But I ask: why do we want economic growth? It is the demand for more stuff that demands economic growth. Or do you/we have some sort of fetish for larger numbers?
If consumers stopped demanding more/newer and better toys sure the GDP wouldn't grow but it wouldn't need to because no ones asking for more junk.
But the demand for more stuff is what consumed the extra labor made available by productivity improvements. Yeah wanting more stuff is what kept enough work for 40+ hours a person while women entered the work force. There would be less work if people wanted less stuff but they also would need to work less since they need less stuff. The problem IMO is the assumption that growth in sales, GDP etc is inherently good. Society needs to work enough to provide for the needs and desires of their members. So at some point you only get growth by convincing people they need more stuff. They then have to work more and have less happiness till they get their new "thing". This is psychotic. We're programmed (using that loosely since I'm from Canuckistan but close enough culturally) to be like Tazmanian devils and keep eating till we can't walk anymore rather than just say enough.
Greed. Family's in my experience at least have gone from being happy with 1 TV and one stereo in the "family" room to wanting fridges with TVs on them, each person having a cellphone and a tablet etc, each "adult" > 16 wanting their own car etc. We have more stuff. If we lived with the stuff you had in 1930's yeah we could work a lot less.
Totally agree on the 99% v 1% issue. I make quite close to six figures as a dev. ~10 percentile. That is no where near qualifying me for 1% status (455k country wide in Canada, and probably closer to 600k where I work). The US it is apparently 717k (USD of course so probably ~900k CAD). People don't realize just how 1% 1% is. Even family doctors often aren't 1%. You need to be say a cardio thoracic surgeon and that is the border line 1%'er. 1%'ers generally speaking don't work for their money. Not saying they don't work, just it isn't their skill/effort making the money anymore it is capital, patents, copyrights etc that makes the bulk of their earnings. Even as a doctor, lawyer, scientist etc other jobs requiring not just college but doctorate level work (depending on how you count medical doctors, it is relatively like education wise but heavy on the job certification) you are unlikely to get there.
Mein Kampf has parts of it that are interesting and well reasoned.It is political science, so as such can be expected to be a more "squashy science". Hitler was one of the most influential people of the 20th century surely a better read then a random "I want to be president" book that all primary candidates in the US seem to feel they need to churn out.
Good point. This is the challenge of managing a task list. You don't want to forget about things but at the same time feel guilty when things pile up past the point you have any reasonable expectation of "getting done". I like having an empty email box, personal task list. I think that carries over to work but maybe shouldn't. After all if you run out of things to do that means your out of a job, or at least your product is "done"/dead.
Fixing minor bugs "while I'm at it" is a constant battle of mine. I agree with you. My code reviewers however don't. They like to see a 1-1 mapping between the bug description and the work done. Also fixing code in one place vs everywhere is scene as a no-no (don't want multiple ways things are done leaking into the "design" of the software). Problem is the project gets big enough it becomes a multiple man-month job doing any refactor all the way through. If you don't do little bits while you can you have to get a manager to approve a dev doing nothing but fixes for a release which never happens in my experience (plus a lot of devs wouldn't be happy doing that).
It is also a challenge to find the existing bug to log the work against, and for the person that prioritized whatever feature you are working on to get accurate estimates given that there 3hr of work might turn into a week if you run into a lot of crap you want to fix while your at it. Dev work is challenging not only because it is, but because the people coming up with the requirements/priorities don't often look, or are able to understand, the technical challenges or specific code changes involved in the change. A customer has a phone number, vs a customer has an arbitrary number of phone numbers sounds like a simple thing. But might touch on a lot of things: business logic (what is the "main" phone number we show on the summary page?), database (now we need a join table vs a column on the customer table), tests etc.Often our work is conceptually simple but technically hard.
Mah, worth a read. As is Das Kapital and other "bad" books. I found it amusing. A bit repetitive. But every once and a while for a few pages I'd totally agree with him then it would be "because of the dirty jews" and I'd be thinking what wait, what?
Example: he sees it as the job of the state to ensure that there are sufficient resources for the populous. Foreign/non-contiguous colonies aren't the answer because they are hard to defend and tend to revolt/separate. So you need to expand in your own boundaries. Germany being the largest population logically then should fight to have the largest landmass in europe. Also people of similar cultures and language should group together (hence Austria). A bit aggressive for my tastes but logically consistent. But then as mentioned, go off and blame all the problems on Jews and such, seems very tangential. Anyways worth a read.
It perhaps sucks to be the author is such cases but I think at some level books that have truly historical significance shouldn't be copyrightable. It is one thing for the latest Star Wars movie or whatever, regardless of what they'd like you to think, not having seen it wouldn't be a great loss to you. You might miss out on a few inside jokes but your political/humanistic/whatever you want to call it growth wouldn't be stunted. Of particular obvious (to me) example for things that shouldn't be copyrightable: religious texts Scientology, translations of the Bible, etc for example. You shouldn't be considered a tax exempt charity because you are "working for the benefit of humanity" while charging a fee for the right to print your propaganda. They shouldn't be tax exempt at all IMO, but if they are they definitely shouldn't be able to prevent you from getting a hold of their books as cheaply as possible (your tax dollars have indirectly already supported their cause).
Oh agreed. Devs have to be the ones that say something is a bug or a new feature (often they mingle, either bad requirements (or don't know the requirements yet because trying something new)). Really it is all a matter of accounting though. There might be bugs in the product that aren't significant/no one cares so fixing them would be a waste. The guys responsible for the business still have to decide what level of quality they want vs new features. Devs generally speaking will keep working on something till it is perfect but that isn't really economical. Often I'm not in a position to decide what is the best thing to work on for the customer. All I can do is figure out what is broke and what could be improved and make sure management knows my "feature" requests when considering customers/distributors feature requests.Personally I'm happy as a bit from each list gets worked on each release. Avoid worsening the rot and keep giving improvements to the customer.
Weekly meeting, meeting about meetings, meetings to assess the requirements for feature request, code reviewing others, triaging automated tests etc all happen first at my work. Add to that ~10 stat holidays and 15 vacation days: guess what doesn't happen on the weeks those happen? You guessed it coding. The emails still need to be answered, meetings get scheduled around your days off etc. So that 7 hrs out of the office comes right off the development time. Then you end up with a meeting about why features are coming slow:)
Management of at least feature bugs: the problem is prioritization. People use the bug trackers as a note pad to drop any idea for a feature they have, regardless of if a customer has actually asked for it, whether another bug for the same or a mutually exclusive feature already exists, whether the feature will actually raise demand or sell service contracts enough to justify the expense of development and ongoing support etc. Bug trackers become a pool of ideas that no one has bothered vetting.
My suggestion would be: management should be the only ones that can add bugs to the tracker and their compensation should be linked to how clean they keep it, something like: -$100 for every bug that doesn't get worked on in a year: either you aren't staffing properly, are loose with what you let in, aren't doing the necessary work to fill out the requirements enough so that devs can start working on it etc. All management failures. I'd be okay with that as a dev: if I can't explain why a technical feature or fix is necessary and what business impact it would have well enough that my manager prioritizes it then it shouldn't happen. If it not happening means the project fails well who denied the features resources... managers. You know the guys the business has entrusted the project to?
To keep trackers clean I think everyone should keep their own separate list of ideas. The tracker should only have stuff that is currently being worked on or can reasonably be expected to make it in the next release. Have a meeting every few months and everyone can try to sell their ideas. A bunch get picked as the priorities for the next release and added to the tracker. Those that are no longer relevant don't even get seen by more than one person (or the guy with bad ideas quickly gets found out and shot). This has the added benefit of the devs participating and seeing the thinking behind the choice of features for a release rather than having it slowly revealed as the boss comes by and drops a new item that "must happen this week" on their desk.
The article says "more than 100 members" say there are 200 to be generous. They are claiming >= $2500 in damages per? Not even a new iPhone is that expensive.
No first hit I found. How about the first paragraph of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ? Again till you provide examples of the contrary, as far as I know/been thought (by liberal teachers in "liberal" tending subjects like sociology): there is an "accepted" differential between white and black IQ scores.There is a mix of results when you account for environmental factors (it seems either no significant differences to the "expected" direction of difference (ie measured IQ differences persist even after accounting for environment, ex kids adopted by parents of different race etc) but there does seem to be neutral to positive evidence for some biological differences: size of brain, reaction time of brain to stimulus etc.
There is a difference in the average muscle/fat ratio, difference in skeleton and such (ex nose) etc. Is it really that unreasonable to expect there might be a difference in the brain? These are just averages it doesn't mean that a given individual might not have the "required" IQ for the field in question just the relative likelihood of a member of the selected population having that score. You still need to meet the person and judge them based on their own merits to find out where they lie on the sucker-superstar spectrum.
The chart says nothing about which if any country was the source. As far as we know it could be a world wide study, or Lichtenstein. Maybe you figured out which wiki page actually references that chart? I don't know I just did a quick: race vs IQ google. I don't claim that the chart is from any definitive study etc. All I'm saying is it does appear that there has been a study that showed a racial correlation. I also seem to recall that it was accepted as fact that black IQs in the US tended lower than whites and the argument was it is either/or/both socioeconomic factors and the test being written for "whites" being used to explain it. I didn't hear any arguments about it not being a known fact just explanations for why it might be. Not that I did a through study on the subject I tend not to discriminate I either like the person or I don't, idiots come in all shades.
The PC police are so quick to jump on anything that shows a potential negative treat with racial tendencies but anything positive often gets a slide. Kenyans and black people in general being good distance runners, black men having "large members" etc.I suppose you could maybe more clearly show a strong correlation to some things (like showing top 10 finishers or major marathons): it is taken as a given that because I'm white I somehow had an easier life than the black guy working next to me so I need to "check my white privilege" every time I think I'm entitled to something (read "earned" if I wasn't white)..It seems to be the case that even if there is a study showing something negative it is automatically thrown out as bigoted and something to be ignored in order to be PC.
Same thing for studies showing global cooling, or that volcanoes do way more CO2 omissions than humans etc. or that "thousands of scientists "all agree" man made climate change is real" regardless of many of those scientists specialties being completely unrelated etc (heck I have a degree in physics but I know I haven't studied it hard enough to be able to give an expert opinion but BS PR firms are more than happy to call up someone like me and ask them what they think) It isn't PC to be a denier: "shut up and get with the program we got grants to get approved".
Assuming that is accurate. There is also a reason why asians are considered for affirmative action: their average income is larger than whites (as well as average years of education if I recall correctly).Meh. Ghettos in the US I'd say probably does the correlation, old Chris Rock joke something like "Blacks are only in like 4 places, NY, Atlanta, Chicago (forget the other))". Not quite true but close enough to effect the trend I think. if inner city is poorer and where black people are and prejudice determines/d where the funding for schools or even where the good teachers choose to teach...
That is just it with veggie diet: they often eat really crappy. Many vegetarians source of calories are horrible in my experience. Sure they had the garden salad. But 90% of the calories came from the half cup of ranch dressing on the thing. Or they opt for the french fries because it is the easy thing to order when out with friends.
Of the half dozen or so I regularly eat around I'd say combined their macro nutrient profile is probably something like 5% protien, 45% carbs and 55% fat. No wonder they look like Richard Simmons minus the good hair.
How many people eat dried mushrooms? Our stomach/GI tract only has/wants so much volume going through it. How shitty are you going to feel if you eat 4lb of food every meal to cram in the calories you need. That is why even veggies have to eat grains and beans and such too. A lot of these "good" foods are no good as a primary part of a meal. Way too low in calories.
Also, most vegetarians I know have really awful physiques. They look like Richard Simmons/the hippie teacher from Beavis and Butthead. You can't tell the males from the females. Generalizing of course, but when comparing lifestyles (diet, exercies, etc) what else can you do? Generally speaking people that balance cardio and anaerobic exercise look better. Generally people that eat a moderate amount of meat look better than people that eat none/all they can. I think part of it is a lot of vegetarians I know eat really crappy. They are always hungry so they get a lot of their calories from really crappy sources like way too much fruit juice, or they are on the soda and french fries/potato chip diet. (I can't tell you how many times I've been out to eat with them and they pretty much look at the menu and say, hmm everything has meat and/or I don't like the dressing, hmm I'll just have a plate of fries thanks).How many days a week can you do that before you start looking like a flabby slob. You have to be disciplined as it is to eat well being veggie just makes it that much harder (too hard IMO).
Not to mention many of the nutrients can either be synthetically created, produced via otherwise waste material (like shells of seafood into calcium suppliments) etc. Calories give you energy to do all the other stuff required to get the rest of your nutrients and none-food stuff (shelter, reproduction etc).
There is a huge amount of land that hasn't been agriculturalized yet. We still can make enough food. I agree we don't really "need" to have as many people as we have but I think we are more than able to produce for them. The problem is growing land and population density doesn't always align very well. People want to live in cities but we need rural to grow the food. Etc. Things get complicated really quick.
Pretty damned close actually looks like about 38cal per 100g. Compared to about 200cal per 100g for steak. Not infinite but about 5X less for the same weight. So it is quite possible on a per calorie basis mushrooms lettuce (even worse at 15cal) etc are worse for the environment than meat. But really that probably just means we should be eating the grains like we feed to the animals vs lettuce if we want to be efficient. Man does not live on bread alone, but it helps. Mah, till they make a veggie that tastes and has the texture of bacon I'll keep eating Porkie.
At least as of win 8.1 there was a slightly less than 4k limit to RDP something like 3800X2000 is that still the case? I have a couple of 4k screens. Would be good if "extend to all monitors" would work past a fraction of one monitory;)
Yeah and 10-20 years from now they'll need more pork and or decide a navy is a good idea again and will start a completely new project. Which will cost say 10B and 10 years and when it is about ready to launch to save money they'll cut back on the orders. Rinse and repeat. Contractors all get nice high paying engineering jobs and get to tack on all the change spec penalties then don't really need the production compacity to deliver.
Oh well maybe the US can find something more productive to do with their money. Might as well not bother if you aren't actually going to make a lot of a thing though I suppose got to have new shinny things every few years to put in the action movies.
It is a destroyer though, you might be right though. Destroyers don't even carry cruise missiles right? Seeing as most US conflicts are bombing the snot out of some 2nd-3rd rate nation unless they are near the coast chances are another ship will be doing the shooting. This one will just be part of the screening force.
Yeah they want to get it so thin you cut your finger on it and if you complain about the crappy battery life "you just don't get it".
They haven't updated the earbuds for years and years I think. They probably realized they can make more money selling $300 beats bluetooth headphones than the already ridiculous (~$39) earbuds.
and a lot of drivers will just schedule there regular service around it. They'll say "ah its been 8mths close enough to a year" so why don't you check my motor software version and brakes while you are at it? The slightly increased frequency of service might be enough to compensate entirely for the expense of ~60s a seat belt giving it a yank and checking if it is bent.
I see your argument but suspect you are wrong in Tesla's case. Don't have it handy but my understanding is that Tesla is barely profitable and at that only profitable because of incentives. ~$20 a car (more if they do as some say and actually drive to you do to the service) might very well be well into the single digits of their profit. They want to scale up which would make them profitable. Better to find and figure out how to fix production issues now with 90k cars in your fleet vs when you are making 90k cars a month. I'll be more impressed if they are still doing this when they are selling 1M cars a year.
Slashdot Mirror
But I ask: why do we want economic growth? It is the demand for more stuff that demands economic growth. Or do you/we have some sort of fetish for larger numbers?
If consumers stopped demanding more/newer and better toys sure the GDP wouldn't grow but it wouldn't need to because no ones asking for more junk.
But the demand for more stuff is what consumed the extra labor made available by productivity improvements. Yeah wanting more stuff is what kept enough work for 40+ hours a person while women entered the work force. There would be less work if people wanted less stuff but they also would need to work less since they need less stuff. The problem IMO is the assumption that growth in sales, GDP etc is inherently good. Society needs to work enough to provide for the needs and desires of their members. So at some point you only get growth by convincing people they need more stuff. They then have to work more and have less happiness till they get their new "thing". This is psychotic. We're programmed (using that loosely since I'm from Canuckistan but close enough culturally) to be like Tazmanian devils and keep eating till we can't walk anymore rather than just say enough.
Greed. Family's in my experience at least have gone from being happy with 1 TV and one stereo in the "family" room to wanting fridges with TVs on them, each person having a cellphone and a tablet etc, each "adult" > 16 wanting their own car etc. We have more stuff. If we lived with the stuff you had in 1930's yeah we could work a lot less.
Totally agree on the 99% v 1% issue. I make quite close to six figures as a dev. ~10 percentile. That is no where near qualifying me for 1% status (455k country wide in Canada, and probably closer to 600k where I work). The US it is apparently 717k (USD of course so probably ~900k CAD). People don't realize just how 1% 1% is. Even family doctors often aren't 1%. You need to be say a cardio thoracic surgeon and that is the border line 1%'er. 1%'ers generally speaking don't work for their money. Not saying they don't work, just it isn't their skill/effort making the money anymore it is capital, patents, copyrights etc that makes the bulk of their earnings. Even as a doctor, lawyer, scientist etc other jobs requiring not just college but doctorate level work (depending on how you count medical doctors, it is relatively like education wise but heavy on the job certification) you are unlikely to get there.
Mein Kampf has parts of it that are interesting and well reasoned.It is political science, so as such can be expected to be a more "squashy science". Hitler was one of the most influential people of the 20th century surely a better read then a random "I want to be president" book that all primary candidates in the US seem to feel they need to churn out.
Good point. This is the challenge of managing a task list. You don't want to forget about things but at the same time feel guilty when things pile up past the point you have any reasonable expectation of "getting done". I like having an empty email box, personal task list. I think that carries over to work but maybe shouldn't. After all if you run out of things to do that means your out of a job, or at least your product is "done"/dead.
Fixing minor bugs "while I'm at it" is a constant battle of mine. I agree with you. My code reviewers however don't. They like to see a 1-1 mapping between the bug description and the work done. Also fixing code in one place vs everywhere is scene as a no-no (don't want multiple ways things are done leaking into the "design" of the software). Problem is the project gets big enough it becomes a multiple man-month job doing any refactor all the way through. If you don't do little bits while you can you have to get a manager to approve a dev doing nothing but fixes for a release which never happens in my experience (plus a lot of devs wouldn't be happy doing that).
It is also a challenge to find the existing bug to log the work against, and for the person that prioritized whatever feature you are working on to get accurate estimates given that there 3hr of work might turn into a week if you run into a lot of crap you want to fix while your at it. Dev work is challenging not only because it is, but because the people coming up with the requirements/priorities don't often look, or are able to understand, the technical challenges or specific code changes involved in the change. A customer has a phone number, vs a customer has an arbitrary number of phone numbers sounds like a simple thing. But might touch on a lot of things: business logic (what is the "main" phone number we show on the summary page?), database (now we need a join table vs a column on the customer table), tests etc.Often our work is conceptually simple but technically hard.
Mah, worth a read. As is Das Kapital and other "bad" books. I found it amusing. A bit repetitive. But every once and a while for a few pages I'd totally agree with him then it would be "because of the dirty jews" and I'd be thinking what wait, what?
Example: he sees it as the job of the state to ensure that there are sufficient resources for the populous. Foreign/non-contiguous colonies aren't the answer because they are hard to defend and tend to revolt/separate. So you need to expand in your own boundaries. Germany being the largest population logically then should fight to have the largest landmass in europe. Also people of similar cultures and language should group together (hence Austria). A bit aggressive for my tastes but logically consistent. But then as mentioned, go off and blame all the problems on Jews and such, seems very tangential. Anyways worth a read.
It perhaps sucks to be the author is such cases but I think at some level books that have truly historical significance shouldn't be copyrightable. It is one thing for the latest Star Wars movie or whatever, regardless of what they'd like you to think, not having seen it wouldn't be a great loss to you. You might miss out on a few inside jokes but your political/humanistic/whatever you want to call it growth wouldn't be stunted. Of particular obvious (to me) example for things that shouldn't be copyrightable: religious texts Scientology, translations of the Bible, etc for example. You shouldn't be considered a tax exempt charity because you are "working for the benefit of humanity" while charging a fee for the right to print your propaganda. They shouldn't be tax exempt at all IMO, but if they are they definitely shouldn't be able to prevent you from getting a hold of their books as cheaply as possible (your tax dollars have indirectly already supported their cause).
Oh agreed. Devs have to be the ones that say something is a bug or a new feature (often they mingle, either bad requirements (or don't know the requirements yet because trying something new)). Really it is all a matter of accounting though. There might be bugs in the product that aren't significant/no one cares so fixing them would be a waste. The guys responsible for the business still have to decide what level of quality they want vs new features. Devs generally speaking will keep working on something till it is perfect but that isn't really economical. Often I'm not in a position to decide what is the best thing to work on for the customer. All I can do is figure out what is broke and what could be improved and make sure management knows my "feature" requests when considering customers/distributors feature requests.Personally I'm happy as a bit from each list gets worked on each release. Avoid worsening the rot and keep giving improvements to the customer.
Weekly meeting, meeting about meetings, meetings to assess the requirements for feature request, code reviewing others, triaging automated tests etc all happen first at my work. Add to that ~10 stat holidays and 15 vacation days: guess what doesn't happen on the weeks those happen? You guessed it coding. The emails still need to be answered, meetings get scheduled around your days off etc. So that 7 hrs out of the office comes right off the development time. Then you end up with a meeting about why features are coming slow :)
Management of at least feature bugs: the problem is prioritization. People use the bug trackers as a note pad to drop any idea for a feature they have, regardless of if a customer has actually asked for it, whether another bug for the same or a mutually exclusive feature already exists, whether the feature will actually raise demand or sell service contracts enough to justify the expense of development and ongoing support etc. Bug trackers become a pool of ideas that no one has bothered vetting.
My suggestion would be: management should be the only ones that can add bugs to the tracker and their compensation should be linked to how clean they keep it, something like: -$100 for every bug that doesn't get worked on in a year: either you aren't staffing properly, are loose with what you let in, aren't doing the necessary work to fill out the requirements enough so that devs can start working on it etc. All management failures. I'd be okay with that as a dev: if I can't explain why a technical feature or fix is necessary and what business impact it would have well enough that my manager prioritizes it then it shouldn't happen. If it not happening means the project fails well who denied the features resources ... managers. You know the guys the business has entrusted the project to?
To keep trackers clean I think everyone should keep their own separate list of ideas. The tracker should only have stuff that is currently being worked on or can reasonably be expected to make it in the next release. Have a meeting every few months and everyone can try to sell their ideas. A bunch get picked as the priorities for the next release and added to the tracker. Those that are no longer relevant don't even get seen by more than one person (or the guy with bad ideas quickly gets found out and shot). This has the added benefit of the devs participating and seeing the thinking behind the choice of features for a release rather than having it slowly revealed as the boss comes by and drops a new item that "must happen this week" on their desk.
The article says "more than 100 members" say there are 200 to be generous. They are claiming >= $2500 in damages per? Not even a new iPhone is that expensive.
No first hit I found. How about the first paragraph of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ? Again till you provide examples of the contrary, as far as I know/been thought (by liberal teachers in "liberal" tending subjects like sociology): there is an "accepted" differential between white and black IQ scores.There is a mix of results when you account for environmental factors (it seems either no significant differences to the "expected" direction of difference (ie measured IQ differences persist even after accounting for environment, ex kids adopted by parents of different race etc) but there does seem to be neutral to positive evidence for some biological differences: size of brain, reaction time of brain to stimulus etc.
There is a difference in the average muscle/fat ratio, difference in skeleton and such (ex nose) etc. Is it really that unreasonable to expect there might be a difference in the brain? These are just averages it doesn't mean that a given individual might not have the "required" IQ for the field in question just the relative likelihood of a member of the selected population having that score. You still need to meet the person and judge them based on their own merits to find out where they lie on the sucker-superstar spectrum.
The chart says nothing about which if any country was the source. As far as we know it could be a world wide study, or Lichtenstein. Maybe you figured out which wiki page actually references that chart? I don't know I just did a quick: race vs IQ google. I don't claim that the chart is from any definitive study etc. All I'm saying is it does appear that there has been a study that showed a racial correlation. I also seem to recall that it was accepted as fact that black IQs in the US tended lower than whites and the argument was it is either/or/both socioeconomic factors and the test being written for "whites" being used to explain it. I didn't hear any arguments about it not being a known fact just explanations for why it might be. Not that I did a through study on the subject I tend not to discriminate I either like the person or I don't, idiots come in all shades.
The PC police are so quick to jump on anything that shows a potential negative treat with racial tendencies but anything positive often gets a slide. Kenyans and black people in general being good distance runners, black men having "large members" etc.I suppose you could maybe more clearly show a strong correlation to some things (like showing top 10 finishers or major marathons): it is taken as a given that because I'm white I somehow had an easier life than the black guy working next to me so I need to "check my white privilege" every time I think I'm entitled to something (read "earned" if I wasn't white)..It seems to be the case that even if there is a study showing something negative it is automatically thrown out as bigoted and something to be ignored in order to be PC.
Same thing for studies showing global cooling, or that volcanoes do way more CO2 omissions than humans etc. or that "thousands of scientists "all agree" man made climate change is real" regardless of many of those scientists specialties being completely unrelated etc (heck I have a degree in physics but I know I haven't studied it hard enough to be able to give an expert opinion but BS PR firms are more than happy to call up someone like me and ask them what they think) It isn't PC to be a denier: "shut up and get with the program we got grants to get approved".
They do: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Assuming that is accurate. There is also a reason why asians are considered for affirmative action: their average income is larger than whites (as well as average years of education if I recall correctly).Meh. Ghettos in the US I'd say probably does the correlation, old Chris Rock joke something like "Blacks are only in like 4 places, NY, Atlanta, Chicago (forget the other))". Not quite true but close enough to effect the trend I think. if inner city is poorer and where black people are and prejudice determines/d where the funding for schools or even where the good teachers choose to teach ...
That is just it with veggie diet: they often eat really crappy. Many vegetarians source of calories are horrible in my experience. Sure they had the garden salad. But 90% of the calories came from the half cup of ranch dressing on the thing. Or they opt for the french fries because it is the easy thing to order when out with friends.
Of the half dozen or so I regularly eat around I'd say combined their macro nutrient profile is probably something like 5% protien, 45% carbs and 55% fat. No wonder they look like Richard Simmons minus the good hair.
How many people eat dried mushrooms? Our stomach/GI tract only has/wants so much volume going through it. How shitty are you going to feel if you eat 4lb of food every meal to cram in the calories you need. That is why even veggies have to eat grains and beans and such too. A lot of these "good" foods are no good as a primary part of a meal. Way too low in calories.
Also, most vegetarians I know have really awful physiques. They look like Richard Simmons/the hippie teacher from Beavis and Butthead. You can't tell the males from the females. Generalizing of course, but when comparing lifestyles (diet, exercies, etc) what else can you do? Generally speaking people that balance cardio and anaerobic exercise look better. Generally people that eat a moderate amount of meat look better than people that eat none/all they can. I think part of it is a lot of vegetarians I know eat really crappy. They are always hungry so they get a lot of their calories from really crappy sources like way too much fruit juice, or they are on the soda and french fries/potato chip diet. (I can't tell you how many times I've been out to eat with them and they pretty much look at the menu and say, hmm everything has meat and/or I don't like the dressing, hmm I'll just have a plate of fries thanks).How many days a week can you do that before you start looking like a flabby slob. You have to be disciplined as it is to eat well being veggie just makes it that much harder (too hard IMO).
Not to mention many of the nutrients can either be synthetically created, produced via otherwise waste material (like shells of seafood into calcium suppliments) etc. Calories give you energy to do all the other stuff required to get the rest of your nutrients and none-food stuff (shelter, reproduction etc).
I agree lets start will all the brown people.
There is a huge amount of land that hasn't been agriculturalized yet. We still can make enough food. I agree we don't really "need" to have as many people as we have but I think we are more than able to produce for them. The problem is growing land and population density doesn't always align very well. People want to live in cities but we need rural to grow the food. Etc. Things get complicated really quick.
Pretty damned close actually looks like about 38cal per 100g. Compared to about 200cal per 100g for steak. Not infinite but about 5X less for the same weight. So it is quite possible on a per calorie basis mushrooms lettuce (even worse at 15cal) etc are worse for the environment than meat. But really that probably just means we should be eating the grains like we feed to the animals vs lettuce if we want to be efficient. Man does not live on bread alone, but it helps. Mah, till they make a veggie that tastes and has the texture of bacon I'll keep eating Porkie.
At least as of win 8.1 there was a slightly less than 4k limit to RDP something like 3800X2000 is that still the case? I have a couple of 4k screens. Would be good if "extend to all monitors" would work past a fraction of one monitory ;)
Yeah and 10-20 years from now they'll need more pork and or decide a navy is a good idea again and will start a completely new project. Which will cost say 10B and 10 years and when it is about ready to launch to save money they'll cut back on the orders. Rinse and repeat. Contractors all get nice high paying engineering jobs and get to tack on all the change spec penalties then don't really need the production compacity to deliver.
Oh well maybe the US can find something more productive to do with their money. Might as well not bother if you aren't actually going to make a lot of a thing though I suppose got to have new shinny things every few years to put in the action movies.
It is a destroyer though, you might be right though. Destroyers don't even carry cruise missiles right? Seeing as most US conflicts are bombing the snot out of some 2nd-3rd rate nation unless they are near the coast chances are another ship will be doing the shooting. This one will just be part of the screening force.
Yeah they want to get it so thin you cut your finger on it and if you complain about the crappy battery life "you just don't get it".
They haven't updated the earbuds for years and years I think. They probably realized they can make more money selling $300 beats bluetooth headphones than the already ridiculous (~$39) earbuds.
but couldn't the far side have craters and the near side few because something big, like I don't know the earth, blocks one side and not the other?
and a lot of drivers will just schedule there regular service around it. They'll say "ah its been 8mths close enough to a year" so why don't you check my motor software version and brakes while you are at it? The slightly increased frequency of service might be enough to compensate entirely for the expense of ~60s a seat belt giving it a yank and checking if it is bent.
I see your argument but suspect you are wrong in Tesla's case. Don't have it handy but my understanding is that Tesla is barely profitable and at that only profitable because of incentives. ~$20 a car (more if they do as some say and actually drive to you do to the service) might very well be well into the single digits of their profit. They want to scale up which would make them profitable. Better to find and figure out how to fix production issues now with 90k cars in your fleet vs when you are making 90k cars a month. I'll be more impressed if they are still doing this when they are selling 1M cars a year.