He found that the environmental impact created by the washing of the glass bottles was worse than the impact of the entire production and disposal cycle for the cartons. If you added in the production of the glass, the recycling of glass when it broke, and the extra impact from transport (less space due to not being able to pack as well, heavier) there was no competition at all - glass was way, way worse.

Plastic was a bit better than glass, and carton was the best available option. So they stayed with carton.

This was ~30 years ago, mind, so the equation may have changed. But I still find it important to check before deciding "Let's go glass" is the right option.

"Will" is a strong claim. If the Jevons Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) applies in this case - and it may well do so - the new technology will lower costs, and the increased productivity will increase demand. If so, it will require artists to work in a different way but they'll earn more.

The Baumol Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect) may also lead to increased wages.

Why? I've always found it satisfying - it matches with how a lot of other things in biology has happened.

"The public" isn't one person. Denmark has progressive taxes; getting rid of subsidies so prices of food increases changes who among the public pays.

> Or do you just want to ignore this externality until we pay it all at once?

> So, this is just number rearranging. The public pays either way.

"The public" isn't one person. Denmark has progressive taxes; getting rid of subsidies so prices of food increases changes who among the public pays.

> Or do you just want to ignore this externality until we pay it all at once?

I'm in favor of the carbon tax. I also think that it has complicated side effects and we should try to understand those effects, and see if we need to change something else to compensate for them.

Taking this to its logical conclusion all programs should be written in assembly.

The reality is that there's a tradeoff: Programmer time vs performance, and which parts of performance matter. I've worked using anything with performance from assembly to shell scripts (including C, C++ and Java). It is all tradeoffs. Do users want more features, or more speed? Are we running at a scale or situation where ultimate usage of hardware matters, or not?

Saying we should do ultimate amounts of investment in performance when there's three users and one programmer doesn't make sense. They'd typically rather have more features and adequate performance.

Both the total pie and the total number of creators has increased. Hollywood feature film production is [estimated](hhttps://www.quora.com/How-many-people-work-in-the-film-indus...) to be 3000-7000 people. There are [approximately 61.1 *million* YouTube creators](https://explodingtopics.com/blog/youtube-creator-stats), or approximately 10,000 times more. There could easily be 100x more money flowing to the total visual entertainment creator community and the old guard film creators could still get less than they used to.

I don't know exactly what to search for to get similar numbers for music production, but I suspect it is similar: There's a lot more creators and they get less each even though it's more in total, and this is especially hitting "old timers" that used to get the bulk of the old total and get less with the new setup.

They effectively use hierarchical tags, with the set of tags very carefully curated.

E.g, for my company's twice-yearly evaluation, everybody writes up a short report on the most impactful stuff they've done including evidence, this is evaluated by their manager to give a score, and then there's a series of group meetings between managers to make sure that the scores are calibrated, including looking at all types of metrics that can be dug up and comparing to our written role descriptions for different levels. It takes a lot of time but creates fair scores.

This is extremely labor intensive, but that's the thing: To create anything resembling fair evaluation of a large group of people that do a large set of different things, you need to do things that are labor intensive. Using a simple set of metrics don't cut it.

The NE2000 clones worked fairly well in FreeBSD at the same time all the complaints were coming over in Linux-land. To be fair: You'd usually have less support for hardware in FreeBSD than Linux at the time (and almost certainly still.)

It's Common law not French/European law. The intent of the lawmakers is, in common law, more or less completely assumed to be present in the text of the law. French/European courts looks to the context the law was made in and other documents produced; common law judges mostly don't (but do look much more to precedent.)

And there is of course the problem of judges in the US being fairly strongly partisan politicised (since all power in the US is partisan politicised), so the interpretation will depend on which party has lately stuffed the supreme court.

As for "at least as permissive" - it requires no further restrictions, but it adds a bunch of restrictions itself. And there's no other license that doesn't add restrictions - MIT adds restrictions to reproduce the MIT license, which is an extra restriction. The restrictions are attempted excused by the FSF under the "attribution" clause of the GPL, but it is not clear to me that is valid and it has not tested by any court.