By your logic, banning it through regulation decreases options and hence diversification.
Governments are not angels which seems to be an assumption in your and sibling replies. They're a bully who doesn't want someone else to get power.
I'm not being extreme, humor me. If the govt didn't want a monopoly, isn't it a hypocrisy that they themselves are one?
The proper thing to would've been to get closer to anarcho-capitalism, ie let there be govt currency and FB's libra. Let people decide what they want to use.
Not sure about the website you run but there might be a corelation to Linux users and your site. It could be either due to your network and the way people came to know about the site or it could be the content among other things
Issue 1: It's very difficult to tell if your contribution got 50% improvement in performance because there were 10 other devs pushing in features and bug fixes. This is the attribution problem
Issue 2: This happens over time. It's very unlikely that your 50% improvement happens every year or month. Because, think for your self, this is compounding with large rates. It grows quickly. 1.5x improvement in 6 cycles (months or years) is 10x. This essentially is the time problem
Issue 3: even if you deliver the results you did, in a large company there's a large bureaucracy and no one person has the ability to increase your salary by that much. This is the control problem.
In Silicon Valley, pay is high, so is the cost of living, reverse in other places. If your situation differs, you've got it good (unless you're in a bad job in a high cost of living place)
I'm a libertarian and I don't know what to say. There will be shitty companies as well I guess, but when they lose customers due to such practices, they will learn? If they don't learn they will go out of business.
You're stuck with a bad govt law, no efficient weeding out process exists.
That's interesting. I was of the understanding that everything at Google office tries to de-stress you/undistract you. I thought that would result in people being calmer/ more empathetic.
"Founders need to be tech" is said often, but you're assuming "Founders need to be tech OR Founders need to have soft skills", which is an unnecessary assumption.
For example, "Founders should be determined" is also expressed often, doesn't mean they're expecting it to be an either-or with the quality of "being tech"
Because demand for plastic bags or similar substances doesn't evaporate. You're using a different substance instead of plastic, if you ban it. Using paper implies cutting down more trees, and paper doesn't have all the awesome properties that plastic has: high tensile strength per weight, impermeable to air/moisture, lightweight, etc.
I'm an Indian and your statements are ignorant and myopic. Let me explain.
Littering is in every country not just India. Certain countries deal with it in a better way.
Banning something doesn't evaporate it's demand. Like, people litter because there are not dustbins (at least not often enough) on the street in India.
Open defecation is unrelated to this issue. Main reason open defecation happens is because there is no continuous supply of water (by the Govt) or proper sewage system (responsibility of the govt).
We need to stop blaming ourselves and think what is the root cause of the problem - Government.
PS: I've thought my stance through about this, please think through this and see whether or not Govt is to blame for this. Govt is not you and I. All govts these days are Govts of the people by the bureaucracy for the bureaucracy.
Governments are not angels which seems to be an assumption in your and sibling replies. They're a bully who doesn't want someone else to get power.
I'm not being extreme, humor me. If the govt didn't want a monopoly, isn't it a hypocrisy that they themselves are one?
The proper thing to would've been to get closer to anarcho-capitalism, ie let there be govt currency and FB's libra. Let people decide what they want to use.