We'll sneak some probes in to do real exploring.
...naming it after an irate puppy killer.
They should try something incremental rather than target proverbial moon-shots first. That way the investments are less risky. Their egos seem to want showy shit ASAP, no wonder they get along with the tinted person.
People who tell the prince things he doesn't want to hear... well, let's just say their life expectancy isn't particularly long.
It's a GNU-flavored version of those MS extensions, originally they added a subset of what MS does in order to let gcc use data structures in MS's headers and have somewhat source compatible builds (I think this was roughly around the time Cygwin popped up, but I'm not sure).
A fair number of professional teams enabled those extensions for non-Windows code because they like some of the tricks available with the extensions and use it in their proprietary or open source code. It's a trend that has finally spread to the Linux kernel. I think this was really only possible as some of the kernel grognards retired or were otherwise not around to put up a fight and generally maintain the inertia force on LKML. Torvalds himself isn't quite as grumpy as people think and is generally pretty pragmatic and can be influenced by consensus and reasonable arguments.
Why would someone pay you based on what they "produce"?
I never suggested a proportional pay system. But the upper limit is paying someone based on what they produce, anything less than that makes it possible to operate a business, paying anything more and it's not likely the role can be justified.
We get paid according to the market value of our work, the highest that someone is willing to pay us because if we didn't take the job they could get someone else for $1 more.
The labor market is not a free market. There is significant manipulation on three sides of it; from unions, from business, and from government regulation. For the most part, whatever mechanism you imagine creates a "market value" for your labor is just that, mostly just your imagination. There is practically no economic incentive to drive wages up or down by a $1 when labor itself is not a real commodity. Exchanging one worker for another is certainly the dream for some, but it's a dream that even the most aggressive capitalists don't practice. They will pay one person more than another for the same advertised role. For example, it happens to such a degree that government regulations were created to deal with fair employment practices and discrimination. Other discretion and prejudice that is not protected by law is fair game of course. And the only reason for this is that labor is not treated as a commodity by either labor or management.
If a doctor prescribes me an antibiotic that saves my life, I should pay them a percent of my lifetime earnings?
Life as a service is kind of what some people have as a plan for you. But I get your point, and I would again point that you have the concept of a market value confused as a zero-sum system of exchanges. The very benefits that capitalism espouse is that production and consumption do not have to balance out and shouldn't for some very important macroeconomic reasons.
It means, if I take a cab to my job, the cab driver should get paid a percentage of my salary
Holistically, the cab company produces a service of a value. The most important aspect of that service is the labor the cab driver performs, but the labor is not the entirety of a cab company. Setting that quibble aside, let's assume you mean paying the cab company a percentage of your salary.
You as a customer are willing to pay some amount for the cab service. Traditionally we'd have a fixed price that everyone pays for cab fare, typically regulated by cities but almost always a formulaic charge of an initial fare + distance charge. Everyone pays the same amount because it would normally have been too difficult to work out each patron's income at the point of service.
If you were using a "surge pricing" ride-share app, that is attempting to seek a real-time demand pricing, then individuals get to decide on a price and each person can be presented different prices at different times. Through relatively straight forward statistical analysis on the backend, the supply-demand curve can be optimized in the businesses favor. And you will be paying near the maximum you are willing to pay, which is somewhat correlated to your own personal financial situation.
This just leaves more product for other countries that run by morons, probably reducing prices worldwide. This is why much of Africa had 5G wireless before the US did.
-embrace-extend-extinguish
Like back when the deregulated comms sector over-built capacity.
You can do more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word. - Al Capone