* Reduced staff costs.

* Reduced potential peak. If you're at capacity during peak it might be worth the extra staff costs to capture the revenue.

* Reduced staffing flexibility. Things like vacations, parental leave, etc become tighter.

* Reduced customer satisfaction. I've stopped going to places when they lose my favorite staff member, and places a lot less consequential than a vet. This might translate to loss customers in the mid term, but you might not notice until their next vet visit in ~12 months. This might translate to bad yelp reviews.

* Presumably most of those vets let go are going to continue to be vets. It's a high skill job that pays well and people get into it for passion. That means your competition just gained access to a resource. Or maybe those vets become your new competition.

I thought reddit was really clever for the first ~7 years of operations. They replaced forums, fostered communities, gained a reputation as a place to get real people's takes, and attracted people willing to have interesting conversations. The upvote/downvote system that is now so common was made popular from reddit. They brought awareness to important political topics surrounding net neutrality. They were leaders in early Web2.0, where each user saw content that appealed to them, because everyone could choose which subreddits were in their homepage. It was highly social and highly engaging.

After a certain point in 201X the dark patterns began to appear. I was almost fully disengaged by the start of 2013. I can't remember the details, but I remember being increasing disappointed with reddit every time I returned for a brief visit.

I've never seen someone be so right and so wrong at the same time.

There's nothing about Manjaro that makes it significantly more free than the other top Linux distributions (as an aggregate).

There's nothing about Manjaro that makes it significantly more open source than the other top Linux distributions (as an aggregate).

There's nothing about Manjaro that makes it significantly more private than the other top Linux distributions (as an aggregate).

I've done all three. Arch isn't on the same level as Ubuntu, Fedora, or Manjaro on level of ease for instillation.

The difference between .deb and other common packages (rpm, pacman) are minimal. Almost all desktop distros will handle dockerfiles just as well as Ubuntu.

That just kicks the can. After the IPO there are more owners on the hook if things go critically bad.

Cholesterol, Fasting Insulin levels, and (if male) free Testosterone are other good ones. Cholesterol and Insulin should be checked by all adults annually, and BP should be checked at least annually. T isn't checked as routinely, but it's worth knowing where you fit and has an impact on your metabolics and the test isn't a big deal.

I could see Vision sticking as a name in colloquial use. Vision Pro is a signal there is room for a lower price headset in the future. No one ever called their iPad an "iPad Pro" in colloquial use. This name is least as good as Quest.

* Headsets will have good enough resolution and be generally comfortable enough to replace monitors for office space.

* There is a solution to the pass through input problem that is acceptable for the average office worker. I don't think there is a solution of the passthrough problem that beats a keyboard/mouse, or even a laptop in a cafe. I think it's more likely the average office worker will accept a worse form of text input given the right conditions.

* It's possible to project a 3d image of myself while wearing a headset that doesn't include the headset and passes the uncanny valley. The uncanny valley is wide, and even AAA video games haven't cleared it yet.

I think after the replication crisis the scientific community is more aware of the limitations and faults of the current system. This has impacted different fields in different ways, to varying degrees of improvements. Now, I think a lab like Hwang's would be meet with more skepticism from both readers and the top tier journals.

The biggest cause for skepticism now would be Hwang's claimed success rate with the techniques. If other labs couldn't reach similar levels of success then the most generous assumption would be that the techniques weren't described well enough in the articles. Compare this to CRISPR gene editing, which is a slightly more modern advancement in genetics that is valued because of how easily other labs can incorporate it.

The data is incredibly open. Anyone can download datasets from telescopes, or build their own. Papers built on invalid data can be refuted by simply pointing telescopes at the location the paper is lying about. There are very few possible discoveries or theories in an astronomy journal that would immediately impact the wider culture.

Compare astronomy to sociology, in which questionnaire results can be fabricated and are essentially unconformable without using other unconformable questionnaires. Compare astronomy to economics, which the articles can be used bolster political positions.

The research results were fraudulent, claiming a much higher success rate at generating a stem cell line than what was achieved. They lied about the number of stem cell lines generated, the number of oocytes used to generate the stem cell lines, and the number of donors the oocytes came from.

As if bad data wasn't enough, they lied both to their donors, lied about their donors, and miscredited authors.

I really want to echo this. We are talking about millions of lives a year right now, and basically every human has been infected. We need a solid answer for why some people have long term health impacts and others do not. There are many brilliant people working on this problem. Let's accept that this might actually be a complicated long term problem.