Tipping in general is a concept that should just die. Same actually as bonuses. I work at a rather large company where sales closing a deal will get them a bonus. In my job I don’t directly deal with customers, so I can never get a bonus. U don’t work less hard than sales. I would actually say my job is more stressful. They should just pay people what they’re worth.

Make no mistake, this is simply a warning from the government to the supreme court.

Imagine however if the court would use this case as a test, to see whether or not they still have any influence at all in the separation of powers.

And still, he is smaller than your mom.

I think vercel (formerly zeit.co) has a free tier for static websites.

It’s free. What is vim?

Service?

I’m not from the U.S., but why would people from the military get a discount? If you do that as a store, why not doctors and nurses too? Why stop there and why not include firefighters, government workers or teachers?

And who compensates you as a business owner for these giveaways? If your store happens to be close to an army base, do you just accept the disadvantage of giving away part of your profit?

It sounds pretty stupid. People should get paid enough to pay full price for their stuff. Especially by the government. Especially in a country that allocates an enormous part of their GDP to their military.

Agreed, but automation is not always the same as increased efficiency.

One example he gives is Facebook - it allows you to keep track of events you might like to go to, which seems convenient, but then it will show you hundreds of other events you might want to go to, much more than a single person can visit.

Another example is food delivery - in the US there was even one company advertising with the fact that when you order food, you can do so without having to interact with anyone. While that might be convenient, a lot of neighborhoods lose cohesion, because people stop meeting each other at the local takeout or have a small interaction with the people behind the counter there. The gist of it is, that it’s okay for some things to be a little less convenient, because there is always a cost involved.

What he promotes is to accept that you can’t get everything done. You have limited time, and sometimes you’ll have to accept that the laundry might pile up while you are working on your book/application/… whatever.

It also puts in perspective what you are actually working for - he quotes the parable of the businessman and the Greek fisherman to illustrate.

I’m currently reading 4000 weeks by Oliver Burkeman and it really hits home.

Burkeman is a former productivity guru that has tried all kinds of productivity tools and lifehacks only to realize that trying to get more efficient only results in keeping you even more busy.

People are always striving for that next step to get to a mythical point in life where they think they can relax and enjoy life, and for most of us, that point never comes, because we’re too busy trying to get there

I can recommend A brief history of time by Stephen Hawking as a good scientific read with very clear and simple explanation of the topic.

And nothing of value was lost. In fact, it might shield more European users from FUD, misinformation and propaganda.

Farming? I was talking about data engineering.

I don’t think she’s evil. But I’m pretty convinced she’s into girls or at least bi-sexual for some reason.

Before people started measuring time, a day was a day. People worked when they felt like it and stopped before it got dark.

When we started quantifying time, it didn’t take long before time suddenly became a commodity. All of a sudden bosses would pay by the “hour”, and no longer by what they got in return.

Then, they started regarding the hours that they paid for as “theirs”, demanding workers to keep breaks short or peeing in bottles.

/Rant

It’s not. Give them a few nukes back to deter Russia. Remember, they gave up their nuclear arms on the provision that Russia would never invade.

His wife has a boyfriend and they have a kid?

Kudos for mentioning Lost in Translation. One if my favorite movies. Whenever I try to explain to people what it’s about, I get blank looks why that would be entertaining.

If artists would actually get paid fairly by Spotify that would be a good model.

Until about 100 years ago music artists would get paid for playing live only. Then music reproduction became possible, and lo and behold, companies started making a profit off of popular musicians by reproducing their music and taking a share, just because they could afford the technology.

Then, reproduction came into the hands of regular people, and you could reproduce music at home, bypassing the companies that profit off of the musicians. So copyright laws were drafted to protect mostly the companies making a profit off of musicians.

Now we’re going back to the situation of 100 years ago: musicians need to play live to get paid. But reproduction does still make them famous without them having to travel. So that’s a plus.

And you can argue Spotify has to.pay for infrastructure and app development, but that technology is in the hands of individuals as well nowadays. So what do they actually offer, on top of the work of creative people making music? Not much. Yet they become more expensive every year. And the only people getting richer are their shareholders.

Käse