Thanks for this great post. I'm an organizer of a local DevOpsDays conference with a very similar attendance goal and actual (300 planned, 130 final attendance including speakers, sponsors, organizers). We were touch and go for a while as to whether we'd put it on. Ultimately there were enough commitments to vendors that it was cheaper to put it on at a loss than to back out. Fortunately we had some pre-covid buffer money that kept us from being in real trouble.
All that to say, the conference was a fantastic time, even with the fewer people. We went in with the expectations of a much more intimate event than pre-covid, and we were totally energized and ready to kick it off next year. None of the people there complained about the groups being too small. The conversations that happened were the right ones; the people that had them were the right people.
A third point is that "turn off your phone" is incredibly dismissive. A person shouldn't have to live without the Internet due to the actions of one, two, or twenty individuals.
Interesting. I feel like there is no way Uber would be on the brink of bankruptcy and not be able to fundamentally change the problems that have persisted so far.
I guess what I'm getting at is that a company valued at 69 billion dollars going out of business in less than 2 years should be a surprise to everyone.
Your proposed situation is exactly why regulations are needed; there are very strong incentives to do things incredibly anti-consumer, and regulation is in many ways the only defense. It's generally not possible to find a new ISP, and even if I could find an ISP that didn't do this, they would be competing with the many that do.
This is more common in dry climates where shoes don't get as dirty/muddy. Notably, this describes California, where most TV shows and Movies are produced. It's not as widespread as it would seem from American media.
In some parts of America, if the taxes for the property go unpaid for long enough, an interested party can start paying taxes and improve the property to gain legal ownership. This is effectively a formal method of squatting called "adverse possession".
The problem with this is that it's really hard to get a user to click a button they don't have to. Additionally, many people already give low weight to reviews that are strictly 5 star ratings, so encouraging more of them probably won't help people determine how good a product really is.
Personally, I prefer 120, but I realize it is a preference. That said, I am irritated beyond belief when there is a project mandate that all code be 80 characters and no more. Pretty much everyone has a widescreen monitor these days, and the 80 character limit is a relic from the 4x3 monitor days.
Beyond that, I feel like a character limit that low puts a disincentive on the creation of meaningful variable names and function names. Maybe it's a hold-over from my Java days, but I really strive to name my functions and methods something meaningful. When I'm limited to 80 characters, plus proper tabbing, plus general flow control... it becomes incredibly difficult to stay under 80.
The impetus of this discussion is that pharma companies are buying rights to drugs. So it seems that, no, they don't need to research and create the drugs to market them.
All that to say, the conference was a fantastic time, even with the fewer people. We went in with the expectations of a much more intimate event than pre-covid, and we were totally energized and ready to kick it off next year. None of the people there complained about the groups being too small. The conversations that happened were the right ones; the people that had them were the right people.