Everyone should have known that the fantasy wasn't going to happen. A bit like America i think in that a lot of the voters were deliberately ignorant and easily swayed by simplistic platitudes. Interesting also that the most brexit votes came from England and most remain votes from Scotland and Wales.
My mother was originally going to rely on my father's pension, and so she had not been paying into social security. Late in the game they realized that meant no medicare so she started contributing. So the Social Security check today is ridiculously small, something like $40 or so. But she has other investments so is doing ok.
I didn't start saving until my 30s, primarily because I went to grad school and paid for a bunch of it myself. So that automatically put me behind people who started funding 401Ks in their early twenties. Also I wish I had the simple index fund and just stuck with it, and not listened to financial advisers who want to do something more risky, or they made changes at bad times.
Ya, I hate finances. And I hate having a financial adviser that tells me to dump a plan and move to another plan, which several times in the past leaves me with a tax bill and no actual growth. There's a lot of dice being rolled and it's not hard to lose money while actually doing what seems like the right thing. No one should be required to be a day trader just to stay ahead.
In America, we linked unions to socialism, and we linked socialism to communism, we linked social security to socialism too, and so the whole thing became a political minefield. Safety nets became a bad thing as a consequence, everyone being told that if you can't make ends meet then you lacked personal responsibility (unless it's my grandma, she was just unlucky, but your grandma on the other hand is a burden on the system you commie).
Americans however are indeed saving money. We have economists that don't like this (savings means not spending), but we are saving whether that be in retirement accounts, contributing to pension plans, etc. The snag is that a lot of plans are underfunded, investment planners and banks take too many risks, and that there are many large increases in expenses (a family can be bankrupted from a single medical bill).
I'm rather cheap. I don't buy a lot of stuff. And I have high salary. But I do NOT feel financially secure. I am in a very high cost of living area that assumes you have a dual income, and I am not good at investing, and I started squirreling money away late in life because I went back to school.
I've seen some people retiring early with a pretty solid plan, and other people having to continue working long after normal retirement age. The difference between them was not that one was smart and the other dumb. Much of the differences are based on luck; being in the right company at the right time, having unexpected expenses, believing your financial adviser, etc.
Most people don't earn enough money to actually provide for retirement on their own. The union pensions, in theory, were a way to provide a group responsibility for a savings plan that was cheaper than individual savings, similar to insurance. The snag was that these turned out to be badly run, with financial advisers who got extra greedy and took high risks, etc. But going it alone doesn't cut it if you're only making $25K a year and have nothing leftover at the end of the month to put into a high fee low return investment plan, much pay into a mortgage.
Also remember that in the past the sage advice was to always put money into a bank's saving account, which is terrible advice today because they pay no interest. The financial education about how to survive in a stock market exchange without losing is not there. 401K is great but not many people have access to one.
At some point you must rely upon somebody else, nobody can be 100% responsible with no one else in the picture. Paying into the union pension plan *is* presonal responsibility, the fact that it ends up bankrupt isn't due to a lack of personal responsibility any more than a 401K losing half its value overnight because of a bank scandal is due to the employee's lack of personal responsibility. If someone ends up with a million dollars of medical bills, is the problem a lack of responsibility for not being able to save even more?
It's fine if you've got it all handled on your end. But don't blame every other human being for not being as lucky as you are.
Are the average people just not paying attention? I can believe that. Obamacare did a lot of good; health care prices did not rise as high as they could have, but the fact that they rose at all may have convinced them that it was a bad deal. People see 100 people getting jobs and are happy, but ignore that 1000 people from the same company lost their jobs.
That's one thing I do see from many voters - they always blame the current administration for anything that goes wrong economically, no matter how many years or decades ago the trends started. And they always seem to think that the next candidate can magically fix everything through dictatorial powers.
The surprise was Trump getting past the primaries. They had a lot of solid candidates (and a few wackos). Trump didn't have the majority of Republicans siding with him at the start, but he did have core supporters that were opposed to mainstream politics and enough of them to sway primaries.
And over time it was clear that the media were giving way too much air time to Trump because he was entertaining in a train-wreck sort of way, and giving less time to more serious candidates who were boring. Ie, do you want to tune in to hear about a policy issue of Jeb Bush or tune in to hear what silly thing Trump said? I'm surprised that Trump never thanked the media for getting him elected.
That the Republicans did a 180 and started praising Trump was a surprise too. It just means Republicans don't really have any firm set of ideals except to be opposed to the Democrats. And to be fair, the core Democratic ideals are probably just to be opposed to Republicans as well. The whole concept of political parties is flawed in my view.
I think there was widespread change in attitudes on same sex marriage. The feds capitulated because so many states were changing their laws, and the states were changing the laws because of pressure from voters. This wasn't even a liberal vs conservative issue.
Remember, back when the Moral Majority was a big influencer they really weren't the majority. It did however have enough influence that it could swing a lot of elections, which isn't that hard given how balanced a lot of contests are.
I don't know how, to do it easily. I can scan a document at work, but the same scanner is also a fax machine, so why not fax? Our HR was in a different city, because we got city business by promising to have an office there. But to communicate some stuff to HR they wanted a fax... Maybe phones can do it, but hard to tell what with all the ads getting in my way.
Now receiving faxes, that's complicated. All those outgoing fax machines I see don't seem to have easily discoverable phone numbers. Whereas receiving email is easy, except on phones where the screen is too tiny.
Well, the reporters for the most part aren't lying, they're not saying "proven", but there is a lot of misunderstanding.
There are big problems though. The shotgun approach where you get a smattering of info from a variety of sciences, and no one is an expert on all of them and people won't be keeping track of the current state between one article and the next on a subject. A huge problem in my view however are the pseudo-sciences; people aren't good at the difference between a report on a real science study and some bullshit. Ie, nutritionists are not scientists and have no licensing requirements, whereas dieticians do have licenses in many instances. So if someone says "drink 8 glasses of water a day to be hydrated", it's not coming from any serious scientist and yet it's repeated by many like it's a fact.
I don't believe California did that in recent history. In the past though it was indeed the policy nationwide to stamp out fires as swiftly as possible, which is not good forest management.
Now there is indeed talk that you could send in loggers to thin out dead trees. The real problem however is the excessive brush and undergrowth, and there's no economic incentive for a logging company to clear that out. Also the dead trees are not high quality wood, so logging companies really want to take out healthy trees when they want to thin a forest.
One issue with controlled burns is that these have gotten out of control in the past. We do need more of this, but not now at this time. Forest management in California is not in a bad shape.
Because.. uh... suburbs! Ya, suburbs are bad you know. They have clean streets, it's quiet, and you don't see any homeless people anywhere. Who could live like that? Meanwhile in the city there are these great museums near me. Ok, I've never actually gone to the museums, but if I were to go I'd rather they be in my neighborhood than have to take the train in.
In science there are periods when there's a sudden opening of a field to new ideas, where some breakthroughs will change perceptions of what can be discovered. After that point there's a rush to explore what's possible and then followed again by settling down and filling in the finer details. We had that sort of period in in the early 1900s, we started understanding electromagnetic fields, we had general relativity, and at the same time we also had an advance in technology to be able to explore more. You can see a similar pattern in the past; ie, the Rennaissance for example. This is analogous to a gold rush perhaps.
For many sciences, the sheer cost of doing experiments is rising drastically in order to explore more deeply in an area.
Also consider the number of scientists today versus 1920. Or even the number of universities and labs. Today most scientists are inking in the details of the big pictures drawn by a predecessor.
It's a good tool, but expensive for home use, and somewhat complex to set up at work.
Good training helps too - as in, just because you can manage all your array operations with a pointer doesn't mean you should; and if you're using buffers you need to put in overflow and underflow checks. Generally it's not hard because so many C programmers have done this over and over that they know how to do it. The snag is from the person who learned how to program by using libraries and has never actually written low level code before.
It's more than just a few milliseconds or nanoseconds unless you're on a PC (the equivalent of last decade's supercomputer). When you're on a system with less then 1MB of memory and an instruction takes 1us, you're usually not going to be using Java or Python.
(though there are exceptions, I know one chip that uses Java applets on top of an 8051 base)
Most programmers today, sadly, have only ever programmed in a PC, and probably only ever in Windows. To them, worrying about being fast or tiny is unimportant, and they don't even understand the concept of portability. Many of them today don't even really program and instead just tie together pre-built components.
Slashdot Mirror
Except at Apple.
The targeted species, Aedes aegypti, is African, and IS NOT NATIVE TO CALIFORNIA. So there should be no negative repercussions from wiping it out.
What about repercussions in AFRICA? "Wiping it out" implies globally, not just in California.
Everyone should have known that the fantasy wasn't going to happen. A bit like America i think in that a lot of the voters were deliberately ignorant and easily swayed by simplistic platitudes. Interesting also that the most brexit votes came from England and most remain votes from Scotland and Wales.
My mother was originally going to rely on my father's pension, and so she had not been paying into social security. Late in the game they realized that meant no medicare so she started contributing. So the Social Security check today is ridiculously small, something like $40 or so. But she has other investments so is doing ok.
I didn't start saving until my 30s, primarily because I went to grad school and paid for a bunch of it myself. So that automatically put me behind people who started funding 401Ks in their early twenties. Also I wish I had the simple index fund and just stuck with it, and not listened to financial advisers who want to do something more risky, or they made changes at bad times.
Ya, I hate finances. And I hate having a financial adviser that tells me to dump a plan and move to another plan, which several times in the past leaves me with a tax bill and no actual growth. There's a lot of dice being rolled and it's not hard to lose money while actually doing what seems like the right thing. No one should be required to be a day trader just to stay ahead.
In America, we linked unions to socialism, and we linked socialism to communism, we linked social security to socialism too, and so the whole thing became a political minefield. Safety nets became a bad thing as a consequence, everyone being told that if you can't make ends meet then you lacked personal responsibility (unless it's my grandma, she was just unlucky, but your grandma on the other hand is a burden on the system you commie).
Americans however are indeed saving money. We have economists that don't like this (savings means not spending), but we are saving whether that be in retirement accounts, contributing to pension plans, etc. The snag is that a lot of plans are underfunded, investment planners and banks take too many risks, and that there are many large increases in expenses (a family can be bankrupted from a single medical bill).
I'm rather cheap. I don't buy a lot of stuff. And I have high salary. But I do NOT feel financially secure. I am in a very high cost of living area that assumes you have a dual income, and I am not good at investing, and I started squirreling money away late in life because I went back to school.
I've seen some people retiring early with a pretty solid plan, and other people having to continue working long after normal retirement age. The difference between them was not that one was smart and the other dumb. Much of the differences are based on luck; being in the right company at the right time, having unexpected expenses, believing your financial adviser, etc.
Most people don't earn enough money to actually provide for retirement on their own. The union pensions, in theory, were a way to provide a group responsibility for a savings plan that was cheaper than individual savings, similar to insurance. The snag was that these turned out to be badly run, with financial advisers who got extra greedy and took high risks, etc. But going it alone doesn't cut it if you're only making $25K a year and have nothing leftover at the end of the month to put into a high fee low return investment plan, much pay into a mortgage.
Also remember that in the past the sage advice was to always put money into a bank's saving account, which is terrible advice today because they pay no interest. The financial education about how to survive in a stock market exchange without losing is not there. 401K is great but not many people have access to one.
At some point you must rely upon somebody else, nobody can be 100% responsible with no one else in the picture. Paying into the union pension plan *is* presonal responsibility, the fact that it ends up bankrupt isn't due to a lack of personal responsibility any more than a 401K losing half its value overnight because of a bank scandal is due to the employee's lack of personal responsibility. If someone ends up with a million dollars of medical bills, is the problem a lack of responsibility for not being able to save even more?
It's fine if you've got it all handled on your end. But don't blame every other human being for not being as lucky as you are.
Are the average people just not paying attention? I can believe that. Obamacare did a lot of good; health care prices did not rise as high as they could have, but the fact that they rose at all may have convinced them that it was a bad deal. People see 100 people getting jobs and are happy, but ignore that 1000 people from the same company lost their jobs.
That's one thing I do see from many voters - they always blame the current administration for anything that goes wrong economically, no matter how many years or decades ago the trends started. And they always seem to think that the next candidate can magically fix everything through dictatorial powers.
The surprise was Trump getting past the primaries. They had a lot of solid candidates (and a few wackos). Trump didn't have the majority of Republicans siding with him at the start, but he did have core supporters that were opposed to mainstream politics and enough of them to sway primaries.
And over time it was clear that the media were giving way too much air time to Trump because he was entertaining in a train-wreck sort of way, and giving less time to more serious candidates who were boring. Ie, do you want to tune in to hear about a policy issue of Jeb Bush or tune in to hear what silly thing Trump said? I'm surprised that Trump never thanked the media for getting him elected.
That the Republicans did a 180 and started praising Trump was a surprise too. It just means Republicans don't really have any firm set of ideals except to be opposed to the Democrats. And to be fair, the core Democratic ideals are probably just to be opposed to Republicans as well. The whole concept of political parties is flawed in my view.
I think there was widespread change in attitudes on same sex marriage. The feds capitulated because so many states were changing their laws, and the states were changing the laws because of pressure from voters. This wasn't even a liberal vs conservative issue.
Remember, back when the Moral Majority was a big influencer they really weren't the majority. It did however have enough influence that it could swing a lot of elections, which isn't that hard given how balanced a lot of contests are.
I don't know how, to do it easily. I can scan a document at work, but the same scanner is also a fax machine, so why not fax? Our HR was in a different city, because we got city business by promising to have an office there. But to communicate some stuff to HR they wanted a fax... Maybe phones can do it, but hard to tell what with all the ads getting in my way.
Now receiving faxes, that's complicated. All those outgoing fax machines I see don't seem to have easily discoverable phone numbers. Whereas receiving email is easy, except on phones where the screen is too tiny.
Well, the reporters for the most part aren't lying, they're not saying "proven", but there is a lot of misunderstanding.
There are big problems though. The shotgun approach where you get a smattering of info from a variety of sciences, and no one is an expert on all of them and people won't be keeping track of the current state between one article and the next on a subject. A huge problem in my view however are the pseudo-sciences; people aren't good at the difference between a report on a real science study and some bullshit. Ie, nutritionists are not scientists and have no licensing requirements, whereas dieticians do have licenses in many instances. So if someone says "drink 8 glasses of water a day to be hydrated", it's not coming from any serious scientist and yet it's repeated by many like it's a fact.
I'd be happy to get those speeds here in silicon valley without going to Comcast...
But isn't that the first feature everyone turns off?
Waiting for the annual Cyber Force versus Space Force football games to start.
I don't believe California did that in recent history. In the past though it was indeed the policy nationwide to stamp out fires as swiftly as possible, which is not good forest management.
Now there is indeed talk that you could send in loggers to thin out dead trees. The real problem however is the excessive brush and undergrowth, and there's no economic incentive for a logging company to clear that out. Also the dead trees are not high quality wood, so logging companies really want to take out healthy trees when they want to thin a forest.
One issue with controlled burns is that these have gotten out of control in the past. We do need more of this, but not now at this time. Forest management in California is not in a bad shape.
I would have to agree and say that the average resident of Manhattan and San Francisco are vastly more provincial than the country bumpkin.
Because.. uh... suburbs! Ya, suburbs are bad you know. They have clean streets, it's quiet, and you don't see any homeless people anywhere. Who could live like that? Meanwhile in the city there are these great museums near me. Ok, I've never actually gone to the museums, but if I were to go I'd rather they be in my neighborhood than have to take the train in.
In science there are periods when there's a sudden opening of a field to new ideas, where some breakthroughs will change perceptions of what can be discovered. After that point there's a rush to explore what's possible and then followed again by settling down and filling in the finer details. We had that sort of period in in the early 1900s, we started understanding electromagnetic fields, we had general relativity, and at the same time we also had an advance in technology to be able to explore more. You can see a similar pattern in the past; ie, the Rennaissance for example. This is analogous to a gold rush perhaps.
For many sciences, the sheer cost of doing experiments is rising drastically in order to explore more deeply in an area.
Also consider the number of scientists today versus 1920. Or even the number of universities and labs. Today most scientists are inking in the details of the big pictures drawn by a predecessor.
We're talking about Schaft.
It's a good tool, but expensive for home use, and somewhat complex to set up at work.
Good training helps too - as in, just because you can manage all your array operations with a pointer doesn't mean you should; and if you're using buffers you need to put in overflow and underflow checks. Generally it's not hard because so many C programmers have done this over and over that they know how to do it. The snag is from the person who learned how to program by using libraries and has never actually written low level code before.
It's more than just a few milliseconds or nanoseconds unless you're on a PC (the equivalent of last decade's supercomputer). When you're on a system with less then 1MB of memory and an instruction takes 1us, you're usually not going to be using Java or Python.
(though there are exceptions, I know one chip that uses Java applets on top of an 8051 base)
Most programmers today, sadly, have only ever programmed in a PC, and probably only ever in Windows. To them, worrying about being fast or tiny is unimportant, and they don't even understand the concept of portability. Many of them today don't even really program and instead just tie together pre-built components.