kyrers

I'm not even taking into consideration de 2030 part.

But yeah, I generally agree with you. Especially in this:

> But the idea of "I own nothing" cannot conceivable extend to personal items like clothing. That doesn't make any sense ... maybe you wouldn't own tools that are too expensive/specialized to be almost-free.

I don't understand this. As said in other comments, I believe most people wouldn't want most of the things the author describes.

If I want to cook at home and have to order everything, I assume it won't just be there in 5 minutes. And then what? If everything is shared does someone come pick it up when someone else needs it? Do I take it somewhere?

Also, are people delivering these things? Or robots? And how can this be free? He also mentions that most work can be done at anytime. Well, if the premisse is order everything I need, even for cooking, that has to be done right away, no?

I might be totally off, but this doesn't make any sense to me.

Yeah I understand that perspective, my question is what happens if the owner of said company wants to sell?

Yeah, I read it correctly but am just now realizing I wrote "tech companies" instead of "big tech companies", my bad.

So this is more a move to preven them from bullying smaller tech companies? I can see it from that angle, but it still seems to me that they want the power to block acquisitions.

For instance, would the following acquisition/merger be allowed: a big tech company acquiring a small company, which the owner wants to sell, that does not influence public welfare?

> "The report also recommends that Congress consider any acquisition by the big tech companies to be anticompetitive unless the companies can prove that the merger would be in the public’s benefit and could not be otherwise achieved."

I'm sorry, what? Two private tech companies cannot merge if they can't prove it is in the public's best interest? Am I understanding this correctly?

What if the influence on public welfare is non existent or minimal, but both companies would benefit from the merger?

Thanks!

This is one of the things that makes me proud to be Portuguese.

Also, does anyone remember the name of the doctor that started this whole movement? I think the first name is João, but I can't remember or find it. I might be tripping, pun intended.

Question from someone who knows nothing about physics: Was the Big Crunch theory discarded?

After reading the article I did some research, and several places mentioned this theory as obsolete.

> Conventional thinking is (or was? I don’t follow this closely) that hard shots into the side netting either low to the ground or high up are unstoppable. The goalkeeper cannot reach the high corners, and will not fall fast enough to catch low shots, if the shot is fast enough.

It still is.

When I said that I have an unpopular opinion, it was just referring to the skipping technique.

From what I've read, I seem to have a unpopular opinion as it regards Jorginho and Bruno Fernandes technique (the little skip before shooting).

Skipping before shooting is really dangerous in my eyes. First off, you lose shot power (much more notable in Jorginho's case). Second, the goalkeepers get familiar with it, and start waiting for the skip (Bruno Fernandes changed his technique recently in the Europa League due to this, the goalkeeper almost saved it, only he couldn't due to shot power. If BF skipped, the power would not have been enough).

It could be argued that the panenka is the same thing - if the goalkeeper waits, he saves. However, the panenka does not require the run to be changed, adding to the surprise factor.

All that being said, powerful shot to the side netting is still my go to.

> For what it's worth, Coinbase must "allow" those discussions by law in the US.

I'm not from the US, so thanks for pointing that out.

> For what it's worth, Coinbase must "allow" those discussions by law in the US.

I feel most companies think that this isn't desirable. However, as long as the complaints, and the complainers, are treated fairly, that's fine by me.

Yeah, he would've been better off ending the sentence before that statement.

In the blog post in which he explained Coinbase's mission, he specifically mentioned that:

> Of course, employees should always feel free to advocate around issues of pay, conditions of employment, or violations of law, for instance.

Now, if he really is trying to diminsh the possibility of that happening, I don't know.

Amazing. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks!

> It's not like this is being advertised when you are subscribing to some service. "Subscribe now and if you ever want to cancel, we'll make you pay! PS. We know where you live."

They could at least ask. But I understand your point.

> What could the consumer do apart from relying on word of mouth to avoid such services?

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you implying you can't follow the news without using these services? Only through word of mouth? If that's what you mean, there are ways to follow the news while avoiding paywalls. I do.

In my (little) experience, Rick like developers can cause lot of trouble if they simply decide to leave.

I do think, though, that you can spot them fairly easy. Even in college. I had a very skilled classmate that wrote code only he could understand, without any comments. Of course, we could eventually understand it, but it would cost us hours.

Some teachers actually refused to grade his exercises if he didn't start commenting his code. I still believe they did this to instill in him this habit, but I'm sure it was hugely helpful to them as well.

Yeah, I understand that.

I just think we as consumers should not accept that.

The calling to unsubscribe always gets me. How does this still happen in 2020?

What about European users? Will there be any trouble withdrawing funds? I'm for Portugal, if that helps somehow.

I actually agree that if someone is going to do it, it's going to be him.

Plus the "grabbing the mic" incident was bound to happen sooner or later. Music awards keep being given to people who clearly didn't deserve them.

I've heard artists (mostly rappers) speaking about this on their songs. Kanye simply did what many before him, I'm sure, thought about doing but didn't have the courage.

> I’d be interested to see the number of people who know the risks of opiates and the people who know the risks of social media. I would guess the latter is a pretty small minority. And for both, I’d venture for the people who do know they’re dangerous there’s a great disparity between how dangerous they think they are and how dangerous they actually are (i.e. they’re worse in reality).

Agreed, that's why I think companies should be forced to clearly state them, but not forced to stop users from consuming.

Another avenue could be providing proper education to individuals regarding addiction to food, drugs, etc... But this is beyond my scope of understanding.

> As for the cocaine part, that’s immaterial to the thought experiment I proposed. I was just trying to delineate between true physical addiction and whatever makes me people want to eat unhealthy food. Say it’s something else that causes physical addiction but isn’t illegal.

My bad. I didn't get that. But I still think, assuming they clearly state the risk of physical addiction, they should be allowed to sell their fries.

Now, just to convey this one more time, it's a totally different situation if they use something illegal to make the fries addictive. They should be punished.

Who knows? Maybe that will happen to me too.

Ok, I get your point now. Even though the individual is to blame, there's no point in doing it as they won't change. The only solution is to "force" change by regulation. Did I get the gist of what you were trying to convey?

> And, as I said, I'm not necessarily arguing for regulation. But I would be curious if you think there is any solution here, or if you think there should be any solution here.

That's a great point. Off the top of my head I am inclined to say there should not be any solution, besides making sure companies act within the law. But that's above my paygrade. I'm only stress testing my opinion.

And is that legal?

> With social media, this is more nebulous, but I do think part of what makes systems like Facebook "engaging" is the anxiety they create when you aren't on them, and the low self-image that users try to assuage by posting flattering photos of their life.

> Part of addiction (and advertising too, for that matter) is creating a need for your product in the mind of the user. They were probably happier before they had that need in the first place.

I cannot agree with this. Facebook cannot be responsible for people wanting to be on the site/app or for which photos of their life they choose to post. I thought we were discussing the methods by which they make people want to be on FB.

As for your last paragraph, I may be missing your point. Advertising is creating a need for your product, or tapping an existing need. People being happier before they had that need cannot be a reason to stop companies from trying to sell a product. If you bought something that made you feel worse, you would probably just stop using it. Now, if you can't stop using it because you're addicted, but the company didn't do anything illegal to make their product addictive and the risks are clear (not saying this is FB case), why should they be blamed?

If I totally missed your point, please feel free to enlighten me.

I can see that happening, but I don't think a private business should be forced to do it.

Now, I think they should do it, but because they want to. If anyone is to take action, I think the way to go is to reach the obese people and help them. Explain why they should not visit the restaurant anymore.

I can see where you're coming from, but just like opiates, you start using them if you want, and you are aware of the risks, which most people should be when it comes to social networks. I don't know if they are but if not, they should be forced to clearly state the risks of getting addicted.

As for your McDonalds argument, cocaine is illegal. I stated that as long as it was within the law, I saw no problem.

Food might not be the best comparison to use.

But they can't do it without said people help, correct?

If they aim to remove agency, it's because you have it in the first place, meaning you can stop it from happening with proper information.

I understand that some people might not understand they are being targeted and should be clearly told what could happen to them. But the majority of people must know FB is addictive.

After that, I can't see how people still getting addicted is the company's fault.

For sure. But I mentioned the "too addictive" argument specifically. I understand and agree that facebook does more harm than good, and that is wrong and must be addressed. I just don't understand this addiction angle. Making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is not wrong IMO.

But I think I see where you coming from. They're getting people addicted to something wrong, did I understand you?