With fees really, like Google pays Apple $30 billion a year to be the default search engine on iPhone/Mac. Chrome has 3.45 billion users and controls 65% of the browser market. So they can get massive fees from whoever wants to be the default search engine, default bookmarks, etc..

It's a fair point, but Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime would be classified as obese with a BMI of 30.5, based on his weight 240lbs (109kg) and 6'2" height (1.88m).

I've struggled with my weight on and off, it was incredibly annoying when I got really fit and could do 100 pushups at once, and my doctor still nagged me about being "overweight" because my BMI was high. Doctors like BMI because it's simple and easy, and they hate doing extra work when they can just nag.

It's possible this was deliberate - get a LLM to write something horrible to embarrass executives into not downsizing the human writers. It's just so obviously bad, I can't imagine anyone posting it in good faith, especially with that headline.

Yeah, this is really a cost cutting move. Companies have to pay outstanding vacation balances when an employee leaves, but with unlimited time off the balance is zero. So Microsoft no longer has to put unused vacation time on their books.

In practice, usually "unlimited" is unlimited but requires manager approval, and they can refuse your request if they think it will negatively impact the project, is excessive, etc... Also there's no protections for employees getting penalized for taking too much vacation. That tends to be self limiting. I read it works out to 2~3 weeks/year on average in other companies that use it.

AGA 2-dan here. In mainstream Go, if stones that clearly can't be saved are in the opponents territory then they're assumed to be dead to save the capturing player losing points by filling their own territory with capturing stones. Beginning players will often add unnecessary stones to kill a group that's already beyond saving. It's the mark of a skilled opponent to use as few stones as possible.

If during counting the survivability of a group of stones is contested then play continues and the player is free to attempt to save them, but the burden is on the player that wants to save the group.

The stones in the example are clearly unsavable and should be counted as captured, but the researchers don't seem to understand the mechanics of that part of the game and incorrectly gave themselves the win.

Most people mean clinical immortality, I can't imagine a technology that would grant you absolute immortality.

But if you did you could always throw yourself into a super massive black hole, the time dilation as you approach the event horizon would cause billions of years to pass for mere seconds on your end. As you spend years falling into the center of black hole, you'd see the universe age and die from light entering the event horizon behind you.

Once you get into the center your body is compressed into a 1 dimensional loop, or 0 dimensional singularity where no matter what definition of life is being used you won't maintain any structure or consciousness. Eventually due to Hawking radiation your body would be evaporated one subatomic particle at a time over the course of 10^100 years.

Unless your immortality comes from an extra-dimensional spirit or something like that. You're a goner due to the laws of physics.

The actual Basecamp announcement did lot more than ban politics, it also:

- Removed "paternalistic benefits" like fitness benefit, wellness allowance, etc.. in exchange for a profit sharing program
- Disbanded all internal committees, changed to making top down policy decisions
- Banned rehashing old decisions "It's time to get back to making calls, explaining why once, and moving on."
- Removed peer reviews from the performance review process, perf scores come from manager/team lead now.

I think that contributed more to people leaving than whether or not they could discuss politics, but the article seems to leave that out.

The last time I went in 2019 half the items were out of stock and it definitely looked like it was on it's last legs. That was before covid. It's sad, Fry's was one of my favorite stores growing up.

An even more direct comparison would be saying yes you'll make a gay wedding cake, and then backing out the night before the wedding. I don't think there'd be any drama if Amazon said no upfront.

I do understand the urgency of preventing further attacks, but Parler got pretty screwed on this.

TikTok parent ByteDance cancels plans to move outside of China following the return of key executives that had disappeared. ByteDance in it's statement, noted how grateful it was to the CCCP for giving them the foundation they needed to build their company, and that their research showed that China really is the best environment for growth for every industry. "It was foolish to even consider outside options" notes insiders.

I've had non-technical engineering managers, and it's a nightmare.

They won't come out and say it, but the strongest engineer was of course the person who made the best slides and presented the best. The person that looks the most confident is always right in technical debates. Doubling the number of engineers means the project will get done twice as fast. Things like that.

One day my manager raves about a "genius" they met inside the company and how I needed to get them involved with the project. I talked to the guy, and he basically just went on meandering misanthropic rants, throwing in lots of technical jargon and acronyms to make it sound impressive. Like "I HTTP'D that URI and scanned it for XSS holes, because web developers are idiots" yeah.. genius. But it's my job to now handle this mess.

The relationship ended when I mentioned at a team lunch I went to school for Math not CS (I had been coding since forever but the program worked better for my schedule). To the other engineers I worked with this was a factoid, especially since we had been working together for about a year. To my non-tech manager, this was a total truth bomb. Suddenly I'm being questioned about whether I'm qualified to be there. Despite loads of accomplishments everything I did now needed extra reviews, and comments about how people shouldn't trust my opinion. Seriously wtf, so I left to another role. I should be happy I left that mess behind but it still makes me irritated.

Allowing "lies" sounds really clear cut, but mostly political ads are some percentage fact/fiction. Like is cherry-picking a fact and using it out of context to make a false conclusion a lie? Is ascribing motives to an action without evidence a lie? Is using data from a discredited study a lie? What if the study is only partially discredited?

It gets really hard to draw the line, and by doing so Facebook makes itself liable for "interfering in the election" by being the source of truth of what's get by and what doesn't. You know if they banned any ad, and that candidate lost, there will be millions of people wanting to sue Facebook into the ground insisting it was a mistake of ill intentioned.

So I think their policy is the right call here.

They sent it USPS Priority which was supposed to take 3 days but actually took 9 days. I was also informed if they lost my package I wouldn't get any refund because they had no legal responsibility to ensure their product ever reached me. It worked out, but sold me on Amazon going forward.

I loved that game back when I was a kid, I developed all sorts of models for running a business and making it work.

End game I learned that it was far more profitable to manipulate my companies stock price than doing anything useful. Like buy a research building so you're burning cash, your stock will plummet below the value of your assets as the market thinks you'll go bankrupt, buy back tons of shares at the low price. Then liquidate your buildings, the market cap will return to the value of your assets (with a much higher price as there's fewer shares). Issue new shares at the high price, then start burning cash again and repeat the cycle. I got up to $14 trillion in market cap in my last session. Compared to billions running successful enterprises.

Capitalism 2 fixed the glitch by preventing you from issuing shares over and over again if you weren't doing anything. Both very enjoyable / educational games.

Nobel prizes aren't really set up for spectators. Like the 2016 physics award went to three people for "theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter". Without context, it sounds impressive, but has little meaning. Furthermore the work was done decades ago, even if it was meaningful it's probably for something that I've taken for granted most of my life and that also makes it hard to get excited about. Like your parents telling you how great they are for giving you free food when you're a kid.

TL;DR if the Nobel prizes made an effort to be engaging, like the Olympics or Oscars, they probably could get a decent following and cash flow going.