An ethical way to make money is to give products of your work to other people in exchange for their money. Cryptocurrencies produce nothing and satisfy no needs. Crypto traders take other traders' money in exchange for what? A hope that in future it will be possible to take more money from yet other traders? Crypto traders should not cry that they are victims of a pump and dump scheme because it is the same thing they wanted to do to others. I have no sympathy for them at all.
When you pay for Windows you are the product.
When you don't pay for Linux, Linux is the product.
The only thing that keeps me in Windows is the VPN connection to work.
Several VPN applications check for a correctly configured endpoint as a prerequisite to join the VPN. This can involve enforcing OS, OS updates, AV programs, etc. depending on how your system admin has set things up. In such a company performing an end run against this check can get you into trouble
Interesting. I'll have to add that to my list of questions to ask companies in an interview. Not being able to use Linux is a total deal breaker for me.
As a EU citizen I think UK lost on all fronts - food industry, financial sector, manufacturing, trade, foreign policy, and others. The losses in some of those fields are already visible, in others not yet.
Because mercy is the opposite of justice.
Justice is giving to others what they deserve - reward for achievements, punishment for crimes.
Mercy is whthholding punishment for crimes and giving rewards for nothing.
Just to show how language affects understanding, the word "charity" comes from the Latin caritas meaning something from the heart.
The semitic word used where English uses charity means more like justice or "do the right thing". It also implies that the right thing may in fact involve giving to those who have too little ie: they "deserve" more because they were dealt a bad hand, not because of their achievements.
Start by considering why you want to retire - is there something you want to do that you can't do while working?
If not then you condemn yourself to 10 years of hard work and living in poverty in order to be bored and live in poverty for the next 50 years.
A good job can be a source of joy, achievements, self worth, contacts with people and money. I'm a programmer with a relatively low paying but stress-free job and I plan not to retire for as long as my health permits.
I'd add to this as well - if it is something you can't do while working, is it also something you can't do while working say 6 or 9 months out of 12 or even 2 years out of 3? There are probably a lot more options than you think to structure a career in this way.
Do you think most people could really do a 2 year on - 1 year off thing? To me that sounds great -- I can definitely save a year of expenses every 2 years... but I wonder what job prospects would be, or other adverse affects.
I know three or four people who've done this so it's a small sample and maybe they just got lucky. Generally it happened because they finally got fed up enough of the previous full time/permanent job they were in that they just left to deliberately take time out with no plan beyond that (though for one his previous employer went bankrupt leaving him out of a job). From what I've seen the initial decision to leave was far and away the hardest part.
What seems to have worked well is signing up for a contracting agency who look after the "finding work" part of the job in return for a cut of the pay and working on a series of 6-18 month fixed term contracts. This reduced the stress of finding work enormously. It also means that when you come back after a break, you're then more of a known quantity in a way you wouldn't be if you were trying to organise this all yourself.
You probably need to be at a certain point in your career (sufficiently qualified that you can slot into an existing organisation and be immediately productive) and not really care about career progression (there's no corporate ladder to climb any more so you're stuck in the middle somewhere which may bother some people). You'll also lose out on any long term compensation arrangements like stock options etc and typically that won't be fully compensated with a higher rate short term (at least from what I've seen) - it's a pure loss to you.
If you want to do it this way then the key thing is to work out which the good agencies to work for are - many are not well known even within their own specialist industry but they will have contacts at the right places in the right organisations. It's not something which works for every industry but where technical skills matter and contacts don't there are more roles like this around than you may think.
Freedom of speech is not a right to other people's property: you have no right to force any one to publish what you want but you have the right to start your own newspaper,tv station or a web site and publish whatever you want.
YouTube is private. It's owners have the right to decide what is on it and they did. This is not a violation of free speech as some comments suggest.
A thing is good for someone for something and dropping this context is a mistake that causes superficial contradictions or an illusion of subjectivity. A picture of two cars racing on a public road can be good for the newspaper for attracting readers and bad for the police for identifying the drivers at the same time. Once we consider WHO and FOR WHAT the problem of being good becomes objective.
