That seems like a pretty solvable problem - even for daycares. First time you’re late, 5$, second time 20$, n + 1 time = (n+1)*10. The incentive is not to make a habit of it at the very least because the costs will add up.
IMO, $37 for what amounts to a flanged glass jar is ludicrous for many people. Even if it ends up cheaper in the long run. For what it's worth, I live with a couple roommates and they are on their third chemex, since glass breaks easily. Maybe our brand is bad. Maybe our coordination is worse.
Anyone with a background at Facebook definitely needs to be spoken with regarding their integrity. Obviously only a small subset of FB employees make the shitty decisions we see in the news, but it's very concerning to me that engineers still go to work there. There are at 2 or 3 other BigCos that pay comparably, and many others that pay a level down that don't require you to be complicit in unethical behavior of this scale.
Uhh, that's what we have been doing the whole time. That's the status quo. We're talking about changing it because it's caused massive societal problems.
I'm not sure exactly what GP meant, but I took the spirit of the post as more "I wish there wasn't so much wealth inequality that ONE person could own a superyacht. I have no problem with yachts in and of themselves."
I feel like you must cook a very narrow range of food and/or have very little space / money for more pans. Cast iron is lovely and versatile (see my sibling post) but there is a tool for every job and cast iron is not always that tool,
I will say, the only work my cast iron requires is cooking a really fatty food in it once a month.... my stainless pans require scouring if I do some searing (even with a good deglaze) which is a huge hassle. My cast iron, I just wipe out lightly and never scrub. I have never noticed adverse effects from this and it's well seasoned.
I do hear the weight complaint - I'm a big guy so it's not too bad but my girlfriend needs two hands.
Right. It's the majority leader's decision to override a veto or keep putting bills on the floor. This is a multi-level catastrophe fabricated by disgusting people.
I would argue that arrogance is the opposite quality that leads to the meaninglessness conclusion. It's a recognizance of your smallness in the universe, and that you will absolutely die and be forgotten in as little as a couple years. And so will almost everyone else. That doesn't strike me as arrogant - maybe a little nihilistic, but not arrogant.
Most of them don't operate at the scale that google does, or have the amount of stakeholders that google does (and therefore don't need to expand into the chinese market aggressively). And yes, an organization whos goal is to make boatloads of money _is_ fundamentally morally tainted when that goal directly conflicts with taking what we'd call ethical action.
No, but that system's intent was never to be horribly oppressive to minorities and so working within it was not contradictory to the system's values. Oppression was a byproduct of other factors (the racism and classism of individuals). Google's very existence relies on making profits, and its profits come from ads served in search (and adwords, mainly). Working to stop Google from expanding into as juicy a market as the chinese one is diametrically opposed to the goals of the system. That's why I don't find these things to be comparable.
Edit: though I do see how the "individuals" argument can be used in both directions - I'm essentially arguing that google and its ilk are fundamentally tainted by their business models, in a way that the US government never was.
Disclaimer: I eat meat, just less these days :).