Hmm? It sounds to me like there is a lot of generosity- Take Two poaching a lot of engineers, offering them nice bonuses. The employees are the ones winning in this story

Not necessarily. The employees may have been stuck between a rock and a hard place. If amazon sent your whole team messages saying they'll hire you or crush you, taking the job at amazon might be more like trying to keep your job. Especially as others start to take the offer. The only thing saying the bonuses were nice bonus was the "hey come join us" email, and we all know what those are worth.

One of the people involved said he didn't take the offer because he didn't think he'd get the same benefits. Since the contract stuff was about royalties, it might be that joining take-two meant trading royalties for salary/bonus, and as interest grew in KSP2, that might be a shitty deal.

Because it was cheaper than dealing with their current employer. All about controlling costs. The bonus was carefully calculated to balance the development costs versus contract costs.

Those employees can expect precisely nothing once the game is complete, unless coincidentally their new employer has another project they can be immediately put to work on.

That would have been the same result after the game was finished either way, given that Star was only a contractor.

At least at Take Two the employees have the possibility of working on other games.

Companies across all countries have proprietary data that they are using to develop treatment options.

> Twitter tweet’s tweet

What?

Twitter: The organisation Twitter

Tweet's: sent a message (shouldn't have an apostrophe)

Tweet: the message

It should be "Twitter tweets a tweet"

Spotify actually has video already, which they used for music videos. Although it seems like they removed it fairly recently.

> Why trust a model if you can do a serology study instead?

Because studies require a lot more time and money, while a model is just on a computer and can be constantly and quickly updated as things change?

Herd immunity will kick in around 70%, so the actual people that would get it is not 100% of the age group.

> I'm not sure I call something like 10,000 dead a highlight.

Given that people before were saying the death rate was 2-5%, yes, it is a good thing.

I find it really strange that people in this thread are trying to be mad about a low death rate...

True, but GM and other auto makers aren't selling cars right now. They are impacted severely

Which is solely due to the extra cost of short term capital gains tax.

> Some people never do research again after completing a Ph.D. For such people, the Ph.D. was largely a waste of time.

This statement reflects the writers' large ego, not reality. It's a shame how this point of view is prominent in the scientific community. I've seen similar rude statements from academic scientists who say that working in R&D at a corporation isn't "real science".

I think the intention was referring to people who do no further research, whether academic or private (e.g. repetitive work with significant exploration involved). The last paragraph of section 2.6 is about doing research work in private companies, no?

I agree with the author that there is little value in doing a PhD if you don't intend to keep doing some form of research afterwards. There are alternative programs or work that would be much more applicable.

Click on the comment's "X minutes ago" and then click "favorite"