Can you defend your statement and cite how renewable this domesticated area is? Aren’t most areas deforested for cattle farming (legendarily inefficient) and soy plantations (monoculture)?
The funny/sad thing about the Amazon soil is its incredibly poor nutritionally. Because there's so much rain, many minerals and nutrients get washed out. In fact, poor soils often result in such high biodiversity.[0] Which means when they slash and burn to grow soy, they only really have a year or 2 where the soil can support that. Afterwards all its good for is cattle (if that). But its so plentiful and demand is so high for beef and soy that we keep doing this
> But its so plentiful and demand is so high for beef and soy that we keep doing this
Just to add that about three-quarters of soybeans are used as livestock feed (poultry, pigs, cattle, ...). So really, it's almost all demand for meat and dairy.
For what it’s worth, Epic is a private company and employee upside has been capped in the sense that compensation has been mostly cash (and not Netflix tier cash). Exposure to equity may been a better way to share in upside and ensure some buy-in.
IMO investing in a marketplace was fine, but hemorrhaging money for 7 years on non-performant software + free game bundles is probably not defensible from an executive standpoint.
In my experience the buy-in you get from employee stock programs scales inversely with the head count. I worked for a huge company that gave out stock options. Nobody was really motivated by the stocks, because the company was so large your individual contribution meant exactly nothing unless you were at least a VP. A vesting bonus of some kind would have done just as much.
That’s… an odd argument to make. Do you really think that the vast majority of people derive more happiness from having things than experiences/memories with loved ones?
I think a popular sentiment near the end of life for most is that they wish they’d adventured more and spent additional time with family & friends, not acquiring material goods or more wealth.
> Do you really think that the vast majority of people derive more happiness from having things than experiences/memories with loved ones?
No, but that's not the argument OP makes. They say, we will all be dead and our possession gone so they have no value. Meanwhile, time with loved ones... Well it will be gone too! But somehow that's fine.
That one is better than another is not an argument OP makes.
Yes, and I don’t know why the OP thought otherwise. Most other European countries also have “elite” universities, even if they lack the gravitas of Harvard or Yale.
I agree. I’m not sure what people’s preoccupation with increased population growth is. And how more people is inherently a good thing.
Sure, the Earth has resources that if distributed more efficiently, could support more people (some say by a magnitude). But are governments and companies incentivized to extract and distribute things more efficiently? Will they ever be? What is the cost to other species and the biodiversity of the planet? We’re already in the midst of a mass extinction event, and it’s sobering to realize that future children will only think of some animal species barely hanging on today as “dodos”.
To be fair for your second point, speaking as someone attended an Ivy but is from a low income household and terrible at sports, many of the people who manipulated spherical objects adeptly also had brilliant minds.
I was always impressed with my friends who had the mental fortitude to wake up at 6 every day, practice for 3-4 hours, go to class, practice after class, and still take the courses/do the research necessary for elite graduate schools. Meanwhile, I woke up at 11 AM on a good day and only started going to the gym regularly my senior year. I honestly can't say the proportion of "regular" athletes to "smart" athletes was any different from that of students in the general population.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with the "stalling" portion of the title for this article. Vice could argue that they're slow to react, but transfer limits have been a thing for these kinds of apps forever, including CashApp which doesn't seem to be mentioned here.
Being able to do something about this, especially in these extraordinary circumstances, and still not doing it is a sign of acting in bad faith. More so when the issue lies with your intentionally crippled (as in "not just an oversight") implementation. Stalling is perhaps too soft a word. On the other hand PayPal is more than willing to blame COVID19 for delays in issues that should officially be resolved faster and that are causing losses to others. So they're willing to use the "extraordinary circumstances" excuse when and only when it suits them. Another sign that they are acting in bad faith.
Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107810