However, most people who ask that do it while pointing to people who are actually quite important producers, such as financiers. Be careful not to conflate "don't produce anything of value" with "do something I don't understand the importance of".

Of course there are people in every profession who get paid a lot more than they're worth. This is less true of manual labor jobs where the output is easy to see and measure, but it's true across the board. Even in manual labor jobs you can have people whose output is negative. They may pick X apples or whatever, but they might do it while making everyone around them work slower.

Just to complete the description of the "empty chair" tactic, this is why lawsuits typically name anyone and everyone who might possibly be blamed, including many who clearly aren't culpable. It's not because the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney actually thinks all of those extra targets really might be liable, it's so that the culpable parties can't try to shift the blame to an empty chair, forcing the plaintiff to explain why the empty chair isn't culpable (i.e., defend them). Of course this means that those clearly non-culpable parties might have to defend themselves, which sucks for them.

So... you didn't actually look at the size of WikiMedia Foundation's bank account.

WikiMedia absolutely has enough money to run Wikipedia indefinitely if they treated their current pile of money as an endowment and just used the income from it to support the site. They don't have "billions upon billions", but they do have almost $300M, and they spend about $3M per year on hosting, and probably about that much again on technical staff to run the site, so about $6M per year. That's 2% per year. Assuming they can get a 6% average return on their assets, they can fully fund Wikipedia forever, and then some.

So, what do they do with all of the donations instead, if the money isn't needed to run Wikipedia? It funds the foundation's grant programs. Of course, you might actually like their grant programs. I think some of their grants are great, myself, and if they were honest about what they're using it for I might be inclined to give. But they're not, and the fact that they continue lying to Wikipedia's user base really pisses me off, so I don't give and I strongly discourage everyone I can from giving, at every opportunity.

Me too, but it took a lot longer and I was a lot less thorough. I would skim a half-dozen links from the search result, the LLM reads a lot more, and a lot more thoroughly.

I do. I tell the LLM to always include links to its sources, and I check them. Not all of them, but enough to make sure the LLM is accurately representing them. Granted that other people might not do this, but those other people also wouldn't check more than the first hit from the search engine, which is basically the same problem. If you only read the top hit, you're trusting the search engine's ranking algorithm.

That seems like a potential risk. I have't actually seen that happening in any of the stuff I've looked at.

Adverts pay for the web. And also clutter it up. Both of these things are true. Without advertising, there would be very little content that isn't paywalled, and there would be far less content than there is. Slashdot wouldn't exist, for example. The key is to keep advertising sufficiently profitable that it can fund the web, but not so intrusive that it make the web awful.

How do we do that? The best idea I've seen is to use adblockers that selectively block the obnoxious ads. But not enough people do it, so that doesn't work either.

This. There seems to be a widespread assumption that random genetic changes are somehow less problematic than carefully-selected ones because they're "natural" or something. It's not like cosmic rays, mutagenic chemicals, transcription errors and other sources of random genetic mutation are somehow careful not to make harmful changes. Engineered changes might not be better than random mutations, but they're clearly not worse.

Er, I guess I couldn't decide whether to say "closer" or "more closely" and munged them together. :-)

If only there were a way to preview posts before submitting them...

I'm not seeing why "launch and loiter" is beneficial. If Mars transfer windows were only hours, or even days, long, I could see that it's useful to launch early so that you don't end up missing your window because of weather or ground equipment problems, but the transfer windows are weeks to months in duration.

It seems to me that this strategy is mainly driven by lack of confidence in New Glenn, which makes sense given that it's a completely unproven platform. Over the 8+ weeks of the 2026 launch window they could certainly get to space with a reliable platform. Something like Falcon 9 might have some delays due to weather or minor technical issues, but it's extremely unlikely it would miss the window entirely. But New Glenn might have weeks of delays, so launching early might make sense.

What would make even more sense is if NASA is concerned that New Glenn might fail catastrophically. Making the attempt a full year early might provide enough time to build and launch a replacement.

Does anyone who follows this more closer have a better explanation?

"That's exactly my point"

Not a very good one.

"Commuting and using a tool for a work-related activity are not analogue one with another."

The *CAR* is the "tool" in the analogy, not the action.. I stand by my original post.

"I take it you don't get a salary? That you get paid by the second?"

I'm an "exempt" employee in California. Salary for over 2 decades.

I also turned down a company car to use my own. I get paid for "miles". $0.70 per. I do not get paid miles going to my office-- but from my office to any given site. At least during M-F. Sometimes I need to hit a site on the weekend, and miles start the moment I leave the driveway of my home.

There is zero expectation that my 8 hours start when I start my drive in to the office. It starts when I arrive. And yes, it's not uncommon (particularly during projects) that I work well over 8 hours. When that happens, we get comp-time at some point in the future.

"People expect to be paid for commute time too, at least in the sense that they will want more money if the commute is longer. Work from home made just coming to the office at all something which people want more money for."

People (employees) make that choice. They might take a longer commute for a job that pays more. It's not up to the employer to PAY for that commute ON TOP of their pay rate for a given job -- at least in my opinion.

"By that reasoning commuting with a vehicle provided by the employer should count as work time..."

Sigh....

You quoted me. There was more to what you were replying to than what you quoted. Read the rest:

"I would suggest that analogies are never "perfect" or "exact" -- they basically highlight similar bits of two different things to HOPEFULLY illustrate some concept or idea. If you are expecting it to be a 100% match, I think you might be misunderstanding what an analogy is."

I stand by my comparison. If the tool I'm provided is an employer-provided workstation, I should get paid the moment I start using it. If the tool I'm provided is a citrix session across a secure connection, I should get paid the moment I connect to it from my home PC.

Don't like the commute analogy? I would suggest that analogies are never "perfect" or "exact" -- they basically highlight similar bits of two different things to HOPEFULLY illustrate some concept or idea. If you are expecting it to be a 100% match, I think you might be misunderstanding what an analogy is.

I think that might matter. Running software through something like a citrix session via a secure connection on their home PC might negate any "when did they actually start working" argument. Much like I don't start getting paid the moment I hop in my car to go to work.

Kind of like a "digital" comminute.

Well, he renamed it and made minor changes around the edges so he could claim that it was broken and he fixed it. And then, of course, proceeded to violate the agreement he signed.