I always see people recommend this book, but the reviews on amazon are terrible. I feel like it gets recommended a lot because it's popular/old, not because it's actually good/insightful.
It is insightful and makes us understand the fundamentals of usability - very much like math is for software development. But, it may not be immediately usable for developers in designing web applications. If readers are expecting widgets/screens, they might be disappointed with this book.
Considering most of their jobs are in mountain view, a very expensive col and developer salary area, they should consider moving somewhere more economical if they expect to live on handouts.
Why should we have to support their over priced office space?
I suspect that if you ask them, they're not in Mountain View for fun, they're there for the access to top tier tech talent. Browser rendering engines and java script engines are serious engineering, needing good engineers. It's not the only place in the world you can find them, but it's a good one.
Because they're still doing important work, and deserve to have nice things? Why does working at a non profit mean that you should have a bad quality of life?
You don't have to support them, but if their product provides value to you, it's worth considering
I think this miss the point. This seems more in the line to "Duolingo to Silicon Valley workers: Move to Pittsburgh, where you can actually afford a home" call[1].
That is, it's not about less good quality of life, just less high salary possible only in places with less high level of misc. inflation.
Plus passed some level, I doubt higher salaries make good corollary with high quality of life. Not that you can't have a sane happy life with a lot of money, of course. But :
- it doesn't seem to to be a requirement, see for example the case of Matthieu Ricard[2]
- large salary, or more generally acquiring a social status broadly recognized as great success doesn't prevent from terrible quality of life. Arguably, even you go with Camus saying "Un geste comme le suicide se prépare dans le silence du cœur au même titre qu’une grande oeuvre", not all people in [3] committed suicide out of a situation where they felt they had good quality of life.
You're not wrong, but to many people, the appearance of a non-profit (notwithstanding the legal status of Mozilla Corp) operating in an extremely high CoL region isn't good.
If SV doesn't trigger that for you, think about, say, a non-profit headquartered in Monaco, that asks for donations so that its employees can have a nice home and QoL in Monaco with salaries several multiples of your own for comparable work.
But also kind of a happy ending I suppose. He didn't serve that much time and he has a pension coming. Sounds like his kid is clean too. I'm sure a book deal could be possible too, all things pending him staying clean and out of trouble.
It's weird how there's no mention about his back now that he's sober. Does it still hurt? Did it get better?
Hiking in Washington is... frustrating to say the least.
I've even seen whole families with small children show up to snowy trailheads in tennis shoes expecting to do the full hike while I'm walking out with an ice axe dangling from my bag. They don't check trail conditions ever. I'm surprised more people don't die or get injured around here especially in the winter.
Now I try to find hikes that require some route finding as the people you come across on those hikes are generally people who are actually into hiking and not ig likes.
Every time there's a discussion about tech antitrust (google, fb, amazon, ms) people point to each of these as being their competitors, therefore, there is no monopoly or antitrust issue.
Perhaps we need to rethink antitrust in the context of the internet however. These laws were written in the late 1800, and early 1900s, long before Google existed. I think there should be some evaluation on needing a new framework of what is antitrust for tech companies.
The laws are fine, what we need is to not tailor laws according to selfish political whims or to the whims of publishers and all other inferior competition.
The quote stating most meat will not come from animals is from , "Rosie Wardle of the Jeremy Coller Foundation, a philanthropic organisation focused on sustainable food systems", who stated
"If anything, predictions that 60% of the world’s ‘meat’ will not come from slaughtered animals in 20 years’ time may be an underestimation."
However also in the article is a quote "The report estimates 35% of all meat will be cultured in 2040 and 25% will be vegan replacements." from A.T. Kearney, who is an American global management consulting firm.
Pretty different predictions here being rolled together. 35% sounds a lot more realistic, given the short timeline. I just want ground 'beef' to cost less than $5lb. Get below that and I bet it really takes off.
