freezer in the first place, in which case it would have probably just gone extinct. That scientific activity almost certainly caused those deaths.
Maybe it's just that one death is a tragedy, and 700k deaths are a statistic? When the last smallpox death (so far, at least) occurred following a lab accident in the UK, the director of the lab in question killed himself out of guilt, even though that lab was basically in compliance with the standards of the time. Perhaps he just had an unusually sensitive conscience; but I wonder if the scale of death in the 1977 flu pandemic (or this pandemic now, if it turns out to be unnatural) is simply so great that people can't engage with it, and their usual moral mechanisms just shut down.
In engineering school, we're taught from the first week that our work has the potential to kill people, and that it's our fault if it does. If a structural engineer responded to a building collapse simply by explaining that buildings are very important for society and that many people would die of exposure without them, then his colleagues would be mystified, and perhaps concerned for his mental health. We're expected to study and learn from our failures, in order not to repeat them. The argument that "X has benefits, therefore we can ignore its costs completely" is so ridiculous that I've never heard it spoken.
Yet a vocal subset of virologists are somehow able to make just that argument for their discipline, shrugging off the deaths they cause as a "natural" cost of doing business, unworthy of study or thought--and a significant fraction of the public accepts it! I find this strange, and terrifying. Don't you?
This article seems like a real stretch. For their first example picked the absolute lightest ICE car (3000 pounds) and the heaviest electric car (an electric hummer). The Ford F-150 electric looks only about 33% heavier than the ICE version, and comparison like that seem more sense.
Even then the article finds in these (stretched) cases you need to drive around 50,000 miles for it to break even. But even that - it doesn't seem like too much to me? Trucks usually are bought on the assumption they will be driven to very high mile counts.
Gas prices have fluctuated wildly since 2020. This has had nothing to do with the number of people who own ICE vehicles.
Even if you assumed it was tightly correlated, then the second prices dropped you'd expect more people to buy. I'm also not sure what gas prices would be if suddenly everyone had an EV. Seems like they might be forced to charge more since the gas stations themselves would be making less on it?
In ten years I imagine a large majority of vehicles will still use gas. Last year EV sales were only about 7% of all cars. Cars have a relatively long shelf life and all projections I've seen (which admittedly are just speculations) have EV's passing ICE cars in about 15 years. But even then it's still half gas cars.
If I had to buy a new car today I'd still probably buy an ICE based on my needs/budget but I wouldn't do so because I think gas or car prices will crash or anything.
I disagree. By this standard the government should not even be building highways (they are subsidies to the technology of the automobile, after all)
The government built/supported plenty of the infrastructure that helped the internet/wireless communication take off fast. It obviously would have occurred without it but would have been slower.
I more or less have a no show job. I am a programmer but for a private company whose business is entertainment. About 5 years ago I came up with something that traceably earned the owner millions. The owner/CEO loves me but I report directly to him with no other co-workers so a bit hard to "move up" I get paid 150k a year to work maybe 40 (flexible) hours a month? For the last two years I've pursued side projects (more artistic than business) but haven't reached the brake even point.
I've thought about leaving many times but it always feels like best case scenario I'd maybe get a 10%ish salary bump but one that is way more demanding. I know deep down this is bad for the long term but also hard to give up such a nice lifestyle especially when I've been able to fill it with other pursuits that were fulfilling.
I think the hesitation is that your skills might atrophy as well as your ability to work in non-chill environments, in case it becomes necessary to move on in the future. Company could go under, get acquired etc etc
True, but not the support of colleagues and work that puts it into practice.
Reading about Foobars at Scale isn't the same as working on them at Netflix or wherever. (Even if you try to put what you read into practice and it's somehow free/cheap to deploy at massive scale and load test it, it's still not the same.)
This is reasonable, though on the flipside, the commenter could also become stuck in a role at a large corporation where either the work is repetitive, or the skills are non-transferable to other companies (i.e. the work is highly specific to internal tools not used elsewhere), with no on-the-job time to improve one’s skills.
You’re right that conditions could be far better for skill improvement, though having paid free time is also a great environment (e.g. for potentially earning a graduate degree online from a reputable institution).
I agree and wouldn't turn such a position down :') - I just wanted to point it that it's not a completely rosy skill-building scenario. Depends also on what you want to be learning, and how you learn I suppose. (E.g. I think I learn best from textbooks, at least as a first step, so I might fare better than someone who learns better with instruction, or less theoretical more hands-on stuff.)
> as well as your ability to work in non-chill environments
This is a real thing, at least for me personally. I've been self-employed for the last 4 years and have been lucky enough to live a very cushy life. I make twice as much now than any job I had in the past, but all my income is more or less passive and has nothing to do with how much I work. That being said, I know my current situation won't last won't last forever and every so often I get pretty stressed out at the idea of having to go back to a regular job. As a result I probably work 40-50 hours a week on other projects trying to find something else that will 'stick' in case my current income source disappears. It's still cushy in the sense that I get to pick and choose when I work and what I work on, but the thought of going back to a full time job, or god forbid an office, is pretty stressful.
I was once in a similar position as handmodel, for about two years, and absolutely terrified that my skills would atrophy. But now I realize that was just fear-driven and everything cycles, or is replaced, every five to ten years. So if you can skip one of those cycles you can avoid wasting a lot of effort.
That is sorta how I hope it gets resolved. I do think I'm a quick learner, still. My job sounds extremely impressive on paper though when it comes to nuts and bolts I feel like I have atrophied for several years.
I do feel like my skills have atrophied. I've def taught myself some skillsets over the years - I love to learn - but mostly things that seem fun/interesting/challenging and not things that would transfer into a similar paying job.
Thank you. This is why I have not quit but why I responded to this thread of being "fired". I feel like it would make the decision for me and be a relief and work out in the long term. Just no time in the short term has it appealed enough to me to pull the trigger.
I do the occasional job searching - but not a ton. And my network feels smaller than it was when I started the job.
I probably should. I think it has been hard for me to find one that is part-time and worthwhile.
I taught myself circuit design/CAD/3d modeling over the last couple years since I've been doing some amateur product design. I feel like I've made progress but also this has consumed a lot of my spare intellectual time and although I had a few people reach out to me after seeing my amateur projects online have not made any formal progress into the business.
I’ve had similar situations and I empathize with you. I like to “own” things and build and feel excited about what I’m involved in. Collecting money for being alive and sharing wisdom sometimes when called upon leaves me very depressed. Everyone says “what a great job! Do whatever you want!” But what I want to do isn’t a side gig, I enjoy earth changing adventures in building amazing stuff that’s really important and hasn’t been done before. I enjoy the excitement of inventing new things as I fall asleep. I don’t get that from side projects.
Conversely I enjoy throwing myself into an empty pool head first and it leads to burnout and high stress levels that impact my health. So I swing between these poles in my career.
I relate to that. I have some personal side projects that I enjoy though I worry they may not be sustainable if I start to have a family. Before this job I very much had a job I had complete ownership over and really loved it - even though it was not very well paying.
It's a great problem to have. I think many of us here are in a similar position. Nice comfy jobs, well paid with no chance of promotion. I've been at mine for over a decade. I know it's going to be bad when its over, however there is also the real possibility of this position lasting until I retire.
I think you may be under estimating luck. Maybe you are not underemployed, maybe you are overly lucky?
Ultimately that's close to what I'm doing! Not jumping ship until something finds my way that is definitely better.
I think I "want to be fired" because it would take some of the stress of the decision away from me. My girlfriend makes slightly more than me now - even though years ago I made about twice as her - and I admit I feel some pressure to keep up.
It’s bad for your sense of self-worth, even if it’s not objectively a bad thing.
One day you might ask yourself “Where would I be if I went all-in on something exciting rather than just putting 10% effort into my work for all those years?”
That is a terrible way to live your life. If a person has interests they should pursue them, not act out of fear that one day they will be called to judgment.
I have been building a lot of cool stuff the last couple years in the hardware space. I think in my mind I thought I'd been able to spin it off as a side project? But so far its the type of things I post online and amateurs find it very interesting/artistic but hard to monetize/make sustainable.
This is why it's done but still sorta of strange to me that this was the way I was taught by camp instructors - even though we never were going for speed. Feels a bit like learning how to ride a bike with one of those aerodynamic helmets even if you aren't really ready to learn racing technique yet.
It's not just racing. Feathering paddles can be really useful generally if wind picks up and you're actively fighting it. Otherwise you're dealing with a lot of resistance with the paddle blade in the air. And I assume there are instructors who just want to instill feathered paddles as the norm you should expect.
I generally disagree but lots of people with more experience than I have don't.
For this particular example (housing) I agree that median isn't that informative. It doesn't cover the range of prices available and a theoretical city with a high median, but a glut of housing available cheaply, would look expensive according to this stat.
However, this is not my impression of housing in NYC at all. In fact - quite the opposite. The very low vacancy rate means that the floor is very high. That is why you see stories about essentially closets going for more than luxury apartments in other cities.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert but it seems like the hard/expensive part is probably building the underwater drone capable of taking the LIDAR?
I would imagine at some point getting overhead satellite imagery by plane of the entire world seemed impossible - as did street view coverage of the entire US - but not the craziest expense once you have the ability to do it once.
The really hard part is the combination of the very short range of light transmission underwater and the very large size of the oceans. How many centuries are you willing to spend on the project?
The MH370 search used sonar, which works well underwater but has quite short range so it involved driving ships around on the surface dragging sonar arrays backwards and forwards for years.
I think this is one of the systems used during the MH370 search, apparently it can scan 192km² per day.
There are 161,000,000 km² of ocean, so you'd need at least a million days or 3,000 years to scan the whole thing, give or take.
That sounds extremely slow but presumably now that they've built one the cost to build 100 or 1000 would be achievable if someone (or some government) had the interest.
I would think they would need a version that doesn't need the ship nearby to scale - but would still guess this is something that will be accomplished on the order of 30 years from now.
There's twice as much sea as land, and from a brief glance LIDAR penetrates to 300m (whereas google informs me the average depth of the ocean is ~3600m) as well as presumably some weird topology which might make for interesting challenges.
Certainly doesn't sound easy, but it'd be interesting to hear from anyone who works in this area.
