The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXVII

[brennan]

The cost to the employer is the employer's NI contributions. Pretending that the employee's liabilities (all the bits that make their gross pay their net pay (like PAYE and NI) are the employer's problem is a non sequitur.

If i'm paid £1800 a month and i'm deducted £400 and my employer contributes £200 then The only people trying to pass this off as the employer paying 'twice what the employee gets' because of taxes are business lobby groups.

 

[Takhisis]

Depends how good the employee is at negotiating.

cardgame's generally in the right ballpark.

I mean, I'm pretty good at negotiating, but I also use a whole bunch of company resources (thousands in each of computer equipment, software subscriptions, conference/travel costs, certifications/resources, hundreds in food) that I don't receive in salary or direct financial (government deductions, insurance, savings matching, etc.) benefit.

It's in the company's best interest to buy me personal-use software subscriptions to play with on my own time instead of giving me more money to spend on cocaine.

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Is it more environmentally friendly to buy a physical copy of something instead of downloading it?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Is it more environmentally friendly to buy a physical copy of something instead of downloading it?

Well with downloading, that probably takes up a bit of electricity - though of course that could be generated with a really nasty dirty power plant, but also could be generated by a wind farm or something renewable. With buying a physical copy (I'll assume it's a disc of a game or music), the manufacturer has to manufacture the disc, package it up, and ship it - which takes up resources and fuel and stuff. 'Course, I might be forgetting something here but I think downloading sounds a bit more environmentally friendly.

 

[Zelig]

Is it more environmentally friendly to buy a physical copy of something instead of downloading it?

Depends on a lot of variables. It shouldn't be, if both physical and digital delivery methods are optimized, but in practice it often is.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm looking for a rather specific quote. I don't remember if it was said here or in WH, perhaps someone who saw it (or said it!) will see it here and remember.

It was basically a post about when companies were first allowed to incorporate in the mid-19th century, and how many people (conservatives, I think? Maybe specifically Tories?) at the time strongly opposed it as a return to feudalism of sorts.

Can anyone help? Unfortunately these are rather vague search terms, and nothing significant was returned by any search I did, either here or on Google.

 

[cybrxkhan]

In the picture below, what types of trees are those, and where are they typically found? I feel like I should know but I just can't remember for the life of me.

Spoiler :

 

[really]

Picture isn't working for me - error 1101 access denied.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Picture isn't working for me - error 1101 access denied.

Ah whoops... guess the image won't allow hotlinking or something.

Anyhow, figured it was a species of Baobob tree from Madagascar, so all solved now, thanks anyhow.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What's the purpose of partitions on seats near subway car doors? Is it to prevent stealing?

 

[Yeekim]

Depends on a lot of variables. It shouldn't be, if both physical and digital delivery methods are optimized, but in practice it often is.

I'm having a hard time imagining a digital delivery of anything being harder on environment than its physical delivery + manufacturing.

Care to bring an example?

 

[Gary Childress]

I'm having a hard time imagining a digital delivery of anything being harder on environment than its physical delivery + manufacturing.

Care to bring an example?

I'm with you here Yeekim.

 

[timtofly]

Artificial entities would seem to be more anti-environment, than virtual entities. While a virtual entity (the small code needed for compliance) will not exist without an artificial means to be there, it has a smaller footprint and can be more easily assimilated back into the environment, than an artificial entity that could take thousands of years to break down, unless of course it is biodegradable.

The problem with the digital though, is unless things change, the artificial host of the digital will be around in theory a lot longer than the actual material of the physical copy. When manufacturing is re-tooled, it can no longer be associated with any certain physical entity. Who is going to purge the digital code after a million years?

 

[brennan]

The ecological footprint of a society with a technological base capable of doing things online is not a small one.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm with you here Yeekim.

I think the idea here is that with, say, a book, it's lifecycle after delivery is potentially vast. Presumably it's now carried around or stored without further expenditures of energy. Anytime somebody wants to read an e-book that requires electricity and wear and tear on a battery. Any individual use of that chemical, rare earth, and coal powered good is tiny, but they may potentially stack up to greater than the cost of the book would have been. Presuming people keep books and shares them rather than pitching them after reading like the vile consumers they are.

 

[Zelig]

I'm having a hard time imagining a digital delivery of anything being harder on environment than its physical delivery + manufacturing.

Care to bring an example?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/jiec.12181/

"Contrary to findings in previous research on music distribution, distribution of games by physical BDs results in lower greenhouse gas emissions than by Internet download. The estimated carbon emissions from downloading only fall definitively below that of BDs for games smaller than 1.3 GB."

I think the idea here is that with, say, a book, it's lifecycle after delivery is potentially vast. Presumably it's now carried around or stored without further expenditures of energy. Anytime somebody wants to read an e-book that requires electricity and wear and tear on a battery. Any individual use of that chemical, rare earth, and coal powered good is tiny, but they may potentially stack up to greater than the cost of the book would have been. Presuming people keep books and shares them rather than pitching them after reading like the vile consumers they are.

That only really applies to library books, personally-owned book are only getting read maybe a dozen times even if you've got that many friends with the same reading preferences as you. Pretty much no personal books are reaching the end of their lifespan due to wear - I know I've thrown out thousands of books that have probably averaged ~2 read-throughs each.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't buy that many. I do use the library. When I buy books I give them to my friends when I'm done with them. My wife has an original printing of Grant's autobiography she just got from her dad. It depends on how you use them. Hence it simply being the idea rather than a universal truth. The more "consumery" you get, the less sense physical copies make. So yar, we probably agree that it happens both ways.

 

[Borachio]

Aren't hard-copy books a rather good carbon sink?

 

[Yeekim]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/jiec.12181/

"Contrary to findings in previous research on music distribution, distribution of games by physical BDs results in lower greenhouse gas emissions than by Internet download. The estimated carbon emissions from downloading only fall definitively below that of BDs for games smaller than 1.3 GB."

Wow.
That was unexpected.

 

[Zelig]

The more "consumery" you get, the less sense physical copies make.

I'd argue the exact opposite - I got rid of my book collection specifically to go with my minimalist living conditions. Only physical books I still own are a couple cookbooks.