shwin

I think it’s actually a good thing that people are increasingly curious and informed about where the things they consume come from. Sure, some of it can be a front, but consumers get a choice to be more discriminating and demanding about where their consumption comes from, and that can (and has!) lead to better production practices; feels weird to complain about that.

billing is one of those things that I realize is deeper and more complicated every time you talk to somebody who thinks about it for their job; usage based pricing makes it even more so, interesting to read about how companies are adapting to that

What's your math?

In year 0-6, I would think the latter case comes up better, assuming (which is definitely true at like, all large tech companies) that yearly stock + 401k match (not even touching tax benefits) is better than 1/3 of your salary?

I would think stock + 401k > 1/3 salary basically (this was true for me at Workday, anyway)

Also, "they found it reduced methane production by more than 99 percent in the lab."

In the lab? On "bacteria found in the stomach of cows"?

That's a long way off from what the title suggests; this research is definitely still valuable, but I think we do scientific reporting a disservice when we make much bolder claims than the actual science bears out.

Lab studies != actual cows eating stuff

My partner is studying the effects of cow grazing on various greenhouse gas things, and the amount of data you need to get/the number of times you need to replicate before policy makers are willing to step in, is really quite substantial.

I showed this article to her last year when it popped up, and she said "show me a large sample size and replicate it stateside and then I'll start caring."

harsh, but I think that's where we are with this kind of thing.