But it is not about saving but it is about environment. And this where I get a little weary about: if they are willing to stretch truths here where else are they doing that. Requiring ID to browse internet? Flock cameras?

Of course they will use left vs right argument but I doubt this is all about saving environment.

Anyway, saying how it will save money is not right way how to promote this (it is really hard to predict all 2nd order effects this might cause - including increase of accidents, noise pollution, market forces (less choice), and similar).

The U.S. already has very strict rules against unsolicited calls, yet I still get around 20 spam calls a day saying things like "press 2 to be connected" or offering some "$64K loan."

At the same time, I have not received a single unsolicited call from a reputable company.

The same is true for text messages. In 2023, the U.S. introduced stricter regulations, and companies like Twilio responded with very strict anti-spam rules. The rules are now so restrictive that we are forced to stopped using Twilio for text important notification to our my own team.

Yet I still receive dozens of spam text messages every week.

So the question is whether the regulations can actually be enforced against the people who are already ignoring them.

Unfortunately, some people have started calling everyone they disagree with a fascist. Elon Musk is a fascist. Peter Thiel is a fascist. Marc Andreessen is a fascist. And list goes on..

But these people (and many other Silicon Valley entrepreneurs), are better described as libertarians (perhaps techno-libertarians?). I am not saying that ideology is good or bad, but it is not the same as fascism.

Using the word “fascist” so loosely weakens the argument and makes the entire discussion intellectually dishonest. It also trivialize the historical horrors of the Holocaust.

I’m only half joking.

They might share personal things with close friends, but they had a clear definition of what friendship meant.

In other words, be a person of character.

It is perfectly fine not to be friends with everyone. Just be respectful and honest. Do not lie. Say, “I cannot tell you that because of this or that,” or simply remain silent.

Part of the purpose of these exercises is to train management, especially executives, to remain fully focused and make decisions solely on performance and the business, even when someone asks them to show emotion. Anyone who is in executive management position should understand that.

He failed the test.

My reading is that he used those examples deliberately to raise a broader issue: some people are tired of being told to ignore problems they can see and experience, whether that means feeling unsafe while walking through a city or attending a Pride parade (assume that are the “wolfs”), or being frustrated that nearly every item at Target is locked up (“gypsies”).

To be clear, I am not expressing an opinion on whether his argument is right or wrong.

Only very (awesome) good and very bad experiences are widely shared.

The problem is that creating a truly great (awesome) memorable support experience happens less than 5% of the time (as you said it is rare). And that experience is shared to 10 people in average: not really a lot.

Sadly, it is hard to convince people of this unfortunate and depressing fact: customer support is nice, but in the grand scheme of things, it usually does not matter that much.

Everybody has to learn that lesson on their own.

> In other words, the best approach for us is what most companies do.

Every inexperienced entrepreneur starts with a promise that their support will not be terrible like Google, Comcast, or other big companies. And that will be their path to success.

But in the end, you learn that you need to offer the same level of support that other companies in your market offer. And if your support is really better, nobody will really notice. It does not matter.

And inexperienced entrepreneurs are stubborn (a good trait). So they usually have to learn that lesson on their own.

So it is kinda expected to be there: if it is not there then a car needs to be something special. So I think buyers don’t even ask for it because they assume it will be there (and absence becomes much more noticeable than its presence).

But trust is also eroded by completely unrelated things, like “Iraq has WMDs” and other stories pushed by our governments. Or even the recent argument that we need ID to access the internet in order to “protect children.” Sure.

The key point is that for things like vaccines, people need to trust the goverment and the process. Most people are not going to read medical papers. They should rely on government health agencies to tell them what to do.

So when trust is damaged (even by unrelated government decisions), it affects how people respond to medical guidance too.

But because they were pushed by the government, many people do not trust them. Sure, they were pushed and mandated for good reasons, but the problem is that a lot of people have already lost trust in the government.

That trust was not lost because of one big decision. It was lost through many small, unrelated government decisions that may not seem noticeable or measurable on their own, but over time, they build up.

I do not know how this trust can be rebuilt but definitely not by publishing more reviews.

Is it bad? That depends on your point of view. If you are pro-business, then yes, the bill is bad. If you are not pro-business and you are pro-worker rights, then you will not see it as bad.

Apparently their tax system is quite favorable to businesses, but taxes are only one (small) part of the equation. The taxes matter more once a company is making a lot of money.

In short, tax incentives and random per company “investments” (bribes?) are not enough to offset certain laws and regulations Michigan has.

I am not saying those laws and regulations are bad. I am just saying that targeted tax incentives and investment for specific companies are the wrong way to solve the problem.

I can already tell it has to be one of the most boring books ever written, because there is nothing new there.

It is basically like writing a book that says: the sky is blue and water is wet.

I actually made mistake. There are 16 fields:

* 12 matter fields (6 quarks + 6 leptons)

* 1 gluon field (an 8-component SU(3) field)

* 1 weak field (a 3-component SU(2) field)

* 1 hypercharge field (a 1-component U(1) field)

* 1 Higgs field (SU(2) x U(1))

We have 17 particles is because W+, W-, Z are combination on 2 fields.

I think counting particles is just going to confuse people because they are really not “balls”.