Do you really think that being remote is "staying home with the kids"? You're physically in the same building as them, but either you're not really working, or your kids don't actually need an adult to be there because they are grown up anyway, so no childcare is needed because they go to school.
A honest question here from outside of the Swift world: why does it matter?
I'm a Clojure developer, have been exclusively one for the last 10 years and have no intention of changing anytime soon (in other words, I don't care/follow closely what the majority of development world is and what the trends are).
A few years ago we had "Open Source is Not About You" [1] by Rich Hickey, basically pushing back that the creator(s) of Open Source don't owe anything back to the community. That piece has aged well for me: now I understand that something is what it is, not what I wish it was. And more importantly, the goal of open source isn't to be liked or used by everybody. It's a thing put out by its creator for others to use, and that includes Apple.
So really, why does the governance matter so much? If you don't agree with something, why not fork it and make it like you want it?
If pieces got bumped into a higher apogee wouldn't their orbit end up with a lower perigee as well? If so I think that might actually be better for deorbiting quickly
yes, any time you're burning wood you're climate unfriendly. But a lot of other things are climate unfriendly: where do you live what's the energy source breakdown? It's all renewable? Your computer was manufactured and furnaces were involved at some point: what about their emission? It's CO2 all the way down.
You should look at all of this relatively: from an absolute standpoint, humanity isn't good for the planet
CO2 levels were at least an order of magnitude higher millions of years ago. Perhaps that is better and humanity is actually improving the planet? Who is to say what is good for a planet?
That story is a nothing burger. CO rebreathing is the technique to monitor hemoglobin mass changes after a period at altitude. It's a test that lasts 3 minutes and has no consequence.
It's like saying "cyclist get better by drawing blood" when they just have their bloodwork done to see how they are doing with training.
Don't think you read the link. It talks about CO rebreathing as an analytics tool, and then specifically talks about a more aggressive method to increase performance:
> A second, more aggressive approach, which is called carbon monoxide inhalation and uses the same equipment and techniques, steps into the scientifically new and much riskier realm of inhaling the poisonous gas for the express purpose of performance enhancement. A growing body of recent scientific research suggests CO inhalation can have a powerful impact on measures of aerobic capacity like VO2max, or maximal oxygen uptake.
And the teams say that they only use it to analyze blood values during altitude adaptation. As the article mentions, the technique isn't new, so why imply that teams are using it for nefarious purposes?
> And there is no hard evidence that any WorldTeams are currently using CO inhalation for performance gains. But multiple sources for this article voiced concern that it might be imminent, and possibly already happening in cycling or other sports.
To go from that to "people dope now with CarbonMonoxide" is dishonest.
spaceX celebrating when their rocket blows up after a certain milestone it's like us devs celebrating when our branch with that new big feature only fails a few tests. Did it pass no? Are you satisfied as first try? Probably
But...they are a company, their goal isn't to make breakthroughs. Their goal is (eventually?) to make a profit. They'll simply use the technology and breakthroughs that allow them to get there faster. That's not cheating.. that's business
