Readit NewsPonzi schemes do keep paying out, for as long as they are growing.
I mean... I'm not saying Tesla's weird daliance with and then rejection of Bitcoin is particularly rational. I'm just saying it doesn't seem insincere.
The board of Tesla will have agreed the plans.
Tesla Inc. buys some Bitcoin.
Tesla announces that Bitcoin is good now and that it bought some.
The price of Bitcoin goes up, because institutional adoption of Bitcoin is good for its price, but also because, by the Elon Markets Hypothesis, anything that Musk buys goes up.
Tesla sells some Bitcoin, making a profit.
Musk tweets that the price of Bitcoin is too high. Bitcoin prices go down due to the Elon Markets Hypothesis.
Go to Step 1.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-22/electr...
Tesla buys into some unknown proof-of-stake coin.
There is a trend I’ve seen of a company making a decison, everyone hating on them for it, then they reverse the decision, and they are still criticised.
If a company turns around and reverses a decision citing the very reasons they were criticised for making it, shouldn’t we applaud them for listening?
I mean, isn’t this exactly the behaviour we want to encourage?
The reason you're getting so many down votes is because you made strong claims in a harsh tone that turned out to be false in a trivially verifiable manner. The intent there is that you should've verified your claim through and through before attributing a misdeed to someone who simply sought to share something they thought was cool to make with others.
The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point.
This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk.
[on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]
License: MIT
This gets to a larger philosophy of open source: we should encourage people to fork when they want to iterate on someone else's work, however minor that iteration may be. This is open source working as intended.
This use of the code is a clear legal breach of copyright, in the absence of specific agreement with the copyright holder.
(On the Hatetris page, the author declines someone’s request to use the code elsewhere)
Deleted Comment
Most people don't care about the environmental costs, we do lots of things that have environmental effects because we like them and think it's worth it.
Impossible and Beyond, while good, are still noticeably worse than beef to me. The animal suffering bit makes me accept that it's worth it. The environmental use isn't as compelling (imo).
If you haven’t been convinced by decades of animal cruelty messaging (and most people haven’t), you’re unlikely to be convinced by it here.
It might form a meaningful part of a bigger decision-making process, but we already have that information.
If $30 an hour pleases you, then don't mess it up by getting greedy.
If there are other issues with the job that you haven't told us about, bring those issues up and perhaps they will go higher.
The way negotiation works is by joining people with different expectations. It's not a contest or a battle of wits you have to "win." For them $30 an hour is great; for you, it is great. That sounds like a successful deal to me.
But, if you are really satisfied with $30ph (if you don't have a better offer to fall back on), you probably won't get (much) more. Your weak negotiating position will inevitably shine through.