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.

Not that I'm advocating for this future in any way, but I assume that a more realistic version of this (especially for as near as 2030) is that many people still have jobs that have an actual schedule. Maybe we can be optimistic and dream that people get to work less than 40 hours a week to have a reasonable quality of life.

But the idea of "I own nothing" cannot conceivable extend to personal items like clothing. That doesn't make any sense. In a future of "no ownership", you'd still own your shirt and toothbrush. Probably you'd still own your playstation (but do you actually own your video games today??? Can you play them offline? Does your console have ads?) as well. You wouldn't own a car, or your home (you'd have rights while you occupy your home, but not after you move), maybe you wouldn't own tools that are too expensive/specialized to be almost-free.

So for your example, I imagine that immediate delivery services might still exist, but that would be kind of a "high class" service and might be expensive. More than likely, you'd have Amazon dropping off your weekly grocery list on your designated day (e.g., "Wednesdays are trash day and grocery day in my neighborhood").

I highly doubt that we'll have that much more robot workforce by 2030. The only industry where that's possible is brick-and-mortar shopping having no more cashiers, which I do see as somewhat likely.

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.

Wake up. Clothes have been delivered overnight. Put them on, wear for the day. At the end of the day, put them in a box outside wherever you're staying the night.

That seems like a feasible thing to build today, if you ignored all the current consequences of fast-fashion.

https://www.express.com/exp/style-trial-how-it-works

We're not far off to rent that, with streaming. Which I can totally see myself doing one day actually.

You do this once or twice a year. The rest of the time you just order regular, good old delivery to your home.

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?

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?

Those same types of companies also tend to not sell-out to a mega-corp that simply wants to shut it down - if they really need the money they could presumably sell it to a competitor that would actually capitalize on their investment.

In a more general sense, I would like to see moves towards laws and regulations prohibiting more detrimental-to-the-public business activity - we already ban loss-leaders in many circumstances, so it's not a stretch to ban (or rather: to retroactively punish) buying out the competition simply to shut it down.

What's interesting to me is that our industry has plenty of examples of big corporations buying competing companies and products - and keeping them running despite internal competition and even cannibalizations, such as Autodesk and Discrete (3ds vs. Maya), Adobe and Macromedia (GoLive, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Photoshop, Illustrator, FreeHand), even Microsoft too (Microsoft Works vs. Microsoft Office).

Apple's business model right there.

I meant that lately Apple has been buying companies that offer services to both Android and iOS and then shutting-down their Android businesses, even when they're very profitable and/or popular.

* Dark Sky

* Texture

* NextVR

* Chomp

* Beddit

* Color Labs

* Emagic (Windows, not Android)

Granted, Apple does keep some Android services running, such as Shazam and Beats, but Apple's decision not just to suspend development of Android clients for services like Dark Sky and Texture, but to actively prohibit Android users while still allowing iOS access to the exact same backend web-service is just mean-spirited.

They don't want that power. They have it.

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.

He even gave a recent interview about all this.

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

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.

Mid-high shots close to the side of the goal are catchable, if the goalkeeper guesses (possibly with over 50% chance, if he knows the player or can tell from his approach) the direction of the shot.

Problem of course, is maintaining accuracy while shooting hard under pressure. Many players seem to be able to do that nowadays (most of the time)

It still is.

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

> 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.

I doubt Coinbase thinks employees advocating around pay/conditions are desirable for the company.

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.

So generous of him, he could have run it like a drug cartel.

I do think, though, that you can spot them fairly easy. Even in college. I had a very skilled classmate that wrote code only he could understand, without any comments. Of course, we could eventually understand it, but it would cost us hours.

Some teachers actually refused to grade his exercises if he didn't start commenting his code. I still believe they did this to instill in him this habit, but I'm sure it was hugely helpful to them as well.

I just think we as consumers should not accept that.

What could the consumer do apart from relying on word of mouth to avoid such services?

They could at least ask. But I understand your point.

> What could the consumer do apart from relying on word of mouth to avoid such services?

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you implying you can't follow the news without using these services? Only through word of mouth? If that's what you mean, there are ways to follow the news while avoiding paywalls. I do.

Plus the "grabbing the mic" incident was bound to happen sooner or later. Music awards keep being given to people who clearly didn't deserve them.

I've heard artists (mostly rappers) speaking about this on their songs. Kanye simply did what many before him, I'm sure, thought about doing but didn't have the courage.

This is a new angle to the incident that I haven’t heard before. Are you saying Taylor Swift didn’t deserve the award, and Kanye was justified to speak out?