A lot of frontends, in reality most, are moving towards a data driven approach and handling tremendous amounts of data in the browser - making it an exciting place to be!
I remember being spooked when my calendar started being proactive about reminding me to wish my friends a very Happy Birthday before the event actually occurred.
There are colonization tendencies in every living being, I think. Ants are not the only one. A wolf pack hangs together, so do a bunch of chimpanzees and zebras. The difference is in the way this tendency is expressed and the author fails to draw comparisons appropriately.
Quoting the article: it says trees "bury CO2". that is just wrong!
I don't believe that is a good choice of words. CO2 is essential to their survival. burying it is not how one would describe the process of transformation!
> from the article: "Everyone has a pet peeve" That is true. I feel the word content has been used and abused over and over but there are valid uses of the term, much like other terms. 'atmosphere', for example, could be used to describe a social setting or the planet's surrounding.
The main problem is when people use terms without acknowledging the context.
> socioeconomic status (SES) is a powerful determinant of human health and disease, and social inequality is a ubiquitous stressor for human populations globally
It is common to see why this could be a big problem for poor people as they have to worry about health, food, etc for day to day living while we take them as granted and can focus on other things like writing code, going to meetings, and the like without worrying about where the next meal is going to come from!
My observations is that our society puts too much emphasis on having people prove they are self-reliant, instead of improving its population's productivity. In this dichotomy, the former is detrimental to the society, the latter would enhance it.
I think focusing on productivity would go further than the dichotomy's of "welfare or not", where people are mostly skeptical of whether a subsidized poor person is contributing to society with taxpayer's money.
Relegating the role of governance to productivity allows even prisoner rehabilitation to change. It allows jailable offenses to be viewed under the lens of whether this is useful to the productivity of society, instead of simply punishing someone.
Impact on productivity is not the right way to judge a crime. Definitely not the sole measure or the paramount one. It would be open season on old people if that were the case. I suspect you wouldn't want to see that happen.
I don't believe the current system punishes offenders effectively or rehabilitates them. It's not great at segregating dangerous people either, as people are released when they've "paid their debt to society" rather than when they stop presenting a threat.
I'd prefer it if prisons were more like the prison farms in Scandinavia, especially for young non-violent criminals. They need to learn to produce things or render services that other prisoners will want. They should be able to build their own houses. They should have to learn how to work and freely trade with others BEFORE they are released.
Some criminals are a persistent threat to the population and must be tightly controlled. People who've murdered multiple people, for example. And some should never be released.
I agree with the sentiment of changing the narrative, but productivity seems to already be a big part of western society and it seems pretty soul-less. Why not focus on well-being of everyone?
I'm not sure what fraction of paid jobs even contribute greater than their cost to society. The War on Poverty has spent trillions, and poverty has increased. A lot of industries obviously don't contribute (tax attorneys, lobbyists, bureaucrats, administrators (see the Rise of the Administrator in healthcare), even much of law enforcement, academia, or regulators). Actually even my first high-paid job working for a financial tech company, I'm convinced didn't contribute to society. Most of our work was mandated by regulatory laws, and most of our customers were capture by monopolistic competition or downright aggressive, questionable sales.
I don't see anyone saying this, but I think fixing the bottom 10% of society requires fixing the top 90%. I see no way that happens. Nobody accepts blame for being wrong, and most people's cognitive capabilities are filled by an evening watching cable TV.
The bottom with disruptions to their income are detrimental to society’s health. Public sector monetary solutions are untolerated and private sector solutions of employment are often inaccessible or inadequate. We can address their productivity.
It's not the problem for those that can't work--the truly disabled--but I think it is for those who can. They're not inherently incapable of being productive.
