Another incident to consider is the previous "biological Chernobyl" from 1979, which involved a (drum roll) lab leak of Anthrax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak). Incidentally, all investigation was blocked in that incident, and the government denied culpability until Boris Yeltsin came into power and admitted that it was caused by military development (of biological weapons). The lack of accountability and transparency with the international community in that incident is part of why Russia was able to get away with continued work on anthrax-based biological weapons even after this incident. It's also why we need to bring greater scrutiny to what happened here with SARS-CoV-2, instead of pushing it under the rug - these leaks are more damaging than nuclear weapons and need the same kinds of controls.
Well, it's not that hard to imagine, is it? Someone founds a company that produces tractors but they are simpler, cheaper and can be repaired. If that's what customers want, they _will_ gain market share. If not, then the demand isn't there.
Then the next argument would be that John Deere is destroying competition by artificially selling their tractors below cost, making it impossible to compete with them.
Because yeah, that's what you do when you recoup the rest of the cost in the subscription/maintenance.
It's the same model that game consoles use to keep the hardware costs low. They make it up in the game and peripheral licensing fees.
If JD dropped the subscriptions, but instead charged full price for the tractors, people would just scream about the prices instead.
I actually agree that farmers should legally be able to repair their own tractors, or have anyone else do it. But gaining that "right" back wouldn't actually fix their complaints, just shift them.
I disagree actually - I think the animal suffering morality angle is the best argument for most people (as long as it's done in a way that isn't too adversarial).
Most people don't care about the environmental costs, we do lots of things that have environmental effects because we like them and think it's worth it.
Impossible and Beyond, while good, are still noticeably worse than beef to me. The animal suffering bit makes me accept that it's worth it. The environmental use isn't as compelling (imo).
Privy enables over 300,000 e-commerce businesses to improve their on-site conversions and marketing campaigns. We're building the leading marketing automation platform for the e-commerce industry.
We have open positions for engineers with experience in Ruby and/or React:
Not OP, but I've gone through the E3 process a couple times. First as a change of status, second as a new applicant. You have to prove two things: 1) the job is a specialty occupation, and 2) that you possess the necessary skills and qualifications for the position. The rest of the application is a walk in the park.
Regarding the general perception of E3, I've found that very few people in the U.S. know about the E3 visa class. You may need to educate your employer a little.
IMO, there's room for both approaches, perhaps with the exclusion of the most the irrational situations as you describe. It's unreasonable to expect engineers to bring battle-tested solutions to the table 100% of the time.
While drones are indeed still susceptible to a multitude of bad weather scenarios in the air, they do bypass several major scenarios on the ground that frequently interrupt supply lines like flooding, fires, avalanches, etc.
Scala still has several differences to Java including a stronger type system, traits, pattern matching, and implicits (love them or hate them.) Java is definitely closing the gap on some of the functional aspects though.
Edit: Where did the basic docs on type bounds in Scala go?
