kyrers

I'm not even taking into consideration de 2030 part.

But yeah, I generally agree with you. Especially in this:

> But the idea of "I own nothing" cannot conceivable extend to personal items like clothing. That doesn't make any sense ... maybe you wouldn't own tools that are too expensive/specialized to be almost-free.

I don't understand this. As said in other comments, I believe most people wouldn't want most of the things the author describes.

If I want to cook at home and have to order everything, I assume it won't just be there in 5 minutes. And then what? If everything is shared does someone come pick it up when someone else needs it? Do I take it somewhere?

Also, are people delivering these things? Or robots? And how can this be free? He also mentions that most work can be done at anytime. Well, if the premisse is order everything I need, even for cooking, that has to be done right away, no?

I might be totally off, but this doesn't make any sense to me.

Yeah I understand that perspective, my question is what happens if the owner of said company wants to sell?

Yeah, I read it correctly but am just now realizing I wrote "tech companies" instead of "big tech companies", my bad.

So this is more a move to preven them from bullying smaller tech companies? I can see it from that angle, but it still seems to me that they want the power to block acquisitions.

For instance, would the following acquisition/merger be allowed: a big tech company acquiring a small company, which the owner wants to sell, that does not influence public welfare?

> "The report also recommends that Congress consider any acquisition by the big tech companies to be anticompetitive unless the companies can prove that the merger would be in the public’s benefit and could not be otherwise achieved."

I'm sorry, what? Two private tech companies cannot merge if they can't prove it is in the public's best interest? Am I understanding this correctly?

What if the influence on public welfare is non existent or minimal, but both companies would benefit from the merger?

Thanks!

This is one of the things that makes me proud to be Portuguese.

Also, does anyone remember the name of the doctor that started this whole movement? I think the first name is João, but I can't remember or find it. I might be tripping, pun intended.

Question from someone who knows nothing about physics: Was the Big Crunch theory discarded?

After reading the article I did some research, and several places mentioned this theory as obsolete.

> Conventional thinking is (or was? I don’t follow this closely) that hard shots into the side netting either low to the ground or high up are unstoppable. The goalkeeper cannot reach the high corners, and will not fall fast enough to catch low shots, if the shot is fast enough.

It still is.

When I said that I have an unpopular opinion, it was just referring to the skipping technique.

From what I've read, I seem to have a unpopular opinion as it regards Jorginho and Bruno Fernandes technique (the little skip before shooting).

Skipping before shooting is really dangerous in my eyes. First off, you lose shot power (much more notable in Jorginho's case). Second, the goalkeepers get familiar with it, and start waiting for the skip (Bruno Fernandes changed his technique recently in the Europa League due to this, the goalkeeper almost saved it, only he couldn't due to shot power. If BF skipped, the power would not have been enough).

It could be argued that the panenka is the same thing - if the goalkeeper waits, he saves. However, the panenka does not require the run to be changed, adding to the surprise factor.

All that being said, powerful shot to the side netting is still my go to.

> For what it's worth, Coinbase must "allow" those discussions by law in the US.

I'm not from the US, so thanks for pointing that out.

> For what it's worth, Coinbase must "allow" those discussions by law in the US.

I feel most companies think that this isn't desirable. However, as long as the complaints, and the complainers, are treated fairly, that's fine by me.

Yeah, he would've been better off ending the sentence before that statement.

In the blog post in which he explained Coinbase's mission, he specifically mentioned that:

> Of course, employees should always feel free to advocate around issues of pay, conditions of employment, or violations of law, for instance.

Now, if he really is trying to diminsh the possibility of that happening, I don't know.

Amazing. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks!