But price increases of cereals ( bread, pasta, grains, etc.) increased by about 7,5 % last year alone, which is more than the inflation, and more than the increase after inflation.

That’s where people might complain. They still can’t afford food, as food prices increase faster than overall inflation

I appreciate a data supported argument, and love that you actually linked sources.

One thing that I feel is missing in most of the linked analyses is that inflation has also hit unevenly, and the price of basic goods has increased significantly more than overall inflation. Which would explain why households still have less disposable income, also the mean debt burden is much higher leading to loan costs being more common.

Or brought up by a neurodivergent parent, or sibling, or have an ND partner

Ah, but you’re just saying that as a professional troll.

Now compare that to: I think you’re mistaken, intent matters, and I believe extending trust that both parties want to convey something, rather than just dismiss others, is necessary for a discussion, and also for a communal discourse. If we’re just shouting into the void, no trust is needed, but for interactions and building a sense of community, we will need both trust and norms of collaboration.

Baselessly ascribing malicious intent is moreso a way to sow distrust and kill off discussion.

And besides, unless local regulations expressly forbid it, the income statements of those companies are after any fines and after any profit reducing measures (e.g. Amazon famously use investment schemes to reduce taxation), they do make the money to cover them in the shorter interval, or even shorter.

Oh no, with Amazon only having a 3,5 % margin (after fines), it would take them all of 48 hours to make up the losses.

The point still stands: the fines are ridiculously low for these companies, and they have no incentive to change based on current fines.

Also quite useful for places short on water, or daylight, or clement weather, or low-value ecosystems, or where transportation is unfeasible due to accessibility, environmental conditions, market access.

Also quite good to alleviate food deserts, securing strategic supply chains, and supporting urbanisation for greenification, food supply, lowering transport and food security (with growing food also having positive mental and psychosocial effects).

Oh, we need both for sure, and renewables as well.

That’s assuming a lot of ifs resolve our way, and without power needs increasing. It’s more sustainable than coal/gas/oil for sure, but with current energy development needs it’s barely long term (IIRC about 60-140 years)

Also, on centuries timescale, we will need to find more fissiles in space. And according to our current understanding of the universe, they should be quite rare, especially compared to hydrogen.

Basically, figuring out fusion power would solve our needs for the first level on the Kardashev scale, and has the potential to be portable fuel for the rest of the lifespan of the universe.

Progress is always incremental, except in hindsight

Yeah, Amazon has a pretty long track record of burning through employees at all levels. From the outside it looks like it’s very much to their detriment, but I guess they feel differently since they still do it.

Sorry it’s happening to you though. Hope you find a less sociopathic employer!

The whole reason that it works is because the company can’t afford to lose everyone who’s not complying.

But promotion blocking seems like a weak move. If returning to office is enough of a workplace issue to be a deal breaker, threatening people with not taking extra responsibilities or challenges seems like a losing proposition. They’re already willing to lose their job over the issue, and you’ve shown that you can’t lose them, so now you’re gonna make it shittier to remain at the company?

And even besides the perspective that promotions are a benefit, many roles are in place for the company’s sake, to stay organised, are they now gonna not fill those? Or only fill them with external applicants?

Or is the idea to only promote the compliant ones? That would make some sense, at least.

“The plot suggests that if there were nothing – a complete vacuum – beyond the observable universe, our Universe would be a large, low density black hole. This is a little scary, but we have good reason to believe that’s not the case,” Patel added."

Your source refutes your claim.

Several teams actually

But you could also do a mean time analysis on specific tasks and have it cut off at a standard deviation or two (90-98% of task times covered), and have a checkbox or something for when the user expects longer times.

You could probably even make this adaptive, with a cutoff at 2x the standard time, and updating the median estimate after each run.

Are you to imply that the iPhone 15 is the pinnacle of smart phones as a concept?

That it wouldn’t be better with a week or year of battery time? Or with a seamless voice assist that doesn’t force you to learn a weird way to address your phone? Or with a phone that would be useful as long as a bed or a house? Or where you could seamlessly access and use the whole phone and Internet interchangeably? Or without using a tiny awkward keyboard instead of speaking, thinking, moving or whatever is more natural to you and your body?

You’re fundamentally asking the wrong question, and you’re doing it from the role of the loyal consumer.

Neither is an argument against that better battery life or UI would make for better smart phones.

Functioning AI voice assist, foldable, better peripherals, better input systems, better data transfer between systems, more durable, better battery life, repairable, more sustainable, better UI, decentralised communication options, meshnet options, etc.

There’s plenty to do about smartphones that needs innovating…

Biggest reason for written exams is bulk processing.

There are many better ways to show competency, ask any engineering or medical school, but few as cheap.

The future will never be about drone vs drone, as no one cares about the drones. They have to hit where it hurts, which is human life.

Best case scenario, wars will be fought over drone command centres. Much more probably drones will be used to increase civilian suffering to end the wars.