It's just not a long term thing, for obvious reasons. People do it for a bit and then realise that the lifestyle is transient. So it doesn't go on long enough to cause serious problems.
If you're still doing this at age 50 then you'll be a lonely old man.
"Here?" I don't know what you think you're saying; but you should not assume that you know me; who or where I am. Yeah there are lots of cars in London; there are even more people.
I see also you're throwing out random numbers (50% according to who? ) that even if true, don't directly relate to or contradict what I said - "households" are not "people", "people" are not the same stat as "poor people", car owners are not evenly distributed, and IDK why "Flatshare people" are something subhuman that you scorn and exclude from counts.
TfL have official information on this, it's not a random number.
I'm not doing your research for you. The poor and middle class do drive in London. If you think otherwise you're simply mistaken, even in a back of the envelope sense. There are over 2 million cars in London, I don't know who you think owns them if not ordinary people.
I didn't say that "it doesn't happen" just that it's not prevalent.
> There are over 2 million cars in London
Did you notice that the number of people in London is a multiple of that? "ordinary people" is broad, do you think that it varies within that, and varies in sync with disposable income, or is evenly distributed?
> "Londoners are more likely to own a car if they live in outer London, live in an area with poor access to public transport, have a higher income, have a child in the house,
and are of Western European nationality."
have a higher income, household car access rises as income increases, live out in the suburbs.
Basically all of an actual software company is bullshit jobs unrelated to the core product like legal, marketing, investor relations, HR, maybe even developers for R&D etc.
Running a website doesn't require that many people.
I've worked at companies with 4 developers and 30+ "other stuff". The company would not be profitable and we would not get paid without them, but the actual product would work just fine if we wanted it to.
Legal is very useful in the general case, but if you're an anonymous torrent site operator who fully intends to ignore the law anyway it's a waste of time.
If you build a system for resilience, it should not take significant effort to maintain. You should be able to keep the lights on with 10-20% of the engineering team. The rest is growth.
Growth may be making the product better, creating new product lines, or improving the scalability - for example, allowing larger numbers of users or entries. However, you can make the choice to make a well constrained product that serves a valuable use but doesn't need growth. Consider Bingo Card Creator, for example.
> If you build a system for resilience, it should not take significant effort to maintain. You should be able to keep the lights on with 10-20% of the engineering team. The rest is growth.
After 10+ years you always see the operational demand increase because of all the necessary edge conditions you build up (backcompat and whatever else).
Does the cost of change increase, or the cost of maintenance, or the cost of keeping it on?
Yes, the cost of change by definition increases with the complexity. I don't think that is in contention. Why is it changing for any other reason that you're growing (or trying to stave off decline?) For internal tools, change may be a function of external business pressures (like a supplier going out of business, requiring changes in an internal tool), but that is asking for new software.
As you add libraries, the cost of maintenance increases because the surface area of security increases. However, short of major changes (React, Rails, Etc), this feels like it's not moving outside the 10-20% range.
If you're running a community funded website, you don't need any of this overhead. In the 90's, pretty much the entire internet ran without these jobs.
Sure, they're necessary if you have an actual company, but the point is that you can run a website without a company.
I'm surprised that this wasn't already done - could you save fuel if you knew you had a lower take off weight?
Or maybe weigh the whole plane before take off?
I find it amusing that weight is somehow some precious value, though. If someone is embarassed about being fat I mean, everyone around them can see that.
You're right and it works, but people with eating disorders have mental health issues that push them into obsessive behaviours, they need to be trained out of them.
An anorexic could hear that advice and decide that well, 1500 under maintenance is even better right? Not great.
It's going to be near on impossible to create a chatbot that cannot be manipulated into giving an answer which is user wants to hear. Even people are not completely immune to this.
Hiking is just fun. Like, actually fun. If you set up the mental barrier that exercise is bad and sucks and feels bad, then sure, now it's bad.
If you're super unfit it might suck, much like sitting down and bashing out some cool scripts in Python would suck if you had no programming knowledge, but that's fixable for most.
Doesn't really matter as EROIE is a dumb measurement that people use wrong anyway, but for people who think it is meaningful that should be worthwhile info to update your opinions.
