They've deeply weakened .net as it was always second fiddle - now there are more specific/relevant second fiddles to choose from.
Good .com's are worth much, much more now (e.g. Voice.com sold for $30 million USD recently).
I think some of the shady behavior from the new extension registries (they seem to hold back every decent name as a "premium") really hurt their adoption.
While people who do handle it fine, by that point you've lost a massive crowd that would maybe consider your other advice if not for the "oh, and also you should be vegan" part. The problem of meat production carbon footprint is roughly linear in the amount of meat consumed, so it's enough to tell people to eat as little meat as they can, without asking them to cross the mental/cultural barrier vegetarianism is.
(Also, I'm not sure whether going from vegetarian to vegan means smaller or bigger carbon footprint.)
Because most people who go 100% vegetarian break down and go back to eating meat anyway. Better be 98% vegetarian for decades than 100% vegetarian for a year.
Maybe in the past things were different (although many studies into this tend to have ulterior motives), but I would say that Veganism has gone from an obscure lifestyle/diet to the acceptable mainstream very rapidly - e.g. U.S's population has gone from 1% vegan to around 6% in just the last couple of years (https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetforgrieve/2018/11/02/pictu...).
Even KFC are creating a vegan option.. sometimes change happens quick. I see it becoming more and more normalised.
I think people should really just aim for 50% vegetarian, I really think this would help and most people could manage. For example, eat meat 3-4 days a week and the rest vegetarian. Imagine if everyone did this?
Yeah it's not perfect, but it's a start and it's more realistic.
Here's my story and I've heard similar off others:
I went vegetarian for 2 years (leaning to vegan) and found it hard to keep in shape and get enough protein, especially if you don't have time to cook and prepare meals. The only time I felt good was when I worked remotely and really had time to invest in cooking a lot of legumes and preparing meals with a lot of spices and variety to keep tings interesting.
Eventually I moved overseas and worked full-time again and felt depressed because I was missing out on a lot of nice foods and was surviving off only Tofu (readily available protein source), the lack of variety got me down.
I felt hungry quite often and often ended up supplementing with things like whey protein (probably has high Co2 footprint) anyway.
Eventually I slipped into some kind of extreme depression and was quite unwell mentally, I pondered a lot for why this might be. I'm not sure if my body was deprived of something and then I thought back to when it all started and it seemed like a correlation with my diet changing. I hate saying (because I think the ethics of vegetarianism/veganism is superior) but my mental state improved quickly once I started consuming more animal products higher in protein with more variety of amino acids (whey protein, cheese and milk combined with lots of nuts and legumes).
Eventually I went back to eating some chicken and fish and took some whey supplements and things continued improved for me and now I'm really quite content and working out / lifting a lot and feeling good physically and mentall. I eventually I just realized that I need to eat. I care a lot about climate change so I felt insane guilt for a while but it went away eventually.
Like someone else said, maybe it's enough not to treat meat like a commodity, more like something we're lucky to have an eat it as necessary and sparingly.
I think it's unfortunate and unhealthy to have to give up food and feel guilty for eating because people choose to drive their cars, have too many kids, drive to work, fly unnecessarily and burn fossil fuels to generate power. I'd prefer to see those issues addressed before going hungry and having health issues.
I know people live vegetarian fine, maybe it's easier if you have a low body mass etc; However in the end my contribution has been to move very close to my office and ride to work every day and I eat vegetarian for breakfast and most evening meals, consume less stuff I don't need, repair things and only fly once or twice a year (maybe it's too much).
Not so much about something already existing, but knowing how next-to-impossible it'll be to compete against the Googles/Microsofts of the world once the idea starts to take up steam/get noticed.
Not from the U.S (assuming you are) and don't know how it's employed exactly, but don't most states there already have at-will employment where they can get rid of people for no/very little reason anyway?
They can get rid of people for any reason, not for no reason.
In real life things are even more complex: in case of a bitter divorce an employer will have some trouble trying to convince a judge that they fired a programmer because he didn't like classical music. And then programmer's attorney will present his version of events with some racial twist added...
Yes and no. In theory, they don't need a reason. In practice, they're concerned about lawsuits, politics, and unemployment insurance.
First of all, if you sue (and you can for a number of reasons), that means litigation, even if frivolous. Secondly, most orgs don't like giving person(s) the power to fire for no reason (politics / abuse potential). Finally, unemployment insurance is a big cost; if you get "fired for cause" their rates don't go up (this systems a joke, but that's a story for another day)
So, contrary to what you might think, and people will claim on the internet, it can practically be quite hard to fire someone. You just can't sue because you got fired fired for no reason, just for other stuff (eg. discrimination)
I agree, and quite like Gitlab, but Github's recent decision to allow free private repos has surely put a bit of a dent in Gitlab/Bitbucket's marketshare expansion - many people were using those services instead of Github just for that feature.
Ok, I'll split the question into 3 and make it clear that you didn't answer it.
What is the utility that IOTA provides?
There's nothing in your link that talks about the utility that IOTA provides. There's machine to machine payments, but that's not really utility because currently machines don't pay each other, users do. There's no actual demand for machines to pay each other. This isn't unsurprising because it's a new technology and sometimes technology has to develop the demand.
What are Bosch are deploying at production?
The link you supplied has nothing being deployed at production. There's talk of the XDK, but that's a developer kit, not a final product. If you go to the XDK site and search for IOTA, iota or tangle you get no results. This is not contingent with the importance that IOTA supporters place on the Bosch relationship.
Where is this used?
According to the link you've posted, there are a number of Proof of Concepts, but no actual deployments at production scale. It's not being used outside of PoC at this stage.
The thing is, you could've just tried answering the question but posting an AMA that doesn't answer it is frankly, shitty. If you believe it does answer the above 3 questions, at least do the decent thread and link to the comments with the answers.
I have no dog in the IOTA fight (or in cryptocurrencies at all), but FTA:
>On the Internet of Things, edge nodes are mostly low-powered, occasionally connected devices, sometimes with just a few kilobytes of on-device memory. Nobody expects those devices to be in sync with anything. That is, why IOTA has a concept of nodes. Fullnodes and permanodes. These nodes stay in sync with the Tangle. Or, if you consider use cases which require offline-capabilities, even just with subparts of the Tangle, which can be attached back to the main Tangle at a later point...
Andreas seemed to be suggesting that no IoT device would be able to take part in the IOTA network, because his attempt to run a full-node required lots of data.
To be fair, the main argument in the response article is that Andreas's troubles installing a full-node wallet doesn't relate to how an IoT device would use it, so the article's conclusion isn't well established.
All the arguments about "how can something that's pre-alpha be worth billions of dollars" are perfectly valid, but the original article seemed to address IOTA's worth for IoT devices, and seems to have missed the plot on that.
