I'm confused. The title says this is about the pay gap among top CEOs. But all the charts in the presentation are about payment of board members EXCLUDING the CEO. Am I missing something, or is this title wildly inaccurate?
It's not about board members in the sense the term is used for U.S. public corporations. “Executive team” or “C-level employees” would probably be more accurate for comparison. These people are typically full-time employees of the corporation. Not external directories, no-show jobs, or anything like that.
German public corporations have a separate board representing stakeholder interests. It's not a full-time job (typically just a few meetings per year, and in theory some legal responsibility), and some of the board members are not employed by the corporation. Considering the time commitment, typical compensation for board members is still very, very generous, but much lower annually than the numbers quoted in the report.
But how would you convert from 23.976 to 24? Either you will have a repeated frame once every 1000 frames, or you would need to interpolate every single frame.
Surely the first solution would be preferable. But it would still lead to more than one jitter per minute. I wouldn't call that "no artifacts".
The effects, with a 60000 lumen setup, were remarkable. Winter depression, which affected me on 2 out of 7 days before enrolling in the study, dropped to zero for the next two months.
The study showed that this lighting setup works as well as those light therapy boxes you sit in front of, and perhaps even better.
"Do not prevent spreading" suggests a kind of black-and-white perspective. This is not about fully preventing, it's about reducing the risk. Vaccines substantially reduce the risk of spreading or catching Covid.
Isn't without vaccines the death rate from Covid is around 4%? I read earlier 80% of unvaccinated in 2018-2020 stage, won't even show much symptoms. Singapore even gone thru extensive testing and their death rate was very low well below 1% and this was before availability of vaccines. So reducing the risk of that 4% chunk isn't significant.
The death rate is nowhere near 4%. The CDC estimated the infection fatality rate in the US at 0.6% back when almost no one was vaccinated. The vaccines and other improved treatments have now cut that risk way down.
Yes and the CFR in people 20 - 30 appears to be about 0.01% (very roughly).
Obviously some subpopulations are more or less vulnerable. Averaged over the whole population it generally comes to somewhat under 1%.
Check out the CFR for RSV (a common cold virus) or influenza in people over 80. Viruses that almost never incapacitate let alone kill healthy younger adults can often kill the medically weak.
The go-to book for this problem is "The Worry Cure" by Robert Leahy. The book starts out by explaining why many popular methods for fighting worry are actually ineffective or counterproductive - for example, trying to assure yourself that the thing you worry about will most likely not happen. There's a better way, and it is explained through a series of simple exercises in the style of CBT (cognitive behaviour therapy).
I first read it ten years ago, and I still use the tools on a weekly basis. Changed my life, and the lifes of two other people I gifted the book to.
Small changes to personal consumption are not the best way to contribute to fighting climate change. A significantly more effective actionstep would be to donate a small portion of your income to highly effective climate charities [1].
I'm not against changing personal consumption - for example, I went vegan. But this is not where the majority of my impact on the world lies, as even a small donation vastly outweighs the effect that my veganism has.
Small changes to personal consumption are not the best way to contribute to fighting climate change. A significantly more effective actionstep would be to donate a small portion of your income to highly effective climate charities [1].
I'm not against changing personal consumption - for example, I went vegan. But this is not where the majority of my impact on the world lies, as even a small donation vastly outweighs the effect that my veganism has.
Because of the very large amounts of energy to transmit information in all directions from such a large distance. Also because it's such a stupid waste of energy. Why send radio waves out in all directions in order to communicate with a neighbor? Use a light beam instead.
So the lack of huge radio transmitters that we can detect really just means aliens aren't investing huge amounts of money into letting us know they exist. Why would they? Especially if they already know of other civilisations.
I mean, we definitely can. We see stars that are thousands of lightyears away! However, maybe OP means "receive" as "response to a message we sent". This is indeed something we are able to do since ~100 years, so our communication bubble is currently ~100 lightyears.
