There is a major blind spot that the author fails to address: All vehicles (ICE or EV) have a heavy dependence on petroleum products such as plastics, lubricants, and synthetic rubber. While I believe that EV's are the future, I do not think their success implies the fall of Big Oil.
The amounts differ by an order of magnitude, or maybe even two. E.g. the EIA says 9.3k barrels/day is consumed as motor gasoline (more than half of all consumption of finished products, and the next largest categories are also burn-the-oil, possibly including 3.6k barrels/day of diesel fuel) whereas only 323 barrels/day go to petrochemical feedstocks. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.h...
~60% of oil is used for transportation fuel, so there will be a big impact if that goes away. Oil reserves will also last much longer once oil isn't needed for transportation.
The author acknowledges this, and says oil usage will decline but not go away. Oil is used for a lot more than gasoline. But the contraction of the market will put a lot of companies in a world of hurt.
I honestly think finance is overall a worse deal, I used to think it was the panacea of making money. There is the chance that you can make 600 - 800k in finance as a senior developer, but you need to either be incredibly intelligent or incredibly hard working, generally you need an ivy league degree.
A year or so ago I received an offer from a well known quant hedge fund, I spoke to a google recruiter to see if they could match, to my surprise right there on the phone he told me they never get beat out and that they would beat the offer by 50k.
The hours are much better in tech, you get treated better, and at Facebook/Google/Amazon/other big tech firm you have less variance in pay.
That recruiter must have been pretty inexperienced to talk like that.
You should seriously question your compensation if a recruiter is willing to top you up 50k without a second thought. Chances are you are severely underpaid.
When you have another offer on the table the best move for the recruiter is to make the serious offer then and there and try take care of the situation to avoid any further bidding.
They want you for as cheap as they can get you but if someone else is willing to pay more then almost always they can afford it.
iCloud Keychain works great for me. Although, if I could change one thing, it would be to add a dedicated iOS app, instead of having to go to Settings > Safari > Passwords.
Its somewhat easier in iOS 11, there's a more dedicated area in settings. Also, in iOS 11, it provides usernames and passwords within apps, which is super convenient.
> I guess for me, I don't care enough to make all those changes.
Up until I read this article, I used to feel the opposite way. I think there is some value in everyone having privacy and personal space. It gives us an opportunity to decompress and relieve some of the stresses of our increasingly connected world.
However, discovering that Google (and others) are merging my online and offline behavior is making me doubt my viewpoint (the 70% figure really hit hard). If I can't escape it, why not just be apart of it? Surely life is a bit simpler: not having to pay for email, better search results (DDG vs Google)... It seems that whether you want to or not, you _will_ become part of the google/facebook/etc ecosystem.
The other reason I used non-google services was in some ways to "hedge" my position. By using a non-google email with a custom domain, I am not tied down to any email provider (note: I bought the domain explicitly for email use). If I ever became unsatisfied with my email service, I could always switch to a different provider without the hassle of creating a new email address. Now, maybe this is just a defeatist view, but I think google/facebook are too big to fail. If google disappeared tomorrow or in 10 years, there would be chaos -too much of the world depends on it. Does this give them enough power to exist in perpetuity? Maybe it's time to just cave in and use all google services. It sure is cheaper.
> "I think there is some value in everyone having privacy and personal space."
I never got how Google having my data as part of a larger picture ever affected either of those in my daily life. They use it for power in mass, not over individuals. It's an important political conversation, but it's doing everything but affecting me specifically/individually in my daily life (in negative ways at least)
Edit: Just wanted to say I appreciated the comment. As far as too big to fail goes, I don't think Facebook is yet - they are fighting hard to become that right now though. You can easily function without Facebook - right now it's basically only serving as an address book and messaging service for me, and I have good alternatives for both of those. Google's integration into everything is what makes them too big to fail. I've given up on fighting Google, but I'm still careful to some extent with Facebook.
They can track your purchases, but if you stop using Google credentials, they're going to have a lot harder time tying it to your ad views.
It's impossible to avoid having at least some data in various services, but if you divide and conquer, keep accounts separate as much as possible, don't have accounts with companies that collect data about you in other ways (or use fake names and email aliases), you can break up their picture of you.
While articles will point out how small groups of anonymous information can positively identify someone, these programs are likely to be more fragile on a large scale basis. Don't make it easy, and more than likely, at least some of the tracking and the benefit they get from it will fail.
