I did something similar between school and a job, but it wasn't so much intentional as acute burnout.
In tech, we luckily have the luxury to take time off and recover when we need to.
I worked on some closed source personal projects and worked on getting into shape. When I was ready to return, the employer didn't really care that I had taken time off.
Dissatisfaction will cause people to move around in the market. I don't know how much I buy the argument that people are looking for WFH, more than that they are looking to not work in a service industry which has low benefits low pay, and no chance of upward mobility.
The pandemic is giving people a chance to realize their career has stalled. I think everyone already knew that the US healthcare system was broken, but maybe people are realizing changing careers is the only way out of that bind.
Tech workers would be fine under any situation, so I don't think it's right to compare your FIRE friends with a cruise ship waiter.
It's important to note that tech workers make up no where close to 40% of all workers, and that most of the people discussed here are lower class seeking upward mobility. Being miserable is just the catalyst for seeking a way out of their situation.
Yes, but I don't think it's right to entirely ignore the point. Why are Mississipi and Alabama so high in the federal defense spending budget? [1] Each are spending more than $3k per capita, compared to the US average of $1772.
I guess we can disagree on which states benefit most from the program, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that essentially it is a program that is used to bribe senators and representatives through job spending. It doesn't have a lot to do with what is actually strategically sensible.
I think you're vastly overestimating how much domestic terrorists cause in terms of damage and loss of life.
The 9/11 attacks are estimated to have cost $40 billion in insurance losses alone, not even including all the additional spending that went into the military and security budgets (including the new Department of Homeland Security) afterward. [1] Additionally, it cost at least $10 billion in property damage, almost 3000 deaths, and 25k injuries. 340 of the dead were firefighters and 72 were police. [2]
Maybe if you are an avid consumer of twitter bubbles, you'd think that domestic terrorism is a more widespread problem (well, no argument there). But that doesn't mean it's a good use of money to try to prevent it by giving to local law enforcement, that has neither the ability, legal rights, nor will to seriously tackle. The way you reduce domestic terrorism isn't by hiring more cops, it's by tackling the things that lead to terrorism: namely conspiracy theorists, religious cults, and economic hardship. Cops don't factor into the equation at all.
It's incredibly rare for cops to know about a possible domestic terror incident before hand. We see it with every mass shooting. I can only think of one incident where people were arrested before hand, and that was a rare incident involving an entire gang of individuals, rather than the lone shooter which is the most common situation.
Yeah, I think since we're talking a 10-20 year time frame, they are vastly overlooking less obvious things like investing in the next generation in a broad way, rather than these tactical goals relating to theoretical conflicts.
But setting these agenda items are not the responsibility of the Military. Congress should be deciding where the money goes, and they should actually get around to infrastructure and education spending that will allow the next generation to be more effective.
It's important to know that the US and Europe also collectively have higher populations, and are more interconnected (so their risk of contagion is higher than for small countries).
And when it comes to research and vaccinations, it's clear that the US quickly developed effective vaccines and was able to distribute them. While this is still an ongoing process, you only need to look at India to see that other countries are still far behind on vaccine supply, research, and distribution efforts.
These kind of things are relative, I'd say that the US did seem handle the crisis relatively well, all things considered. Certainly room for improvement though.
China would launch their own defensive missiles, as well as offensive missiles at aircraft carriers in the South China Sea and nearby US landing strips. This is exactly the wargames that they are discussing that the US continually loses at because they can't defend their base infrastructure in those areas.
I respect eBay's ability to decide what is for sale on their platform, but I agree with the reporter: It's incredibly silly to ban a Dr. Seuss book when Mein Kampf is available.
This is what people call "virtue signaling". The article says that only 7000 copies were sold of the highest selling such Dr. Seuss book. This has no practical effects besides publicity. If they are going to seriously take this view, then they should have started with Mein Kampf.
Now, if they were to release a press-release with a long list of banned products, or classes of products, that isn't to say I'd necessarily agree that it was a good thing. But at least it would be consistent.
>Casualties = 3 * (strength of attacker / strength of defender)
Talk about out of touch. I can't imagine being so deep in your own head to think that this is the sort of thing that is comparable to Einstein's theory of relativity, or Mendel's genetics. "Not in the same league, but at least in the same sport". Unadulterated hubris, the whole article.
And what is the frontier that he thinks he has carved out? Games as art? Mathematics as art? And he doesn't recognize anyone else as making strides in that area?
If he has something to say, then yeah, he sure did blow it, because he is clearly incapable of explaining himself in a way that anyone cares to understand. More likely, he's just a guy who ran out of ideas 35 years ago and can't let it go.
>Selling only perfect fruit is literally foodwaste right there.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you haven't exactly explained why "food waste" is a bad thing. I've given a reason why it could be considered a good thing: it can reduce the cost and increase total food that is purchased.
For an absurd example, see the "Eat your vegetables, because there are children starving in China" argument. Just because it would be nice if every hungry person had food, doesn't mean that letting any food go to waste is necessarily immoral by itself.
It seems like you are making an unstated assumption that food being thrown away is a bad thing.
I'm not convinced. Let's say a farmer wanted to reduce foodwaste. So they only sold perfect fruit that they knew would get bought. That would drive up the prices of those perfect fruit AND there would be less fruit for sale in total.
Therefore, some amount of food waste should be acceptable to ensure the best outcome for everyone.
I think it's important to remember that when treating depression, often you will use therapy and medication.
People sometimes do as you are doing and seem to imply the medication is used instead of working out your problems. But it's really just one part of a whole.
I essentially agree. The internet is not the public square, until you legally make it so.
And that essentially is not going to happen. Companies are "people too". They are allowed to express their free speech by not doing business with you.
Cloud Flare is within their rights to protect their stock value by doing business with whomever they choose. If the government declared the opposite, then it would truly require a massive shakeup of law and precedent.
I think you are trying to turn the above argument on it's head, but honestly I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
"The free speech of muslims"? It's almost as if you think 9/11 was caused by a domestic terrorist. You do realize the hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia right? And there is no free speech there? So... what are you trying to imply? Please use more clear language instead of just trying to meme.
Well, if you include Windows 95/98/NT/ME/2000/... But I think it's a valid point. Windows 10's main contribution is an attempt to provide auto-updating operating system to reduce version skew. I have a lot of hope that windows 10 actually does have a long lifespan. Crossing my fingers Android can do the same one day.
In tech, we luckily have the luxury to take time off and recover when we need to.
I worked on some closed source personal projects and worked on getting into shape. When I was ready to return, the employer didn't really care that I had taken time off.