I'm amused by those who imagine that the laws of physics can be defied merely by looking the other way. It makes me ponder how unbelievably moronic humanity is, how pathetic, and how deserving of what it is come.

This is how it works on global markets. Small ones do not have pockets to invest enough to remain competitive at volumes required. You need the capital and the people with narrow expertise in several fields that only really can find enough work in very large corporations.

But without whom you're not going to be competitive.

Notably Chinese understand this, which is why their model that crushed iRobot largely worked in the opposite direction.

Take Roborock for example. It started as a de facto part of Xiaomi (it remained a separate company de jure). Xiaomi is a massive conglomerate with all the know how and funding in becoming a large international business that is competitive. And all of its systems were available for Roborock to build the business and grow it to a global giant that it is today.

And once the systems were built and expertise of those deeply specialized and very rare and expensive people as well as capital needs became minimal, it was fully spun off as its own company, under its own name. Meanwhile Xiaomi got access to a lot of Roborock's technology and now also competes in the same market.

iRobot had its successful run on being a pioneer in tech. But as others caught up, its deficiencies on the business know how side became critical. A common problem for companies that are pioneering their own field. This is why they tend to get bought out when successful. You need growth to be supported by experts on the international business side to remain successful once your technological edge ceases being a primary selling factor, and you have to start competing on quality and price as well.

Amazon had the internal business know how that may have righted the ship. Without it, it got devoured by competition who had this advantage.

bad things would happen if CO2 levels went up?

Let's test this hypothesis. Can you name a single thing where one molecule is enough to be meaningfully harmful?

I do not think the OP was disputing that. It seems like they were just warning other readers that the Meta servers have unreasonable or undesirable rules.

Indeed. Replacing half a century of collective experience with a new language in an entirely different and far less tested environment to write low level code, where all the memory safety features have to be disabled at all the same failure points where C and assembly have been used... for reasons.

So, in other words, it really isn't any better at bare metal development than C/C++. If you have to direct memory and hardware manipulation in unsafe blocks, then really, it's just the same thing as doing it in C.

Utterly hilarious that X is so powerful that it can make Microsofties making long term price plans (which must have passed multiple committees)... just surrender and cancel their plans within a day.

Granted they're "re-evaluating our approach" so they'll try again later. But it's still funny.

Article doesn't talk about "non stick coating on your pan", it talks about "chemicals" and gives chemistry-specific short names. Notably only using that word for "bad things described by evil looking red dots that neatly arrange into "hazardous" bubble in the animation we helpfully provide".

So I used the exact same tactic in my post.

It sucks when your side's propaganda is thrown right back in your face, doesn't it?

The article's writer uses this exact tactic liberally. Only the dangerous red things are referred to as "chemicals".

The punchline? It might actually work.

Both you and he can be correct at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive.

I remember seeing coursera ad reads on youtube videos, and they all pitched it as "improve yourself" kind of a thing.

I guess that didn't work out and they are refocusing on corporate sector instead?

Today in "Where's the lie?", notice the language used in the article:

>One California study found phthalates in three-quarters of tested foods, and a Consumer Reports analysis last year detected BPA or similar chemicals in 79% of foods tested. According to CDC data, more than 90% of Americans have measurable levels of these chemicals in their bodies.

So we have "measurable levels", which means anything from "just above what can even be measured with extremely accurate modern equipment" to "he'd dead". This is then followed by the scare:

>A 10-fold increase in maternal levels of brominated flame retardants is associated with a 3.7-point IQ drop in children.

Are we observing anything near that level? No. But if we did, it would be scary.

This is essentially the same thing we have with everything: in sufficient amounts, everything is poison. Did you know that to get dihydrogen monoxide poisoning you need to drink less of it than is currently found in humans for example? It's true, and it's a great headline. It's also an obvious lie by misdirection, just as the journo piece in the OP.

Bonus points for article having these cool animations where red dots all neatly arrange into a big red ball that is headlined "hazardous". Like dihydrogen monoxide.

Overall, yes. The main problem with bonuses is that it's assuming risk for something you as a worker don't reasonably control. The main advantage is that you get a part of windfall if company does well. Meanwhile the main advantage of bonuses is that you as a owner can divest some of the risk and motivate the workforce.

So overall it becomes a choice of "do I want to be paid more on a good year and less on a bad year". Most people aren't mentally equipped to do this level of probabilistic math.

As for impulse spending like ordering food delivery instead of making food at home, "education" helps only a little. Most of the spending issues is about impulse control.

Most of which is genetic. Children of gamblers have a high risk of becoming gamblers. Children of criminals have a high risk of becoming criminals. Etc.

It's one of the parts where you need an incredible amount of "nurture" to break "nature". And even then, you'll only have limited success when you look at it carefully. I.e. most of the children of alcoholics swear off alcohol in their youth, and then they try it as adults and they get hooked for life anyway. Meanwhile people who have low risk of addiction can drink for years, and then just stop because they want to stop.

So if you want to control impulse spending, you have to cut the supplier side. Demand side is primarily biologically driven and will not budge. And most people aren't impulsive spenders. So when you try to push it, they will reject it, because they will rightfully see it as being a massive imposition on their basic rights for no benefit.

We had this discussion across much of the Western world in early 20th century with alcohol. Teetotalers lost.

And yes, it's worth remembering that large plurality of clientele of food delivery apps isn't rich people. There's a reason why statistics suggest that around 1/4 do not tip at all in US. Which also indirectly implies which people don't (low impulse control, bad finances), and who are the delivery drivers who will be hit by this the most (consider US de facto segregation by income coupled with most delivery drivers working in the close vicinity of where they live due to how the job is done).