Greetings from Y2K!

Sorry I didn't add "dioxide" and you were confused. Carbon dioxide (CO) is a major greenhouse gas. Farms produce it. They also consume it. Farmers can install relatively cheap devices to monitor it but excessive or reduced levels are not a known issue. So it serves no purpose. The only people interested would be those wanting to market carbon credits (I didn't include dioxide but you can probably figure it out). Most carbon credits being sold today are specifically tied to offsetting CO emissions.

"The clue is in the phrase in the first sentence"

The actual clue is it states it monitors crops for carbon emission. The ultimate goal was to tax crops with carbon credits. That would raise prices of food. For what? Are we going to stop growing food to lower carbon emission? That doesn't sound like a good solution.

Revealing you think the program is about stickers but still willing to continue said program that costs American taxpayers millions.

The fact is appliances became more energy efficient regardless of government programs, not because of them. This is due to advancement in technologies that resulted in smaller components that needed less energy to operate. But appliances also became less reliable too. Maybe we need another government sticker program?

Mark views himself leading people and AI's as he replaces Salesforce's engineers and other technical employees. But everything above those workers is just "I'm a people leader" type of employees. Those are far easier to replace with an AI versus an engineer and they really hold no value after the humans are no longer there. And when you replace them, who is really left?

Mark's vision is the end of white collar workers everywhere.

Your explanation is perfectly taut.

So you are saying we shouldn't bother. Gotcha.

Only issue I have is the hypocrisy that these are the same people who avoid building them here.

Build them here now! The only people who oppose nuclear plants in the US are crazy people, people who hate the environment, and those heavily invested in crappy Chinese solutions like solar or wind. Or usually a combination of all those.

"Americans have always been free to do that if they wanted. No need to force tariffs on everyone to do it."

I heard the same dumb argument against increased taxes on cigarettes. Right now far fewer Americans smoke then ever before. And no it is not because they were educated about the health risks. Sometimes you have to make people pay for their bad buying decisions to get them to break from those bad habits.

Good. Americans should get past disposable, cheap Chinese junk that breaks quickly and fills our landfills. Maybe we will start fixing things instead of just replacing and make better product choices. Seems like tariffs will make things better after all.

Am I the only one old enough to think that RCS is the great-great grand-uncle to git, and that the message protocol theyâ(TM)re talking about now needs a different TLA? Can one of you youngsters help chase these kids off my lawn?

• * Literally this poll is the reason I am installing Chrome

Not that Google is much less pushy about switching to Chrome, but if you're going to force me to answer a question before I do what I want then you should at least let me answer that your question is the reason for my decision. The same as every app I've left a negative review for.

Me: [doing what the app is intended for and generally enjoying life]

App: [interrupts with a dialog box forcing me to choose an option] Are you enjoying App?

Me: No, I am not enjoying that you interrupted what I was doing with App to force me to leave a review for it. What I was doing with App happened to be time-sensitive and important. Your idiotic interruption just cost someone's life and/or inconvenienced me in some small but perceptible way.

We would always meet with our offshore team in the morning. By end of our day we would ensure they had proper instructions and details of where we left off. In a way it made it feel like we had round-the-clock work being done.

Granted, this means there has to be very good leadership and communication being performed on both sides. And more times than not this is not the case. This is why people have bad views of offshore teams. But it is the companies involved (on both sides) that are the problem as they often put non-technical people to lead from onshore a group of offshore technical people. The communication is almost non-existent and confusion quickly sets in to the projects.

Why is it necessary to have something floating around inside an unmanned capsule?

Nobody stops you from rolling your own with init.

And a distribution choosing different software eight years ago isn't the same as a private company intruding on your personal computer to change software without consent. And no, EULAs are not consent.