Whether you believe globalization is good or bad, the free movement of capital and work, wages will stagnate or go down (at least in the near to mid term).
In Bill Clinton's Global Challenges speech at Yale is, perhaps, one of the clearest articulations of the goal of achieving an integrated global community characterized by "shared responsibilities, shared benefits, and shared values." If the goal is to "bring economic opportunity to the 50 per cent of the globe's population which lives on $2 a day or less" then that will involve capital flowing from wealthy countries to less-developed countries.
I think the vision is that the money supply would grow fast enough to minimize or eliminate the impact of the capital outflow. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that the bet did not pay off.
Being happy (or in generally in a good mood) is a conscious decision--coming across bad news should not change that decision. If I made a decision to not eat chocolate and I see a tray of chocolates, I should not change my mind just because I saw the tray.
The reason why I argue the article is stupid is that it encourages a superficial state of happiness. Her solution is akin to a quick weight-loss diet being the solution for a healthy lifestyle. It may help for a little bit, but it will not last. Decide to be happy regardless of the environment you are in. People, pets, and things will not make you happy--you are responsible for your happiness.
The thank-you writing was not what made him happy. He made a decision to be happy--the thank-you writing is the effect not the cause.
The same goes with reading stressful or negative news, according to a study Gielan conducted with Arianna Huffington and her husband, happiness researcher and author Shawn Achor.
Society pays for a "happiness researcher"?
I am actually considering making the switch. I bought a Surface Pro 4 to test out how well it works for me (the Black Friday sale made it a reasonable purchase). I turned on the Windows Subsystem for Linux, which provides a lightweight Linux environment within Windows.
For my work I need:
CPU performance is not critical because I have access to a cluster for the heavy computational loads. The Linux subsystem in some ways is more convenient because the slight differences between BSD and Linux can make moving code between OS X and Linux a little bit annoying. The cluster is Linux based--I considered making a *BSD based cluster but the scientific community has gravitated towards Linux.
So, based on my requirements either platform would work, though I probably would go with a Surface Book if I did switch. It comes down to cost and workflow efficiency.
The answer is obviously yes as Apple has about 12% of the market and is number two behind Samsung. Apple takes about 70% of the profit.
Apple has been losing share and profit, which I think is due to expansion in the lower price segment of the market and the improved quality of Android based phones. I would argue that the "open source, changeable, free (do you mean as in beer or as in speech)" are not factors that most people care about. I think the majority of the smartphone users care about price and usability.
Going for absolute security is a great navel-gazing exercise. Pick the security boundary you are comfortable with and realize that you have no control outside the boundary. Hopefully you pick a boundary that fails gracefully.
I personally do not believe open source is any more secure than closed source in any practical sense.
The questions (from Synergistech Communications, which also provides additional information), with the answers in bold based on my understanding of how Uber works:
By my count the Uber-Driver relationship does not pass 4 of the tests and two more are borderline. The key point that makes the relationship tip towards employee is that the driver has no direct price control (they cannot quote a price to perform the service).
"Aww, if you make me cry anymore, you'll fog up my helmet." -- "Visionaries" cartoon