sunshinelackof

We can solve this, will we? No. Unless someone can convince the world's population to stop burning fossil fuels. The pain is already here for a lot of people and we're not doing anything about it.

As an American this is pretty embarrassing. Somehow trying to absorb the benefits of another government's regulation and billing it as creating a "freer" market is more popular than solving the problem here? I don't buy it, I can't imagine a lot of other people really do either. I'm also not sure that it would even work. That is supposing Canada wouldn't respond to lukewarm hostility with measures to counter this. It feels like we're civically brain-dead. Said sitting on a stash of decade old epi-pens.

I can't imagine building subsidies and alternative fuels will undo the last 200 years of emissions. Structural changes that will reorganize our lives will be necessary. We are in a privileged position, in that we can make these structural changes in a favorable way now before we're faced with a reality that forces these changes on us.

It's scary, but there's nothing I can do. We need approachingly authoritarian action on this issue by world leaders. They've had the data for decades. And the longer they wait, the more dramatic the changes to everything will be. Certainly economic freedoms taken for today will be a thing of legend (and possibly horror.)

General workplace advice: Know how much you want to work. Don't get exploited into doing extra work. Do your best not to take work home. Your boss it typically useful, but ultimately he's not your friend. Keep your dignity and try to have a life outside of work.

Other than that, know what interests you and what doesn't interest you. Don't be afraid to reevaluate your interests over time. Don't be afraid to ask questions. If you think you're correct, be confident and say it.

Some people will say a breadth of skills is important and they are. But don't seek undue skills just because people say they're important. Do what interests you and you'll find a way to make it work out. Though in general, having a base of knowledge in complexity, algo, and data structures will help you find a job quicker. Every computer science program will teach this though.

I'm not sure of the potential for growth on either end that podcasts have. Certainly they remain popular with more educated consumers, but I wonder if it's a case of being unable to see outside of your bubble. On the other end, podcasts have always been super cheap to make. That isn't going to change. Most people have historically just made them for fun or out of passion.

There's probably little hope in growing a platform of highly produced podcasts that supports a bunch of creators, regardless of who does it. I think think these efforts will crash and burn. But this isn't a problem for the people who've been recording on a Zoom and paying $5/month to host their libraries for the last 10 years.

As long as they don't touch the UGB.

While in my opinion the minimum raise should be raised quite a lot, there are a lot of labor reforms needed. In particular for work that falls outside of the salaried work. Waged, contracted, seasonal, and temp workers do not have a lot of power in the labor market. It's actually a pretty hostile environment for individuals who don't want to collect a salary and sit at a desk.

I view the problem through this lens. That essentially we have a labor surplus because the current regulatory environment is designed around salaried office workers - barring a few holdovers in the form of labor unions. The total size of the labor market is larger than the carrying capacity of office jobs. As the environment has aged firms learned how to play the game and have pushed a lot of small competition out. Meanwhile laborers compete for a smaller pool of office jobs or hope they land on their feet.

This is really the nature of regulation though, it can rarely be meant to last forever and should receive continuous development and audits.

> voting exclusively on how credible a politician is on tackling global warming

This is really the only important thing that we can do. Except maybe not flying in an airplane, there is little the average person can do in their daily life to inhibit climate change. Whether due to preventive policies or due to resource shortages our lives will change in the near future. Expecting individuals to shame themselves when the society at large encourages the opposite is counter-productive.

It is not to say that anyone is wrong to choose to live more frugally. More importantly, we need to recognize that any hope we have must come from the top down. We have more research and more solutions than we've ever had for any problem, but we don't have someone to pull the trigger.

> see Panama disease for bananas for an example

Extinction level blights similar to these are not often found in the natural world. They're only a thing because we (humans) eliminated genetic diversity from crops through grafts and clones. If the plants reproduced naturally its likely that a range of genetically diverse children would have been resistant to the fungus.

I won't speak for other countries, but in The US leisure and general livability are commodities now, not a part of life. The talk about shorter work weeks feel to me like they're rooted in growing fears that these commodities are pricing out many in the "professionals class." This isn't meant with snark, but it's an uncomfortable conversation for everyone. As we stand today there are plenty of people, fully employed, who don't even have a savings let alone time for leisure. I don't think we working professionals will ever see anything meaningful change in working time until we can have the larger conversation about why we work, why we value it, and who should benefit from it.

Calling a degree useless because its value is not realized by the market today is myopic. If there were an explicit disincentive to study neuroscience, it's very unlikely that you would have textbooks summarizing decades of work in neuroscience.

This sort of thing basically existed in 1800's with surgeons. They weren't valued for their work and had a social stigma placed upon them. It took surgery a century to dig out of that hole, only thanks to the people who were dedicated enough to it.

The solution isn't to tune properties of the university to make it more efficient in the market. The university is not very compatible with markets. Professors and researchers are employed to study specific areas of research, typically independent of their market values, for decades. Of course it's all really important, that research feeds into a framework of tools that societies and corporations utilize.

The solution more likely involves making life easier for people who don't want to continue education. The high cost of college represents a fear that if you don't go to college, you're more likely to end up poor. From this perspective a lot of people are attending college that wouldn't if they felt they had other options. It's not hard to understand why people have this fear. 40% of American households don't have $400 to spend on an emergency. Unless we address the fear that opportunity is increasingly scarce the cost of opportunity will continue to rise.

Data ownership doesn't imply agency and control. In the future I own my data, so what? Does every company simply just demand access to all of it so I can use their services?

For data ownership to really matter users/consumers need to be able to bargain on equal terms with companies, probably collectively.