Why would anyone recycle if there was no value in it?

Selfish people don't get the value in reducing, reuse, and recycling, because this requires an long-term view. It requires consideration for others that are here today and that are to come. A side from this, those of us lucky enough to have real choice can choose to do something that is best for society even when it isn't best for us, especially in the moment. We can choose to do something that is good for the planet and the other creatures and plants with which we share it. Now, we can, instead, still be selfish assholes and live differently to do our part to make the planet a better place now and in the future for just those that we care about, our families and friends' families. We can be even more selfish by doing what we can now to protect the world we'll be living in as we age. It will just be better for society and the planet for us to do more by not being so selfish. I have little faith in mankind despite our potential to be better. Actually, I see little potential as I believe humans' selfishness is too deeply ingrained.

The western world has had plenty of time to adapt. The problem is our allowing money to dictate policy and price. We have been able ship our waste on to other people and their territories all along and keep consuming without paying the true price of said consumption. With virgin sources of plastic and other first-use resources being cheaper, we have not yet been forced by "free markets" to adapt. Landfills will be our only exploitable "natural resources" one day. Re-use, recycling, and reduction will be the only practical option for all but the wealthy in time if we're still here.

2020 is when we'll vote again for president. Plenty of down ticket elections are coming up beforehand, and people need to get off their asses and then down to their respective voting precinct to help decide these. The down ticket contests matter so much more long-term as it is their winners that are in the pipeline for gaining more power down the road.

While that "particular" student may have still been a webcam girl for the easy money, many and probably most only do it out of necessity in order to cover the expenses during a time when working while a full-time student for enough money is tough. So, a significant reduction in the cost of college saves at least these chics.

Don't forget that progress is subjective and change for the sake of change isn't a smart approach. AT&T was and is only protecting their revenue stream and access to profit. Google was investing in hopes of establishing a profit generating revernue stream. Neither give a shit about progress.

Comcast probably will stop this just as the Private Sector keeps doing when the municipalities attempt to build out infrastructure in much the same way and for much the same reason.

A salary field with support for only numbers is not a field where 'All of it, but negotiable' can be entered. In my experience over the past two years, past and desired salary fields are very common, and a value greater than zero must be entered is often required. i suspect applicants are filtered very quickly and, often, automatically by what is entered.

I'll admit that I was commenting in the moment more on the larger topic and less so specifically to what you had written. I apologize for this. With that said, I believe consumers don't ever reap savings. The C-Suite and shareholders simply take more. Even if prices do drop, the consumer is getting less to support the lower price. Even if the widget or service remains the same and the profit margin changes instead, it is the workers along the way that suffer eventually to support the lower pricing. Ultimately, the consumer still hurts.

Now, let's look at this differently. Consider how little time it takes to drop a package on my front porch with little more than a ring of the doorbell or knock on the door before the delivery person runs back to the truck for the next stop. UPS and FedEx will charge the shipper more if they become subject to a process that requires them to place the package in a lock box if it takes more time.

But the rich won't be paying for this. The high-end systems applicable here are bought by companies with the processing need. As do all, these companies pay for all costs out of the revenue their particular business model generates. All sustained increases in overhead are passed down either directly through price increases or offset by cost reductions elsewhere. Reductions often are realized through staff and salary cuts. They are also realized through less money going out the door to other companies such as vendors and suppliers. In the end, the rich will still get their cake, and the rest will be left with an empty serving tray.

Costs are passed down through pricing. UPS will price accordingly, and Amazon will pay more. The buyer will, in turn, pay more for the "free" shipping since Amazon isn't going to eat increases longterm.

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps delivery without receiver present isn't for everyone. These people can just go get the widget like people have done for centuries, have someone at home to or a trusted neighbor handle the delivery, or ship to alternate locations. The hassle of stolen packages will be replaced by burglaries once this device goes on the door. An entered home is a cased home. It doesn't have to be the courier. Bob, the honest and upstanding UPS guy, might just run his mouth about all the shit he sees on Happy Lane and do so around his shady nephew.

This is a good idea, and the approach is low cost and subscription free.

Plus, in my opinion, Edge makes for horrible user-experience.

This is funny.

Humans keep putting humans out of work through automation, and there will never be a replacement job for all those displaced. We all really need to give a damn and consider the long term impact of this on society, not just those we care about. The wealthy will be the only ones earning money in the end will not spend enough to support employing everyone in other roles. As long as they prevent sufficient taxation of the Haves, the lives of the Have-Nots will not be supported by the economies of the world. Remember, the wealthy make their money with money and can do so anywhere in the world all while living where it remains most safe and comfortable.