The only problem with your worldview is that it's so blatantly demonstrably untrue in the absolute terms you put it in. But it sounds like you need it to sleep at night.
Your back of the napkin familiarity on the subject matter in an age of scientific hyper specialization makes any opinion you have on the matter totally moot.
How on earth do you think you could possibly add any line of thinking that hasn't already been thought of, proposed, hashed over, and sorted out by the people who've been studying these lines of science for decades?
The performance gains alone of Win10 over Win7 are substantial enough that it makes me confident that anyone who is sticking to the latter hasn't tried out the former on the same hardware.
They could know it (well, say it with confidence) from a limited number of users who participate in detailed opt-in telemetry. They could collect it from surveys. They could make estimations. They could infer it from indirect but related telemetry you're aware of. It's not like they said, "We know exact numbers." For the sake of the point being made, it's a claim that they can say with confidence.
Companies who give a shit about their customers and their employees can have enough people not to require people to be available 24/7. Note how this only applies to companies over 50 people. If you do business with people, your comment doesn't apply. If you do business with companies, nothing prevents a larger sized company from being available 24/7 without their employees being available 24/7.
Anyhow, what the OP says is mostly true. The minimum is doing no work. The maximum is being "at work" every minute you're awake. It's amusingly naive to believe that those who make themselves available all of the time are inherently better at what they do, or are more valuable. Anybody with a decent amount of experience in life and exposure to different working environments and disciplines knows this.
Microsoft just bought LinkedIn. It's ironic that you'd make such a comment given how this article is about people who said the exact same thing when FB bought Instagram.
If you agree with the consensus, it seems really stupid to me to really harp on scientists. Should we be looking at politicians or religious leaders to lead by example here, or?
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem with your worldview is that it's so blatantly demonstrably untrue in the absolute terms you put it in. But it sounds like you need it to sleep at night.
where folks who don't want invasive government moved to
Or you could give up trying to get what you can't have. You have no right to live as an island.
Your back of the napkin familiarity on the subject matter in an age of scientific hyper specialization makes any opinion you have on the matter totally moot.
How on earth do you think you could possibly add any line of thinking that hasn't already been thought of, proposed, hashed over, and sorted out by the people who've been studying these lines of science for decades?
I feel bad for people who fall for it, but the two times I was called for similar grifting, it was a hilarious fun conversation.
The dude knows his choir.
year of the distro! what's a distro?
You could just ask a professional photographer. And could you stop using the word hipster like you know what it means, dad?
Desktops or whatever you want to call this don't really die tho.
You're very sensitive.
The performance gains alone of Win10 over Win7 are substantial enough that it makes me confident that anyone who is sticking to the latter hasn't tried out the former on the same hardware.
Neither does Windows.
They could know it (well, say it with confidence) from a limited number of users who participate in detailed opt-in telemetry. They could collect it from surveys. They could make estimations. They could infer it from indirect but related telemetry you're aware of. It's not like they said, "We know exact numbers." For the sake of the point being made, it's a claim that they can say with confidence.
The world isn't a Saturday morning cartoon.
> when you witness the instability coming to your favorite fiat currency
I'm always impressed when people say things that people have been saying forever, but they're convinced that they're right, this time.
^is because
So your rhetorical answer to why people download movies for free because they can download movies for free?
Man, I love saying stuff nobody can prove or disprove! I'm so right!
Whoa, the four French tech entrepreneurs you know in San Jose left France to start a company there? What are the odds?
If you like doing off-the-clock work, great. Not sure what that has to do with labor laws, tho.
Companies who give a shit about their customers and their employees can have enough people not to require people to be available 24/7. Note how this only applies to companies over 50 people. If you do business with people, your comment doesn't apply. If you do business with companies, nothing prevents a larger sized company from being available 24/7 without their employees being available 24/7.
Anyhow, what the OP says is mostly true. The minimum is doing no work. The maximum is being "at work" every minute you're awake. It's amusingly naive to believe that those who make themselves available all of the time are inherently better at what they do, or are more valuable. Anybody with a decent amount of experience in life and exposure to different working environments and disciplines knows this.
Microsoft just bought LinkedIn. It's ironic that you'd make such a comment given how this article is about people who said the exact same thing when FB bought Instagram.
Are you incapable of reading more than one article on a given subject?
It was a private market. What part of "phases out the legal trade" is complicated?
If you agree with the consensus, it seems really stupid to me to really harp on scientists. Should we be looking at politicians or religious leaders to lead by example here, or?
Monsanto. Also, it would be nice if you didn't imply to be something that you're not.