> An estimation has two components: location and uncertainty
ReRe's Law of Repetition and Redundancy [5] could benefit from a refinement that accounts for the inverse relationship between width-of-delivery-window and certainty-of-delivery-date... maybe:
A programmer can accurately estimate the schedule for only the repeated and the redundant. Yet,
A programmer's job is to automate the repeated and the redundant. Thus,
A programmer delivering to an estimated or predictable schedule is...
Not doing their job (or is redundant).
I like this argument and would like to strengthen it in sligthly diffent dimension...
Every time I hear/read a "net offset" justification like in the greatgrandparent comment my brain only hears
I'm gonna sell heroin/meth/crack to fund a rehab clinic;
AND
if more persons are rehabbed than addicted
then the whole endeavour is a good thing;
AND
I am a good person; call me "one of the good ones.
The point of the analogy is to share the perspective that "net offsetting" isn't automatically a good thing. Many times the fundamental nature of the initial thing to be offset, in this case advertising,
must be given primacy over anything else.
Some see the nature of advertising as neutral, some even see it as good, some see it it as evil.
I see it as too impractical to wield as intended; rare-times good, some-times neutral and most-times bad.
Although we can measure air water and noise pollutions, we still have wild disagreements over how much to allow. Given that we suck at measuring the mental pollution produced by advertising-based business models, it is natural that disagreement is even greater over mental pollution.
Where is the startup that shows folks the pollution-free mental spaces that they didn't know they wanted_needed, but that they will never let-go once experienced. Sadly, most minds are limited to imagining the same sad choices jefftk listed. I for one choose to believe that people exist who see how to "fund the web" sans advertising. To them I leave this future message: "Hurry up dammit. We need you. The jefftk's of this world are making the most ungodly of big messes."
ReRe's Law of Repetition and Redundancy [4] somehow does not apply to you:
A programmer can accurately estimate the schedule for only the repeated and the redundant. Yet,
A programmer's job is to automate the repeated and the redundant. Thus,
A programmer delivering to an estimated or predictable schedule is...
Not doing their job (or is redundant).
I think the explanation was made in another comment where they say "don't forget to estimate time for research & design", which explains why the *3 multiplier works for me. And yes, I feel that most of the work is redundant, there's always like network services of some sort or web pages, databases, linux servers, a humain interface, other services depending on the project like a message queue or a caching server or both, background workers and scheduled code execution... things I had been doing for ~10 years back in 2012. Data structures, workflows, they change between gigs, and each gig has its own particularity, but 90% is the redundant from a gig to another: HTML/CSS/JS/Python/SQL/Networking/Storage/Linux stuff
ReRe's Law of Repetition and Redundancy [3] agrees with you:
A programmer can accurately estimate the schedule for only the repeated and the redundant. Yet,
A programmer's job is to automate the repeated and the redundant. Thus,
A programmer delivering to an estimated or predictable schedule is...
Not doing their job (or is redundant).
Actually the USA has already paid for a UBI from just its pandemic-related stimulus alone, e.g. CARES Act.
The way to achieve an perpetual ongoing UBI with just a one time expediture of $3T is... drum roll... Stipulate that all payments must be spent on basics & essentials. AND then issue the payments & handle collection digitally/electronically like with debit cards. I sit astounded that the country's best leaders have not proposed a "basics only" amendment.
That is also a good idea because people are motivated more to act when something goes wrong; and a close second is when they are excited to share a good discovery. The DefaultReviews [1] gist may offer some guidance:
"...rating by default is the equivalent of saying "everything is okay". That rating is made without you having to lift a finger. You only have to lift a finger to change it to "awesome" or to "sucks" or to add a elaboration for others to read."
Also, the final section of DefaultReviews [1] may also help solve your inevitable problem with faked reviews. Pull requests welcome.
Similar to floatrock's proposol [1] of turning reviews upside down... Imagine being able to track broken-ness (when, how, why) in the field across all products of the same model. And doing so for each product you own. "Default reviews" [2] is one way to do it. Pull requests welcome.
ReRe's Law of Repetition and Redundancy [2] seems appropriate here:
A programmer can accurately estimate the schedule for only the repeated and the redundant. Yet,
A programmer's job is to automate the repeated and the redundant. Thus,
A programmer delivering to an estimated or predictable schedule is...
Not doing their job (or is redundant).
Giving is exactly what turned one blogger's bipolar struggles into something manageble [1]:
"I felt trapped, waiting for the descent, wondering how steep, prepared somewhat for its arrival because it had never not come. Now, though, here was a PhD telling me the altruistic acts Buy Nothing Bainbridge enabled me to perform spurred production of chemicals that actually helped heal my misfiring synapses."
Sometimes science and religion do converge around the same truth. Some form of meaningful (to the recipient) giving is one path that would restore the "lost direction and belonging" mentioned in the top parent.
ReRe's Law of Repetition and Redundancy [5] could benefit from a refinement that accounts for the inverse relationship between width-of-delivery-window and certainty-of-delivery-date... maybe:
[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25826476