Larger companies have no problems finding people to pay to support Linux, or if they are really large (say, Amazon), supporting it themselves and being who people (including big companies) pay to support and host Linux systems.
it all depends on size. some larger (typically older) companies with smaller engineering teams will make the tradeoff you are describing. But the big players today, who manage hundreds of thousands to millions of servers are not going to pay per machine / per core license counts for support. They build and maintain most of their own software for their own needs.
This is why things like the NY Stock Transaction Tax rebate should be repealed and expanded. And why we need property taxes to apply to these financial holdings. There is currently too much untaxable property that will never be cycled through the economy in a way that allows them to be properly taxed. Propublica's framing is still wrong.
Vaccines still aren't 100%. This is bad advice from the CDC. It will only lead to anti-masker/vaxxers using this as an excuse for not wearing a mask. Even the fully vaccinated should be wearing a mask around other people. 94%/97% is not 100%.
edit: Japan is a good example for how masks have drastically reduced the number of infected due to mask culture. Japan has half the US population and still isn't vaccinating the general public. Even the spikes in Japan are tiny compared to the US due to mask usage. Japan is mostly open, trains are still packed, shops are still filled with people. Masks work and should still be worn once vaccinated.
The continual insistence by some - many in prominent leadership positions - that nothing changes after you get vaccinated is what was hurting confidence that the vaccine works. If it works, why would I have to act like it doesn't? People can make their own judgements about their personal risk, but I'm not waiting until some arbitrary effectivity point (99%? 99.9%? 99.99%?) to go back to normal. I'll be in the gym tonight for 2 hours without a mask for the first time in well over a year.
> If it works, why would I have to act like it doesn't?
This vaccine is -ridiculously- effective, which definitely changed things a bit (well, a lot). It looks like people who have it are pretty much immune, the chances of transmitting even if you DO get the virus is extremely low, etc. We're lucky.
It could have gone a very different way though. If we had a vaccine that's much less effective (eg: like the flu's), we'd have to rely on the power of statistics at scale to get rid of the pandemic. So yeah, that would have meant you'd have to get vaccine and still act like you haven't for a while until more people take it.
Thank <whatever deity> things turned out better though, since its pretty obvious that people wouldn't have been able to comprehend that scenario.
When they made those statements, it was nothing changes for now. We were always going to get to this point where enough people became vaccinated and others had enough of a natural immunity that we would start to open up, take off the masks, and get to normal. You couldn't do that when 10% of people had the vaccine dose. Did people really think that the government was going to forever make people where masks and to social distance and all the other measures?
The average person can expect to be in three to four car accidents during their lifetime. I'm still driving around (vaxxed, not belligerent, happy to mask for the time being).
That is great. But still, vaccinated people shouldn't be told that they cannot get infected. There is this weird misconception floating around that just because we get vaccinated we are somehow immune to covid-19. That is a dangerous and misguided belief.
The CDC, FDA, governments, etc have said constantly that the vaccines have a 90-95% efficacy rate.
Anyone who somehow interpreted that as "completely immune" has bad reading comprehension.
This sounds like a strawman argument that you're making, I don't know where you're getting that there's a misconception of the vaccine equating to 100% immunity. No one said that.
Right now the primary question is about the comprehension, or lack of same, on the part of anti-vaxers. The actual truth about infections is almost completely irrelevant here. The question is, what tactic will keep us all safest when the primary threat comes from people who are clinically stupid?
That's purely a psychology question, and I honestly don't know what the answer is. But it's worth noting that it's pretty much all about strawmen, and which strawmen the anti-vax crowd can be manipulated into believing.
That may be your goal, but that is not the goal of public health policy. If complete eradication was the goal, we would be wearing masks, social distancing, and requiring businesses to operate at lower capacity for many, many years to come. That is just not an acceptable state of life for the vast majority of people in the US. You may not agree with that, but that's just how things are.
That's your choice but note that your choice is not based in science or statistics. Statistically if you're vaccinated you will not die. You won't even get severe Covid. That's even if you get Covid in the first place which would be very hard. If you want to wear a mask as a fashion statement or virtue signaling then that's fine.
Vouched for your (dead) comment because I think it has value in the discussion, even though I think you're missing the whole picture.
Unfortunately the US political and social climate means this CDC advice has to come now, not later, when it'll probably be more scientifically appropriate. Demand for vaccines has been dropping for weeks, and vaccine-hesitant people need to see that there are clear benefits to their day-to-day lives if they get vaccinated.
Vaccines are definitely not 100%, but I think the hope is that relaxing restrictions for vaccinated people will increase demand for the vaccine enough to be worth the risk. While this recommendation may not be good science, I suspect it's good public policy, given that we are all a bunch of emotional humans who don't always do what's best for ourselves when presented only with logic.
There are commenters in other subthreads here who have said that this news made them go and sign up for a vaccine appointment. So it is having the desired effect. We'll see if it has enough of the desired effect.
I use 80/20 rule quite a bit of coding. Developers can easily get obsessed with minutia that doesn't help the product organization or has ample diminishing returns. Tuning a business app is a great example. Is 80% performance tuning good enough? Most times, yes. In fact 80% is probably too much in most cases. I can spend the remaining 80% working on new features that would greatly enhance the business' service.
Only in rare exceptions would I want the inverse: spend the remaining 80% of my effort to gain the final 20% improvement.
I'm not very optimistic that we have enough time, nor individuals have enough financial resources, for the market to realize how cheap / efficient these technologies are. We really need this progress implemented as part of large scale systemic programs. The market is simply too slow.
Serious question. How do we make enough solar panels and wind turbines that will be capable of producing all of this energy without destroying all of our natural resources/habitats?
It's a funny joke, don't get me wrong. But I'll take the 15 men sitting behind a computer operating remotely a digger inside a mine instead of 10 men breaking their backs and probably risking their lives with a shovel.
Not to mention what do we do with old solar panels after they've lived their life. There's going to be a lot since a lot is needed to generate the amount of power needed. There's a good chance it will just get shoved onto some 3rd world country for them to deal with.
That problem doesn't seem any more significant for wind and solar than other powers sources: mountain top removal for coal, transporting tons of coal in diesel trains, building (and eventually disposing of) giant power plants, etc.
I'm not up to date on current industrial-scale solar cell manufacturing processes, but doesn't the manufacturing proccess still require massive amounts of coal? And what is the lifespan of the cells before they have to be replaced with new cells that also require coal to be produced?
On the battery side, I'm pretty sure that industrial-scale production still requires mining and mountain top removal. And what are wind turbines made out of? Where are we getting those resources from?
Like I said, I'm not up to date on the state-of-the-art industrial manufacturing processes required to make solar cells / turbines. But I'm pretty sure it will still require massive habitat destruction and the release of unimaginable amounts of greenhouse gasses to get us where we need to be.
