Wait til you find out about Wifi and GSM!

The alternative to retardant at the moment is uncontrolled wildfires.

Whether you want to interact now or just read through the (long) history of how others have handled these situations, you'll find the nuance and encouragement it'll be hard to find elsewhere.

[1]: https://randsinrepose.com/welcome-to-rands-leadership-slack/

(Not suggesting there's something wrong with that, per se. But good luck getting someone's who just in it for the money to go above and beyond.)

Found the text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x...

Drier than the south still isn't dry enough when it's 117°F with a dewpoint of 65°F. You'll end up with output temps in the high 80s (or higher), and the output air will be extremely wet.

We're running 270k+ RPM no sweat, and our spend for those containers is maybe 1/100th what you're quoting there.

The idea that Rails can't handle high load is just such bloody nonsense.

You can build an abomination with any framework, if you try.

A driver will be on a 2-lane road (1 lane each way), and attempt to pass the driver in front of them. A car will be coming the other way, and they won't be able to get in front in time.

They'll try to slow and get back in, but the other cars will have filled the space. They'll have nowhere to go.

Perhaps in this example the driver shouldn't have tried to pass in the first place, but removing an "out" from this situation, in which everyone gets to go home to their families, is a horrible idea.

On the other hand, there's a project on iOS, "Rubyist", that embeds mRuby and lets you actually write, parse, and execute ruby code within your app. It even has some hooks for calling into some iOS APIs (Widget APIs, most notably). It's a fun idea, but might be a dead project. https://rubyist.app

I wish there was a canonical Xcode project getting mRuby imported into an iOS/Mac app, so anyone could use it as a starting point for their ideas. I dunno, maybe one is out there and I just haven't found it?

The marginal cost of digital distribution is (basically) zero. As a result, you have an incentive to chase the widest possible audience. This is going to drive your pricing downward to reach as wide a market as possible. The math is like this: A 1000x audience size is worth it even if you lower prices 99%.

At the same time, advertisers would like to reach as large an audience as possible as well. And, in many cases, you can charge _more_ for selling ads to a larger audience. (Either the ad goes to a huge number of people, as in traditional brand advertising, or you have more niches to target.)

So you simultaneously have incentives to drive your own prices to zero, because it drives up your audience size, and that simultaneously increases the prices you can charge for ads.

From an on-paper business perspective, it's simply the best model. It's why TV, Newspapers, and Magazines all did this before the Internet, and it's why the incentives are bent even more towards ads in a zero-marginal-cost-distribution environment today.

Yes, in the real world there are tradeoffs to all of this, but these are the major incentives at play.

> air conditioners – which work by sucking in indoor air, heating it via compressor and then dumping that heat outside

And on and on.