So has Wikipedia: they could have just dropped GoDaddy without saying a word, that would have been neutral. Publicly proclaiming you severing business ties for a politically-charged reason is just bad business.
In a longer run this may not look as good for Wikipedia as it does now. It shows that they are willing to sacrifice their cultural values, particularly neutrality, for other impromptu values that Jimmy sees fit to promote. It also shows that they are willing to turn on their business partners and screw them.
This is the logical next step part of a much longer trend on Wikipedia, that of the solidification of power in the hands of a few, which has been happening with the editing for some time.
Isn't the obvious, uncomfortable answer, that management wants to maximize profitability? It's almost the definition of their job to find these 100x productivity programmers and pay them the 1x salary. Also, note that when you have an entire team of 100x programmers, and you are only paying them 2x or 3x the salary of the 1x programmer, the manager has succeeded well in their goal - not only has the pay-me-more-for-my-skill argument disappeared (they are all the same 100x skill level) but you are extracting the massive amount of excess productivity into profitability. bottom line is that if you really are a 100x programmer, it is difficult to fully capitalize on that skill
The syrup comes from the motion of the fluid in the tree - when it gets cold at night the sap goes into the roots, when its warm during the day the sap rises. so to get a good flow you need cold nights and warm days.
during the flow the sap picks up the maple taste from other bits of stuff in the tree - grade b is actually the first sap produced in the season and has the most of this 'stuff'. As the season goes on theres less and less of this stuff so then you start making grade a and fancy.
The Golden Rule - if you wouldn't trust the other party on a handshake, all the paper in the world isn't going to be enough to put the deal in writing.
A rather confusing post: does the author want to work only 20 hours? Or work 40 hours but be rewarded the same as someone who works 60 hours? Or work 60 hours doing something they love all the time? All of these seem quite unrealistic but for different reasons.
The 40 hour week was brought to America in 1938, brought about primarily by unions - the word 'weekend' didn't even exist until the 1870s. Enjoy the freedom that so many worked so hard to provide you.
Yes! I've always found it to be the case that employers that ask for 'passion' are merely interested in turning enthusiasm into dollars. Run, run, run like the plague.
In fact the hard cap as to amount of energy we can extract has been reached - we would in fact use more if we could, but we can't extract it - we are running in place. This is often confused with efficiency when in fact it is a peak energy issue. Three billion people in the world living on under $3 a day and we there's no demand for more energy?
The example is not compelling; 100 years ago there were no cars - are we using more or less energy now with the advent of 'car technology'? The obvious answer is: way more. We are not just taking the net energy of 1910 and 'redistributing' it. Because this is what technologies do, provide an advantage that nature does not. But technology is not free - to develop it, make it, use it, dispose of it, all requires a lot of energy. An insatiable thirst to develop and use thingamajigs is what is causing the problem, not solving it.
Efficiency actually increases energy use, as per Jevon's paradox, which goes hand in hand with the technological cornucopia argument that the energy issue will be solved by better technology. Unfortunately the EROEI numbers reflect quite the contrary - where once oil bubbled up from the ground under its own pressure netting 200x EROEI, we're now griming are way through oil sands which net 5-6x EROEI, or sinking 2 mile long pipes into the ocean. This is why Kurzweil argument fails - technology has a tendency to expand and soak up as much energy as possible, all the salad shooters in the world aren't going to bring back $2 oil, in any form.
there is a 98.3% chance that f is b-like
there is a 98.3% chance that e is a-like
there is a 89.3% chance that d is a-like
there is a 53.1% chance that c is b-like
If these are multiplied together, it appears that there is only a 45.8% chance that they are all classified correctly?
I have only two numbers 50 and 60 - one is a weight and another is a temperature. Now I have another number, 80. What kind of number is that? No way to know. The fact that there are multiple values make no difference - the data is the data!