Divide and conquer?! Twitter could have been IT and somehow did not make it. Now we have many contenders and with Europe witnessing being cut off from American services, many are betting on growing public budgets for infrastructure projects.
I paid for Mastodon(.social) for a while and somehow still think, projects funded by users should be the norm, but web B2C always had a hard stance in EU, pitching for public funds seems to remain "the winner"/most viable option in this space.
If understanding correctly, Absurd (by the Pi LLM harness devs) minimizes the pure db approach as much as possible. I only just started getting into the topic myself, though.
The reasoning could be that this makes reliably scaling down (and thus keep making a profit) easier, starting with getting rid of SREs.
We have similar movement going on with Xing here in Hamburg, Germany (once conceived as a LinkedIn competitor).
Great names that still have a lot of momentum, but are expected by ownership to slow down.
Reminds me of Scott Galloway’s most profitable investment having been a yellow pages company. Yes, the market shrunk, but they could shrink running costs as fast or even faster.
I will vote for the party that has a believable plan.
So far, at least in Hamburg, Germany, I feel it is mostly a fight amongst many for the same, very scarce resources.
So when I think “every important thing in my life is scarce”, that is just incorrect imagination? 11 billion people can live on a lake with perfect child and health care?
For people to be able to save and expand their wealth in land, land needs to remain desirable. Desire is driven by the need for housing. Need for housing stays high if the rate of new housing stays low. Thus, rate of new housing stays low. Else we would have a lot more very beautiful sky scrapers.
Of course singing more to your children is probably a good idea in general, and being sensitive on how you might (without a good reason) treat them harshly or differently, is also a good idea. But for that you need energy, and that energy will then be missing somewhere else, assuming things in general are efficient. And if they are not efficient, we should discuss why they are not.
I do not disagree. Let me rephrase: I think it is much more important to discuss how much we want to spend to raise our children or how and how much we need to work, than discussing boys vs. girls.
Parents should not have to earn money at all. They should all stay at home and take care of their children. At (pre-)school there should be no more than ten students in a class, taught by the best teachers earning the best salaries, 50/50 male/female across all subjects.
What I want to say is: for me, this is mostly an economic debate, and boys vs. girls always seems like a red herring to me.