There are obviously many reasons why Spotify and other industries definitely don't want you to think clearly! If you want to call it a conspiracy, that is accurate. A conspiracy to distract, prevent clear thought, prevent the forming of deep social bonds, and of course spend money unwisely. Like was said in the summary, Spotify's goal is to get you to waste your time.

Have you asked yourself why this is so?

What if you listen to podcasts? What if you're not afraid to be alone with your thoughts, or meditate in quiet? Why does life have to have a soundtrack? What did people do who in the 19th century when they had to walk for days without a steady supply of algorithmic music? What would happen if you contributed meaningful statements instead of rhetorical, mindless questions?

Another way to go would be to keep burning jet fuel but purchase bricks of carbon from a sequestration company that captures it from the air.

I know there are more efficient types of carbon credits, like investing in cleaner energy in the first place, or increased efficient at the point of usage such as insulation, or preserving rainforest that would otherwise be developed.

The problem is all that gets complicated and thus subjective. Maybe carbon credits could work if it is based on a new type of 'coin' that is 1 kg of pure carbon that is chucked into an old mine.

That truly is the question for Apple. I don't know how they've held off smartphone commoditization as long as they have.

Would have to say no. Trump sees everything as a zero sum game.

Apparently good conversation, thinking, and occasional good music don't mean anything to that person which is a sad commentary on where we are today as society.

Engagement.

Every web algorithm now is curated to maximize user engagement. When users stay engaged, the advertisements get delivered, and the website earns revenue. When you disengage from the service, they stop making money. So stay engaged, and enjoy your soma.

Seems that years ago the courts ruled that CC companies' demands that retailers hide CC fees in their prices to all customers were illegal, and retailers can and should charge a separate fee depending on the credit card's fee level. In my opinion prices should reflect the cash price and then at the till, the buyer pays the entire CC fee. I'm sure the CC companies don't make it easy for a retailer to find out what the fee is before the transaction is run, though, which needs to change.

I use a credit card to make business purchases and most of the business vendors I buy from do implement variable fees, and have for years. For my card with the highest fee, I typically get charged around 3%. The reasons for using a CC card with high fees is that its a way of getting a bit of tax-free travel out of the business. In the US the IRS ruled years ago such rewards are not taxable. In other jurisdictions they certainly can be.

Of course for personal CC cards the rewards wouldn't make a lot of sense when you, the buyer, pay for them! It's quite a racket these companies have had going for a long time.

I agree with GP, it's a big kickback scheme for employees that have discretion over business expenses. Most types of card rewards are not reportable as income, which sweetens the deal even further. Score one for the upper-middle-class little guy, I guess...

"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.

Which makes me fear for civilization. Think of all the knowledge that will be lost when the 'digital' media (tapes, CDs, magnetic HDDs) is either degraded or the tech is so old we can no longer access it with current formats or machines. I know there is some 'archival' quality CDs, but they are few and far between. Few digital records are on 'archive' quality media.

"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."