I would think that giving people care doesn't actually cost much, it's having the capability that's expensive. And the administrative work required to deal with the edge case of charging foreigners might not be worth the minor sums involved.
Aluminium smelting is so energy intensive that Iceland, a country with a population of less than 400 000, is the world's 12th largest producer of it, even though the raw materials aren't mined there. Iceland just has cheap geothermal and hydroelectric power.
In the real world there is no entirely reasonable code base. There's always going to be some aspects of it that are kind of shit, because you intended to do X but then had to change to doing Y, and you have not had time or sufficient reason to properly rewrite everything to reflect that.
We tend to underestimate how long things will take, precisely because when we imagine someone doing them we think of the ideal case, where everything is reasonable and goes well. Which is pretty much guaranteed to not be the case whenever you do anything complex.
You cannot say no to legitimate interest. That's a valid legal basis for processing the data that you only need to be informed about. Some times it appears like they are asking for your consent (which is a different legal basis for processing data) for legitimate interest, but that's likely just a poorly designed interface.
Economists refuse to accept that their subject is really just sociology. They like to imagine it being like physics, where study of reality leads to underlying mathematical truths to extrapolate from. Not a big messy subject where you can't be certain of anything.
What makes it even more freaky is that many of the subjects being studied know they are playing a game. So in many ways economy is more like the evolving metagame of competitive sports, where hardcore nerds constantly try to game the system and outplay each other, and what was a solid strategy last month doesn't work anymore, even if the rules are the same.
Here's a trick that works for me (who mainly have trouble getting started with things).
Decide that you only need to do the thing for 10 minutes. Set a timer for 10 minutes and get started. Then when the timer rings you've gotten going and will likely want to continue (forever).
It's mind boggling how different the modern concept of work is from how it was for 99.9% of human existence.
I'm sure the hyper-optimization, hyper-specialization, the alienation, and the constant flux of modern work contributes greatly to the problems we are experiencing.
Even when there was no "adventurous alternative", work was a lot more grounded in society and had a lot more downtime at pretty much any point in history.
One common misconception about meditation is that meditation is and end goal, not a practice. That to meditate is to sit down and have your brain be quiet, and if you can't do that, your session was a failure.
But that's like saying weight lifting is about deadlifting your body weight, and any session you don't manage do that was a failure. That is something you might be able to do after years of training. But you start with the smaller weights, learning form and technique, setting reasonable goals, and find a practice that you can make a habit out of. Because a five minute walk every day beats a day at the gym/retreat once a year.
You are stuck with yourself for the rest of your life. So just like when you have a coworker or classmate that you don't like but must work with, you just have to get a working relationship going where you can get stuff done and not fight.
Try to not get annoyed at yourself, reward good behavior, be kind even when you don't deserve it, be the bigger person etc.
More generally, feelings do not care about facts. We must accept how we feel, even if those feelings don't "make sense". Trying to reason with feelings is a fools errand.
That doesn't mean we can't change how we feel. It just doesn't happen by denying reality.
A simple experiment to get an intuitive understanding of pulleys:
Take a piece of string and hold one end in your right hand, then hold your left hand higher and let the string run over it and hang down.
Now as you move your right hand up or down, the free end will move the same distance. But if you move your left hand up or down, the free end must move twice the distance, because you have string on either side of the hand that must both move that distance. So you are amplifying the movement, getting twice the movement at half the force.
If instead you wanted to amplify the force, as in a pulley, then stand on the free end of the string (so it's no longer free) and pull down with your right hand. You are now amplifying the force exerted on your left hand, because it moves only half the distance of the right, so you get double the force. And this is exactly how a pulley works. Add more loops to get even more force at the cost of even more movement.
I figured this out while playing with the cats, and it made pulleys just make sense. Hopefully it can do the same for someone else :)
Or it measured how rare it was for them to get candy. The most interesting thing about the experiment is honestly the many ways in which it was flawed.
Then change the keyboard shortcuts of your terminal so that it does that. If you can't, then switch to a terminal that lets you change the keyboard shortcuts.
A neat thing is that a lot of command line programs use readline. So learning and configuring it will also be useful in for example the Python REPL and calc.
Here are some neat configuration options you can put in ~/.inputrc
bash
set completion-ignore-case on
set show-all-if-ambiguous on
set completion-prefix-display-length 9
set blink-matching-paren on
set mark-symlinked-directories on
And if you are a sensible person who is used to vim
Pigeons are actually a domesticated animal that used to be bred for (among other things) food. So you re-domesticate a few of them, and then eat their offspring which you feed household scraps.
You might also save on heating in the winter by having larger cattle in your house and sleeping on a loft above them.
Pretty much all Germans with any experience post WW2 were in some way nazis. As I understand it, you had to be a party member to hold any important job.
Something like an actual true NATO-nazi conspiracy is how nazi chief of staff and war criminal Franz Halder ended up avoiding the Nuremberg trials and working with the US Army Historical Division and the coming founder of the CIA to create the myth of a clean and non-political Wehrmacht.
But any reasonable person will understand that that was an enemy-of-my-enemy kind of deal. (We all know NATO are secretly Islamists as proven by Operation Cyclone.)
I have no idea if this is true, but it certainly fits the very strange vibe of the game.
It's like how I would imagine the most violent cops see the world.
All people are awful. Every criminal is a heavily armed, highly trained, fearless lunatic, who does not care if they live or die, as long as there's a tiny chance they can hurt more people. Civilians are uncooperative, ungrateful, and suicidal.
Every deployment, no matter how routine, will likely lead you into an ambush by dudes with assault rifles.
Avoiding bloodshed is almost impossible and even trying is likely to get you killed.
I would think that giving people care doesn't actually cost much, it's having the capability that's expensive. And the administrative work required to deal with the edge case of charging foreigners might not be worth the minor sums involved.