eeh

> Companies muscle in on workers' identity.

Great point. Maybe this is it?

I have been skeptical of work activism, but maybe it makes given the size of the lever (vs alternative activism options).

For the record, I am pro sustainable fishing, sustainable foresty, tackling climate change, and eliminating malaria.

I think governments and dedicated organisations are best placed to do this: they can better enforce compliance, and have greater visibility on all of our pressing needs.

All entities including businesses commonly make tradeoffs between competing values. I am unaware how Coinbase plan to do this.

Outside the mission, it sounds like Coinbase won't factor these matters beyond the usual legal/reputation, the same as the majority of businesses.

Governments are best placed to guide prosocial behaviour.

It sounds like Coinbase doesn't consider climate change to be within their mission.

We need to place a place on carbon, and thus share responsibility, in proportion to use.

If a company is breaking the law, some countries offer whistleblower protections.

The CEO is saying the company will remain apolitical, outside of its mission.

The CEO is declaring the focus political issue is cryptocurrency.

The focus is not whales, forests, ice caps, malaria.

Why is this controversial?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich says he left, rather than was fired. It looks like Brendan held popular political views, but not popular in relevant places.

It sucks to feel that way. It might not be as bad as you think it is: I expect those earning more will more eager to note what they are.

That's messed up. Sorry you've had to go through that.

> No. I don't think I am depressed. I just don't want life.

I'm sorry to hear you're going through this. In case you haven't tried professional support, it might help. In my experience they're pretty good at finding the cause of issues, which is a step towards improving it.

By responding solely to a minor part of my comment, and doubling down on your caricatures, I don't think you're willing to actually discuss this.

As a remain voter, I'm not best to advocate for the strengths of leave. As I'm sure you're aware, debate between remain and leave is difficult. Characterising sovereignty concerns as "passport colour change" won't start the conversation on the right path, however.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29607906-why-vote-leave was a good book for understanding some benefits of Leave.

Please don't discredit the positions or the book solely from my my hazy memory of the book, but here goes:

* EU is a weakening trade bloc, so we're better off out of the customs union, and making trade deals that work for UK, rather than that work for the EU (example: cheaper tomatoes from Africa, that the EU will not make, since it'll make Spain/Italy worse off)

* UK's voting patterns within EU was anomolous: UK voted against policies far more than other countries anyway.

* UK public seems to have a max acceptable rate of immigration, and we may prefer more selective immigration policies (e.g. target the high skilled workers in India, China, Australia)

Those are meant to pique your interest in the book. I don't think starting a debate on HN will be productive, at least because I barely remember the book.

> Polling has repeatedly shown very widespread public confusion over what Brexit will actually do.

I can believe that.

> Even many remain voters don’t realise all the downsides.

I can believe that, but what makes the confusion one-way? i.e. do leave voters realise all the upsides?

Is it the average Joe, or is it the 95th percentile idiot that happens to get attention?

I run and cycle, and don't bother tracking. I haven't put much thought in this decision.

I'm just interested in being fit (which I achieve with just shoes, and going for a run every ~3 days), not in achieving peak fitness or optimal training strategies.

I believe others benefit from tracking, which is fine too.

Anecdotally, I agree. :)

> His goals are rather dystopian though, despite the sophisticated tools.

Oh?

> There is no scientific view under which Brexit, which he helped achieve, is a good idea.

Brexit involved many factors including the value attributed to greater democratic control and greater control over immigration. How have you quantified that in your (allegedly) exhaustive evaluation of all scientific views?

The leader of this, Dominic Cummings, advocates for a quantitative/tech approach to policy, e.g.

https://dominiccummings.com/2020/01/02/two-hands-are-a-lot-w... on who he wants to hire.

https://dominiccummings.com/2019/06/26/on-the-referendum-33-... on tech to assist decision making in government.

https://dominiccummings.com/2014/08/19/standin-by-the-window... on his trip to SciFoo, and being a policy person amongst tech people.

The article says this is led by Dominic Cummings, whose blog is https://dominiccummings.com/ if you want to know more about him. He advocates for a tech/quantitative approach to policy, e.g.

https://dominiccummings.com/2020/01/02/two-hands-are-a-lot-w... on who he wants to hire.

https://dominiccummings.com/2019/06/26/on-the-referendum-33-... on tech to assist decision making in government.

https://dominiccummings.com/2014/08/19/standin-by-the-window... on his trip to SciFoo, and being a policy person amongst tech people.

He's not very popular in the UK, which is tangential to the article, so this thread is at risk of becoming a smear comment section.

> Since I don't have any credible psychology background, nobody listens to my suggestions in real life.

The reason I prefer listening to researchers is because they study populations and try to account for confounding variables.

I'm glad to hear you're happy, but I'm skeptical of how well you're able to attribute that to particular circumstances/actions.

Ah, the classic "the government cannot do a good thing, therefore this must be a bad thing".

I don't know which is most plausible.

What makes you think that is most plausible?

Does that work with GPS chips in phones?

Does that facilitate research into space?

Does that provide continuity for existing space research/universities?

Is space research considered to be geopolitically important?

I don't know the answers to these, but I do know these decisions are beyond arm chair critique.

I don't know what motivation is, but there's a few plausible options:

* the UK may not want critical infrastructure provided elsewhere

* the UK may have research/student folk who would have previously worked on Galileo, but now cannot

* the UK may want to fund this as a vehicle for space research in general

If someone is inclined to critique this, have they considered the whole situation, and do they have better ideas? Remain in the EU has sailed, sadly. What do we do now?

Is it possible investing in an existing space company is the best path for the UK to have its own GPS-like satellites?

Some earlier context: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1275194055257919495

People from high-occurrence areas are a risk to people from low-occurrence areas.

That said, it's possible that both approaches were poor.

We'll only understand the cost of lockdown in hindsight: increased poverty, increase joblessness, increased mental health issues, etc.

Some problems don't have any good-looking solutions.

"GHG emissions in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per day (kgCO2e/day) were 7.19 (7.16, 7.22) for high meat-eaters ( > = 100 g/d), 5.63 (5.61, 5.65) for medium meat-eaters (50-99 g/d), 4.67 (4.65, 4.70) for low meat-eaters ( < 50 g/d), 3.91 (3.88, 3.94) for fish-eaters, 3.81 (3.79, 3.83) for vegetarians and 2.89 (2.83, 2.94) for vegans"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4372775/

I don't know what reduction is enough.