Not who you were replying to, but yes, it's a special case. For anything not having to do with a formal math-like proof, you want "has proven" instead of "has proved." It's super weird.

We only have a few of these in English, where one of the tenses of the verb changes depending on the subject matter, but they do exist. The only other one I can think of off the top of my head is hang: past and participle "hanged"/"have hanged" (to execute or be executed via hanging from the neck) versus "hung"/"have hung" (any other meaning).

Hope that helps!

Edit: fixed my example to better match the original text.

> Basically, what you mentioned—' I don't want to pay a full price' and 'try the full functionality out without paying the full price'—are the primary drivers behind customers' preference for a subscription-based model.

Or a third driver, somewhat related to the first two: the customer is simply priced out of the product in question as a one-time payment.

Part of the reason Adobe makes the killing it does off CC is because it's $55/mo and not $500-$600 or whatever. It doesn't require a consumer to have a chunk of money in their bank account all at once just sitting around, which especially in the case of students and art folks is money they may not have.

What on earth happened here? Was he trying to make some kind of weird DOGE-esque shadow IT department? There is so much drama and I can't make heads or tails of it.

That's fair. I wasn't coming for you and I'm certainly not trying to fight you from some kind of authority - I'm definitely not a businessperson.

The only point I was trying to get across is that even "bad" customers are still customers, and that there's still a lot of money to be made meeting people's needs doing the work others don't want to do. I feel like this applies from the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder all the way to the top - that's all. Perhaps I should've made that clearer, and that's on me.

An unsolicited side note: I think the bristling to this post was because of the language you were using. Talking about the poor as if they were to be discarded made you look a bit as if you have no empathy, which might not be fair to you. I get it - business require being hard-hearted if you want to get ahead because if you don't make tough decisions, someone else will - but it probably wasn't your best look, you know?

There is an argument to be made that price-sensitive customers are a neglected market. Granted, marketing to them is very different - they're prone to being scooped if someone comes by willing to sell your same product to them at a loss (hi, Amazon and Walmart) - but there are a lot more of them and you're not fighting every startup on the planet for the same handful of clients.

Business have made a killing in China and India for a reason, after all.

I think it's less "But keep this confidential" and more "This is an off-the-record remark," sort of like something a colleague might say in hushed tones in a hallway. I think the point whoever wrote this at the time was trying to get across was to try to tell her to shut up and not ruin a good thing, if not for herself then for other people. To their credit, they have somewhat of a point in that: speaking up against this will hurt people, even if it does make for better science and even if it's the right thing to do.

I have absolutely no idea why she published this, suddenly and with such vitriol after having already covered it, today of all the times - but my hunch is that it might only be because the US grant funding system is currently coming apart at the seams that she's comfortable finally stopping with pulling her punches. I mean, what more damage can it do? Most of these people are losing their funding anyway - her speaking out isn't going to cost anyone a grant, and not outing the person who pulled her aside directly isn't going to cause anyone any permanent reputational damage.

It's all ethically self-consistent and makes a sort of sense, even if it's not what I'd personally do. But I haven't walked in her shoes, either.

> I don't know any researcher thinking what they do is "crap". In research, you believe in what you do.

I'm glad you know good people! Sincerely - it's reassuring to hear.

I'd love to believe that all science and all researchers are as noble of heart as this, but there is a clear and documentable issue of fraud in the sciences that points to systemic issues in how science itself is incentivized and performed - none of this is a secret. So many people go into science (and stay in science!) for all the best reasons, but it is not exactly a stretch to imagine that, despite relatively recent high-profile exposures, there are still people out there even today doing some or all of their jobs in bad faith.

Perhaps the author's commentary about "all other areas" had to do with that fraud even back then (the letter was written seven years ago, the video said) - I don't know. To be fair, it wouldn't be that difficult to find at least one major episode of academic fraud in every major hard science discipline at this point, so I personally really don't think the "all" here is exactly doing that much heavy lifting. I also get the impression reading the letter that the author may not have been a native speaker of English, so perhaps giving them (and, consequently, Sabine) the assumption of good faith here and hand-waving the "all" into a "many" would be a sensible thing to do here.

> For me, this is Sabine speaking to her audience right here.

Does this speak to her audience? Of course - she makes her living off her YouTube channel. But that doesn't really discount the message.

The timing is odd, though, and makes her look oddly partisan in a way that hasn't agreed with other things I've seen her talk about on her channel (which I do watch). For what it's worth, I'm no scientist but I've been in academia myself - please believe me when I tell you there's plenty of corruption and grift in the humanities, too. I have stories.

> And those early organisms would eventually [have] to move to the shallows and land and deal with all the masked radiation at some point.

Do they, though? Why is land the requirement? What's keeping life from, say, evolving to live deep underground? Or in the deep ocean? Both those places are heavily shielded from radiation, and organisms there wouldn't be affected much at all by not having a magnetosphere. Extremophiles on Earth get by just fine hanging around thermal vents, for instance. (Edit: this was mentioned above and I didn't see it - sorry for repeating.)

I think part of the problem with the Fermi paradox is that our base assumptions about what life needs are possibly a bit off. Maybe the fact that we have what we have is, well, quirky, and the fact that we evolved as living creatures that crawl around on the outside of our planet and need really fussy little temperatures to survive is just plain weird in comparison to the rest of the universe.

"Life as we know it" is a lot tougher criterion to meet than "life," I suspect.

> I know of some folks that are dealing with mental health challenges. They are all dirt poor, on SSI/Medicaid, and terrified of losing these. > > As a result, they don't try to get jobs, or advance themselves, socially. They don't take risks. Their therapists tend to encourage this stance. > > I can't, with sincerity, say that they are all wrong, but I'll bet some of them are. If they pushed themselves, they could probably break free of their chains. But some of the others, would just break. I am not qualified to know which is which. I do my best to support them, and keep my opinions to myself.

I am one of those people. I tried. It was a bad idea.

I am neurodivergent with mental health issues and started working again in 2022 as a developer after having been on disability for about 15 years. A friend of mine has given me a referral to a place he worked, and I had a mid-level development position at a startup that involved a lot of teaching bootcamp grads how to do stuff - that part of my work especially was a great fit. Then the economy tightened up and I got laid off - and there was just no work to be found.

I had worked exactly 11 days past the trial work grace period (thanks, former employer), so I'm in a weird situation where I'm able to draw benefits for a couple of years but I'll have to reapply for disability in a few months. Had I worked 11 days less, I'd still have benefits like nothing had ever happened - and had I worked into December of that year I'd have nothing at all.

The part no one tells you about any of this is that you are going to be reliant on referrals for work for the rest of your life because the gap in your work history makes you absolutely toxic to any sort of HR department permanently. And if the job market dries up like it has, where you're just another mid-level dev in a sea of thousands, that gap in your work history is going to render you absolutely unemployable. I have no idea what that gap in my work history has to do with my skill as a software engineer (aside from the fact that I have had lots of time to practice), but it makes me radioactive.

My life is currently hinging on whether or not my reapplication goes through. If it doesn't... I really don't know what I'm going to do. Getting a job in my field is clearly not an option anymore, and there isn't much other work I'm really all that able to do.

All I can do to get through my days is to try very hard not to think about that. It's grim and it sucks and I really don't anticipate this ending well for me, but I'm trying to stay hopeful.