If you really need security for some reason, use it to match the person to the badge at the clean room entrance. That will keep someone from using a stolen badge.

That only works on the truest of true believers.

Using money to motivate people. That works.

You don't need to motivate people to do what they already want to do. But they're probably already doing that, so how will you get anyone to change?

In WW2, the US was attacked. This is an obvious motivating factor. Climate change is something with ambiguous consequences in the distant future. "Something bad might happen someday" isn't really similar to "we're under attack".

If you give up on using money, you can only motivate change by telling a convincing story or threatening people. That's why people focus on money.

But they don't say anything like this:

They didn't address the "what if everything changed in an instant" case in their article.

What's the alternative motivation besides profit? How do you get some people to do what you want without paying them?

Fear won't work. People can just decide not to be afraid. And, since doomsday predictions have always been wrong, they would be wise not to fear the end you're warning them about. Altruism won't work either.

People focus on profit/money because its a clear way to motivate others. Everything else is just salesmanship, putting a gun to someone's head, or asking "pretty please".

That's not what the original article says.

Yes.

Real-world limits tend to preclude taking "every" opportunity. A more realistic approach would be to do things that might help a lot and not do things that take time and effort and won't help much.

That's not how free, democratic societies make policy.

Is there evidence to conclude that enough people in democratic countries and enough leaders in undemocratic countries would support sufficient political action for long enough to solve the problem (according to the climate models)?

The opposite conclusion seems to be true so far.

A common argument is that climate change can be avoided if everyone makes a number of small changes in their lives. These guys have determined that marginal, easily affordable changes in people's lives are insufficient according to some climate models. (Unless there's are large, unforeseeable technological advances.)

In other words, a specific approach or category of approaches won't work if you believe the forecasts of some severe climate models. The obvious response would be to stop advocating the unworkable approaches and/or re-examine the climate models to see if they might be overestimating the challenge.

Perhaps the article communicates this poorly. It's still useful info though.

Which one of those is "a software shop"? None of them.

If he were going to start the next Google, he would be talking to his venture capital friends and his other advisors, not to AskSlashdot.

Business is about sales and customers. Everything else you do is completely irrelevant if you don't have sales and customers. If you don't have a good plan to sell your wares, you don't need to spend 5 minutes thinking about how you will produce them.

Spend a few days reading nothing but technology news. Then spend a few days reading nothing but political news. For the first few days you’ll see an exciting world of innovation and creativity where everything is getting better all the time. In the second period you’ll see a miserable world of cynicism and treachery where everything is falling apart. Please explain the difference.

Do you believe in microaggressions? Why or why not? Is a belief in microaggressions helpful or harmful? To whom is it helpful? Who should worry about microaggressions? Who shouldn't? How can someone be certain they are innocent of committing microaggressions? If someone is accused of something like committing microaggressions, are there two sides that must be considered, or only one?