df3

Buffer uses their own formula for calculating salary and equity: https://open.buffer.com/buffer-open-equity-formula/

My guess though is that the EU won't be keen on the UK splitting up and thus won't encourage it by providing Scotland a quick ascension.

This is also a wonderful bargaining chip for the EU to play against Theresa May in negotiating the terms of the UK's exit.

My understanding is that only forced genetic testing is barred, so a Canadian insurance company could let people disclose good genetics for a discount, I presume?

Everyone should have equal access to healthcare. As far as life insurance is concerned, why can't life insurance providers discriminate on the basis of genetics? They already discriminate on the basis of family medical history.

In terms of making sure the company stays true to your purpose, that's what board seats and voting shares are for. Beyond that part of entrepreneurship, and working with others in general, is accepting that we won't always get what we want. You might have to accept that your company at some point focuses more on profit than you'd prefer.

I would use the methods outlined by other commenters to create a set of potential price points. Pick the highest one and revise downward (or upward) as needed.

If you're solving a real pain point, there's a set of early adopters who will pay a high price for your solution. If this isn't true then I would examine product / market fit.

Mistakes to avoid:

1. Doing a "name your price" promotion.

2. Thinking you've found the golden ticket of pricing and sticking with it. Pricing should be scrutinized early and often.

3. Charging too little. At least some users and reviewers of your product should be commenting that perhaps your pricing is too high. You're charging too little if no one is complaining about pricing. Of course, you've charged too much if everyone complains.

Finally, how you present the value of your product is perhaps more important than the pricing. See here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704240004575085...

As for the units that haven't been modernized, they're still better quality housing than what you find in lower income neighborhoods in the United States. I wouldn't be thrilled to live in one, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

The likelihood of ICE asking me to log into my devices and confiscating them is quite low. The inconvenience of using burner devices is quite high.

This of course assumes that the government is unwilling or unable to defeat your encryption.

I'm not too concerned about my personal data at the moment. I interact with many non-citizens on a regular basis, and I am concerned that a misinterpreted Facebook message or email could land them in hot water.

It's not just ourselves we're protecting, but also our friends, family and colleagues.

Do I have to starve myself now or is there an age where the benefits really start to kick in?

Ben and Jerry's can only foot so much of the tax bill.

The dark web has always been difficult to use for an average computer owner. Even with increased difficulty of use there is still a real need for people to use it, and they will continue to do so.

Regarding uptime, does it really matter if a dark web site has 99.9% uptime or 80% up-time? Whistleblowers, and drug buyers just need to be able to access it on an occasional basis. I'm pretty sure that neighborhood drug dealers don't have good uptime, either.

Also remember that New York is a set of islands. This already puts it at an efficiency disadvantage.

Berlin and Munich are two cities that come to mind with excellent public transport and great commute times. Most people commute in less than 30 minutes even from less central areas.

The ideal solution would be encourage commercial and residential areas to intermingle. In particular, less restrictive zoning in residential areas could let companies locate themselves closer to workers.

>In contrast, other practical solutions, such as sending >“sleep kits” containing an eye >mask or earplugs and other supplies to servicemembers in >deployed settings may represent >more practical and feasible strategies to encourage healthy >sleep behaviors

I wouldn't call this "military-approved," though I use a sleep mask every night.

One thing I would mention is that many people know that names like "BikeTours.com" were the first to be registered in the early Internet days, and these days do carry a degree of trust through age.

He's apparently a much better manager now. I can imagine that he was also incredibly stressed and unhappy in retrospect, and I can only imagine that sending this card would have had a ripple-effect of passive-aggressiveness on the team.

Even if you think someone is going out of their way to make your life shitty, you don't know what other baggage they're carrying for the day. The best thing you can do is be nice and in the meantime, look for another job or try to positively create change.

An interesting excerpt: "Take-up of computerised CBT was low, despite regular calls to encourage participants to use the programmes. The median number of sessions completed was two out of eight for Beating the Blues and one out of six for MoodGYM. Only 18% of people who started Beating the Blues completed all modules and 16% for MoodGYM."

Online CBT definitely is not effective if patients don't complete it despite receiving phone calls. I can imagine that getting the motivation to log in and do it is really difficult when you're already feeling hopeless-- even not-depressed people have enough trouble building and sticking to habits as it is.

But I still wonder if online CBT was effective for the small portion of participants who did complete it? What were the characteristics of those who did complete the app? Perhaps we can learn something.

CBT app builders should also consider that self-care options for depression have existed for a long time in the form of books. Can an app do a substantially better job than books? The idea of solving medical issues remotely has been tried for decades.

After doing a lot of flying the last two years I've realized what a difference a friendly crew makes.

The online opt-out registry and opt-out form options will give people a chance to express their wishes to avoid donation. However, there will be a sizable portion of the population who do not fill these out due to ignorance, especially in the less advantaged fringes of society. What is the government going to do to make sure everyone knows about the change and the ability to opt-out?