The Peter Principle is an idea manufactured to suppress wages. The idea the you have to work at a level above your current level for a while until you are promoted only benefits employers.
I have only spent approximately 30 seconds thinking about this idea.
I'm working on a tool that easily allows you to theme your UI using CSS variables called Blueberry. https://www.getblueberry.io/
The idea is that each CSS variable becomes a widget and then the Blueberry endpoint will serve those variables so you can let your users customize profile pages/portals and other places they integrate with you UI.
Yeah, maybe we just have different politics and I'm too dismissive of alternative worldviews.
Still though, I get like Matt Gaetz' tweets recommended to me. Does anyone like that dude? How is this happening? Why on earth would I want that? I feel like all this conservative stuff is surfaced by the application to me.
I got notifications, on my dang phone, for the dumbest fucking takes. I don't get them for liberal people. Possible I am just in the demographic of people they think would swing conservative so they target me.
I switched to Bluesky but then moved back to twitter. I'm glad that they are trying to compete with Twitter (Twitter is a conservative cesspool), but all of my non-technical friends have stayed on Twitter. So, I end up going where they are.
I think the reason my friends did not join Bluesky despite me inviting them is that it just isn't as good of a product as Twitter. You can't post videos or DM.
I am not a tech executive and have no idea about corporate strategy, but it seems like Bluesky should focus less on technical differentiators and more on building killer features that have mass appeal and a community that people want to join.
IMHO this milestone, while cool, means absolutely nothing to people outside of the hacker news crowd.
I'm rooting for Bluesky, but it seems to me it will die without a critical mass of users.
Not sure I understand the objection. The research this article is about compared Wind vs Oil/Coal effects on birds. The title seems in line with the findings of the research.
> I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.
Seems to me like examining externalities of different energy sources is a part of the nuance of this question. Feels like you're being a bit of a hater.
I don't agree with your characterization of what's happening as "YOLO" and "half-baked". It's taken many many people many years to get to where we are now. It's pretty easy to do a miles driven and accidents caused comparison. Self driving cars appear to be wildly safer thus far.
What would make you happy with a self-driving safety record? Why not be excited about the future?
I understand when some folks think that the focus would be better spent on public transportation, but you just seem like a hater.
edit: Sorry this is the follow up study but the 40% study is linked within