We think that you're grossly underestimating the size of the effort. But thank you for diverting a bit of your fortune to our cause. It's a refreshing change from counting on big pharma corporations to divert a bit from their marketing budget....
- The scientists in the life-science field
The one advantage that a not for profit has is that they can look for cures that might not be profitable. It's more profitable to treat a chronic illness than to cure it. A not for profit also has an advantage over a government entity in that it can look for cures instead of spending its money on treating the existing ill. Most of the money currently spent on medicine is either looking for a profit or taking care of already sick people so it's not necessarily a bad thing for some money to be spent on pie in the sky ideas without worrying about treating the chronically ill.
Don't you realize that no one service is ever going to even possibly approach that? Even Amazon will probably never get over a meager fraction. There is way too much out there. You're asking for something that's never going to happen, because it's way too much work and would be ludicrously expensive. (Peoples' cable bills are tiny compared to the bill you're asking for!)
Netflix by mail already does offer this service. The only problem is that because of current laws it's stuck to using snail mail.
I want almost the opposite of what you do. I want extremely-narrow (1 show) "channels," and dozens of them, all accessed via a standard interface (so that my user agent can show a unified list and play whatever I subscribe to or buy)
In some ways this is the same as what I am asking for. Get 100% coverage and charge me if you need to for certain titles but at least make it available. It's stupid that streaming is crippled in a way that redbox and netflix by mail have titles that streaming can't offer.
Considering I already don't care about and don't watch probably 80-90% of the current selection anyways, dropping what I do care about in order to become Netflix Channel is not something I care to support and might actually make cable look like a good option again. Don't do that.
They've publicly stated that "Netflix Channel" is their goal where they are curators of content. I find this disappointing. I really would like some company to try for 100% coverage even if it is a pay per hour type situation. Amazon is the closest so far with some unlimited content and alot of rental content mixed together. Amazon would be almost perfect if it's subscription also included X hours of anything in its library so that I didn't have to be nickled and dimed for all their premium content. They've recently started adding additional channels like Starz which improves their coverage even more but it's still a patchwork of services. I really want VidAngel to win so that you can rent physical dvds without shipping as netflix by mail still has the best coverage but so far noone has successfully won a remote DVR or remote physical disk case.
When I turned my Uverse equipment in, the guy at the UPS store and I had a good laugh about the huge surge of AT&T equipment getting turned in. I was content with my 12Mb/s internet. It wasn't the fastest, but it was fine. Now I have 50Mb/s cable with a $4/month VPN service and things have been running great for a few months now.
Its costing me less, and I'm getting better service. I should actually be thanking AT&T for making me get off my ass and finally switch.
It's pretty bad when cellular service actually offers better service than landline. I know of at least 3 people (including myself) who completely ditched both dsl and cable because I can get faster, cheaper, and more reliable internet using a hotspot in my home.
He's about to leave office. The elections are in less than 4 weeks. They're targeting the wrong president.
They should be targeting Donald Gump or Hilary Pneumonia and trying to convince them to make an election promise.
Except that it's become tradition for presidents to pardon a bunch of people on their last day in office. If your political career is basically over then noone can do much if you pardon all your friends.
But results can't be inferred to be the same as outside, which is why it is the headline that is misleading.
It shows how bacteria can quickly become superbugs in the right environment. Even in a less than ideal environment, it only has to evolve once to jump to the next person and unlike in this experiment, they are generally going to be surrounded by lots of environments(people) with no antibiotics in their system.
Better to give your money to someone else than someone who "dislikes your type of people".
But there is a vocal group of people going out of their way to MAKE people who dislike them take their money even when it's something personal like a wedding. Why would you want someone who hates gays to be your photographer, cake decorator, or officiant? But people are suing for just that. I understand if a core function like a grocery store or restaurant refuses service but I think certain smaller personal activities especially professional creative types should be allowed to choose their clients however they want.
the company is telling its employees what policies to implement, instructing their employees on how to behave, and overall exercising control over its employees. Just like a hotel does.
Except that training staff and setting diversity goals for recruitment is not going to do anything when it is the *hosts* that are discriminating. In most cases, if the host also lives there, it is not even illegal to discriminate. Most places have rules that let you discriminate on gender and other random requirements when dealing with roommates or in some cases even sharing a close dwelling like a duplex.
They prevent crime the same way that a single bullet in a revolver prevents people from wanting to play russian roulette. The odds of getting killed from russian roulette is pretty low on any given round but cumulatively it's not a game anyone wants to play.
Which is exactly what I said. But then again considering the fact we still have crime, it doesn't seem to be working too well now does it?
You are never going to eliminate crime. That's not really even the goal. The goal is to minimize crime. The thing about crime whether it is stuff like speeding, tax invasion, shop lifting, or something serious, the chances of getting caught for a single crime is extremely low but if you continue to break the law then you will eventually get caught. This has two effects. Because people know they have a small chance of getting caught, they are less likely to speed, illegally park, etc... Combine that with the fact that most people who do continue to commit crimes eventually are locked up and you have a fairly stable society where you don't have gangs busting down your door to steal your TV every night.
Sounds like the solution to tmobile's binge on throttling is an always on VPN session on your phone.
But that kindof defeats the purpose. If tmobile can't detect that it's video then yes it's not throttle but it also counts against your data so if you wanted zero rated video then tmobile has to know that it's video.
The fact on the ground is some packets do get priority.
Do you even think it's reasonable to prioritize your torrent packets the same as your neighbors VOIP traffic?
I have no problem with a "fast lane" and a "slow lane". I have a problem with my ISP deciding which of my traffic gets to go into which lane. This control should be given to the consumer. They should let the consumer mark their VOIP as fast and their torrent as slow and if I want to flag all my bittorrent for the fast lane, I should be allowed to do that and they can charge different rates for the different lanes. Free nights/weekends would be another way of encouraging non-realtime traffic to offload to less busy times but just as my utility company doesn't charge me differently based on how I use my electricity and water, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to charge me differently or throttle me based on how I use my connection.
I don't see what's wrong with trottling bit torrent OUTBOUND traffic, so long as INBOUND speed isn't altered. This is the practice in most places already.
My current ISP seems to agree with you. They give me 20M down and 256k up. Unfortunately it's not just for bittorrent but for everything. 256k up is barely enough to handle the backchannel so you really can't actually get 20M down because of it. The main point of having low upload is to prevent people from running servers on "consumer" connections but it also hampers innovation across the board and makes many existing services unusable. In my case, I have to turn off wifi on my iphone when I want to use my internet on my desktop because google photos auto backup saturates my pathetic upload and makes my ping times jump to over 2000 milliseconds. I would love for net neutrality to be extended to not being able to differentiate between upload traffic and download traffic.
They tried that before, and it seems the soil itself ate too much Oxygen to be replenished by the plants inside the dome
That was kindof my point. This is an area where we need more research. We do it on submarines and the space station but they are very small and constantly venting and replenishing. Not just for space research but for sustainability of earth, we need to understand how the earth replinishes its oxygen.
You get a good test of if the resources you planned to take with you
If by resources you mean "food" then this is a problem that has been solved since sailors discovered oranges prevented scurvy. I would be much more interested in a biodome experiment where they actually tried to keep a closed system going. I wouldn't even mind if they "cheated" and vented or used compressed air or other resources to regulate it as long as they tracked exactly how much outside resources were actually used. This would be useful data. How good are we at keeping the environment at the correct levels and how much resources do we need to sustain it. We have a small environment on the space station but I would love to see a 1 acre simulation. To prevent accidental leakage, I would recommend putting it in underwater in shallow water somewhere.
Having too many taxis does, however, hurt the income of the taxi drivers, or at least of the companies that own all the medallions.
This should be a self-correcting problem.
What I don't fully understand is why taxi drivers themselves aren't Ubering in between regular fares.
My guess is that they can't. They have a certain rate that they have to charge which is required by law. That's the whole problem. Uber is based on supply/demand. If the fares get too cheap then drivers drop out. If it gets too expensive then passengers drop out. If they need more drivers, uber can pay the drivers more. If there are too many passengers wanting rides, uber can do surge pricing until passengers start removing themself from the pool. Many taxis have none of these flexibilities and charge a fixed price 24/7. If taxis were allowed to set their own price, they might decide that a 2am cab ride should cost more than a 10am cab ride, or a million other factors. The current laws came about because taxis were making up the price on the fly and cheating customers. There are plenty of ways to make taxis fair without making them charge a fixed price.
Everyone with a hack medallion gets as much money as they would have gotten, had they actually done their job, and then whatever that costs, tax the ride sharing companies that. Then the taxi drivers won't have to work at all, instead of working only profitable areas, despite being called for an unprofitable pickup, which they just ignore anyway.
Then hack medallions can be like dividend paying stock investments, instead of licenses to work in a government granted monopoly market with enforced artificial scarcity.
If the government really wanted to help the taxi drivers, it should offer to buy the medallions back at the price they sold for 5 years ago and then throw them all in the trash. The whole medallion "lottery monopoly" is as stupid as it gets. In certain places this makes sense. For instance having a "lottery monopoly" for crab fishing where too many fishing boats can hurt the crab population makes a certain amount of sense but it's hard to make the same argument that too many taxis hurts the population of taxi riders.
Instead, the tolls are one way: you pay them, if you are a nasty, low income person coming from Emeryville into San Francisco, but not if you are a wonderful, high income person going from San Francisco to Emeryville.
The tolls are one-way because they know that 99.99% of people travel back to where they came from so instead of making people stop twice to pay the toll, it's more convenient for *everyone* to just collect it once.
Want to make fake meat a success? Make it better than real meat. And stop calling it "meat", when it isn't. It needs to be it's own thing, not an imitation of something else.
I agree completely with this but imitating the real thing first is a useful step. Once you know the "formula" for beef and how it differs from pork, it should give you the ability to tweak it to make it better than beef. We've done this quite a bit where we imitated nature until we surpassed it. They even did that in the movie Nemo. First, they recreated a scene as realistically as possible then they backed up and made it less realistic but more fantastical.
When humans stop eating meat and switch to whole-food plant based diets, the rates of all leading causes of death (obesity, cancer, heart disease, and pretty diseases of inflammation) drop
Many of those articles like "Prevalence of obesity is low in people who do not eat meat. " is like saying "people who don't watch tv are less violent". There is a huge selection bias going on. Most people who don't eat meat or eat "whole food based diets" or almost any fad diet, yeah, they might cut out fat, or bread, or some other random bad guy but they also almost all cut out processed sugar. It's the sugar not the meat and fat that is killing us.
More people should eat goat or lamb or chicken or rabbit. All of which ate many times more efficient at meat production than any amount of beef.
I've been eating a lot more pork and chicken lately partly because it is cheaper than beef. I would have no problem buying lamb, goat, or rabbit if I saw it in the store. I occasionally do see lamb but it's always considerably more expensive than even beef. If it's really more efficient, you would think you would see it more often and at a lower price point. I really like the taste of lamb and would gladly buy it if available. I've never had goat or chicken because I've never seen it. I've seen goat milk but it's always more expensive that cow milk and doesn't taste as good. There are plenty of consumers that would eat alternative meats especially if they were priced cheaper that beef and if they are truly more efficient then they should be able to be priced cheater than beef.
On the other hand . . . good old Jacob Bronowski taught us the eating meat was a very important step in the Ascent of Man. Meat is a more concentrated form of protein, and freed up time to work on other stuff, besides food collection in the stone ages.
Meat is great for the hunter/gatherer who has the scrounge for food because you can eat the bird that found and ate the berries without having to find the berries yourself. Per calorie, hunting meat gives you more calories per calorie expended than hunting berries. So yes, it gave us slightly more time but the real time saving was agriculture. Raising crops gave us ton more calories per time expended. Raising almost any type of edible crop is far more efficient that raising or hunting for meat. If you look at modern humans, most modern humans ate primarily grains and supplemented here and there with meat and they have been doing this 20k+ years. You would have to go back further than written history to get to primarily meat eating ancestors. There are obviously exceptions but these exceptions are not in the areas that grew into modern society. Modern society grew out of a stable, stay in one place agricultural society. It was the agricultural society that gave us the extra manpower to advance.
So, you "don't care if it's encrypted", why do you care about the warning?
I don't care about the warning. Most warnings are just an annoyance. There are plenty of sites that use encryption that really don't need to. If I'm connecting to a random untrusted site on the internet then what difference does it make that my connection to them is secure or even being intercepted by a second random untrusted site?
More proof of systemic racism: even though the white recruiters were given an incentive to hire for diversity, their innate racist tendencies overrode that incentive and they continued to hire cisgender white males.
- AmiMojo
Nice try but if you look at the actual numbers, facebook, google, etc.. are hiring a *higher* percentage of minorities than are graduating from college. You can't hire what doesn't exists. You either need to start much earlier in the process (high school, grade school) or you need to admit that people are different and their interests and abilities push them to different paths. You rarely hear anything about the lack of male nurses, male teachers, male social workers, etc... The one traditionally male profession that does attract a large percentage of females (doctors) has flipped to being more female. The truth is that most women don't want to code and the ones that do have no problem getting a job.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Mister Zuckerberg,
We think that you're grossly underestimating the size of the effort.
But thank you for diverting a bit of your fortune to our cause.
It's a refreshing change from counting on big pharma corporations to divert a bit from their marketing budget....
- The scientists in the life-science field
The one advantage that a not for profit has is that they can look for cures that might not be profitable. It's more profitable to treat a chronic illness than to cure it.
A not for profit also has an advantage over a government entity in that it can look for cures instead of spending its money on treating the existing ill.
Most of the money currently spent on medicine is either looking for a profit or taking care of already sick people so it's not necessarily a bad thing for some money to be spent on pie in the sky ideas without worrying about treating the chronically ill.
Don't you realize that no one service is ever going to even possibly approach that? Even Amazon will probably never get over a meager fraction. There is way too much out there. You're asking for something that's never going to happen, because it's way too much work and would be ludicrously expensive. (Peoples' cable bills are tiny compared to the bill you're asking for!)
Netflix by mail already does offer this service. The only problem is that because of current laws it's stuck to using snail mail.
I want almost the opposite of what you do. I want extremely-narrow (1 show) "channels," and dozens of them, all accessed via a standard interface (so that my user agent can show a unified list and play whatever I subscribe to or buy)
In some ways this is the same as what I am asking for. Get 100% coverage and charge me if you need to for certain titles but at least make it available. It's stupid that streaming is crippled in a way that redbox and netflix by mail have titles that streaming can't offer.
Considering I already don't care about and don't watch probably 80-90% of the current selection anyways, dropping what I do care about in order to become Netflix Channel is not something I care to support and might actually make cable look like a good option again. Don't do that.
They've publicly stated that "Netflix Channel" is their goal where they are curators of content. I find this disappointing. I really would like some company to try for 100% coverage even if it is a pay per hour type situation. Amazon is the closest so far with some unlimited content and alot of rental content mixed together. Amazon would be almost perfect if it's subscription also included X hours of anything in its library so that I didn't have to be nickled and dimed for all their premium content. They've recently started adding additional channels like Starz which improves their coverage even more but it's still a patchwork of services. I really want VidAngel to win so that you can rent physical dvds without shipping as netflix by mail still has the best coverage but so far noone has successfully won a remote DVR or remote physical disk case.
When I turned my Uverse equipment in, the guy at the UPS store and I had a good laugh about the huge surge of AT&T equipment getting turned in. I was content with my 12Mb/s internet. It wasn't the fastest, but it was fine. Now I have 50Mb/s cable with a $4/month VPN service and things have been running great for a few months now.
Its costing me less, and I'm getting better service. I should actually be thanking AT&T for making me get off my ass and finally switch.
It's pretty bad when cellular service actually offers better service than landline. I know of at least 3 people (including myself) who completely ditched both dsl and cable because I can get faster, cheaper, and more reliable internet using a hotspot in my home.
He's about to leave office. The elections are in less than 4 weeks.
They're targeting the wrong president.
They should be targeting Donald Gump or Hilary Pneumonia and trying to convince them to make an election promise.
Except that it's become tradition for presidents to pardon a bunch of people on their last day in office. If your political career is basically over then noone can do much if you pardon all your friends.
But results can't be inferred to be the same as outside, which is why it is the headline that is misleading.
It shows how bacteria can quickly become superbugs in the right environment. Even in a less than ideal environment, it only has to evolve once to jump to the next person and unlike in this experiment, they are generally going to be surrounded by lots of environments(people) with no antibiotics in their system.
Better to give your money to someone else than someone who "dislikes your type of people".
But there is a vocal group of people going out of their way to MAKE people who dislike them take their money even when it's something personal like a wedding. Why would you want someone who hates gays to be your photographer, cake decorator, or officiant? But people are suing for just that. I understand if a core function like a grocery store or restaurant refuses service but I think certain smaller personal activities especially professional creative types should be allowed to choose their clients however they want.
the company is telling its employees what policies to implement, instructing their employees on how to behave, and overall exercising control over its employees. Just like a hotel does.
Except that training staff and setting diversity goals for recruitment is not going to do anything when it is the *hosts* that are discriminating. In most cases, if the host also lives there, it is not even illegal to discriminate. Most places have rules that let you discriminate on gender and other random requirements when dealing with roommates or in some cases even sharing a close dwelling like a duplex.
They DON'T prevent crime.
They prevent crime the same way that a single bullet in a revolver prevents people from wanting to play russian roulette. The odds of getting killed from russian roulette is pretty low on any given round but cumulatively it's not a game anyone wants to play.
Which is exactly what I said. But then again considering the fact we still have crime, it doesn't seem to be working too well now does it?
You are never going to eliminate crime. That's not really even the goal. The goal is to minimize crime. The thing about crime whether it is stuff like speeding, tax invasion, shop lifting, or something serious, the chances of getting caught for a single crime is extremely low but if you continue to break the law then you will eventually get caught. This has two effects. Because people know they have a small chance of getting caught, they are less likely to speed, illegally park, etc... Combine that with the fact that most people who do continue to commit crimes eventually are locked up and you have a fairly stable society where you don't have gangs busting down your door to steal your TV every night.
Sounds like the solution to tmobile's binge on throttling is an always on VPN session on your phone.
But that kindof defeats the purpose. If tmobile can't detect that it's video then yes it's not throttle but it also counts against your data so if you wanted zero rated video then tmobile has to know that it's video.
The fact on the ground is some packets do get priority.
Do you even think it's reasonable to prioritize your torrent packets the same as your neighbors VOIP traffic?
I have no problem with a "fast lane" and a "slow lane". I have a problem with my ISP deciding which of my traffic gets to go into which lane. This control should be given to the consumer. They should let the consumer mark their VOIP as fast and their torrent as slow and if I want to flag all my bittorrent for the fast lane, I should be allowed to do that and they can charge different rates for the different lanes. Free nights/weekends would be another way of encouraging non-realtime traffic to offload to less busy times but just as my utility company doesn't charge me differently based on how I use my electricity and water, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to charge me differently or throttle me based on how I use my connection.
I don't see what's wrong with trottling bit torrent OUTBOUND traffic, so long as INBOUND speed isn't altered. This is the practice in most places already.
My current ISP seems to agree with you. They give me 20M down and 256k up. Unfortunately it's not just for bittorrent but for everything. 256k up is barely enough to handle the backchannel so you really can't actually get 20M down because of it. The main point of having low upload is to prevent people from running servers on "consumer" connections but it also hampers innovation across the board and makes many existing services unusable. In my case, I have to turn off wifi on my iphone when I want to use my internet on my desktop because google photos auto backup saturates my pathetic upload and makes my ping times jump to over 2000 milliseconds. I would love for net neutrality to be extended to not being able to differentiate between upload traffic and download traffic.
They tried that before, and it seems the soil itself ate too much Oxygen to be replenished by the plants inside the dome
That was kindof my point. This is an area where we need more research. We do it on submarines and the space station but they are very small and constantly venting and replenishing. Not just for space research but for sustainability of earth, we need to understand how the earth replinishes its oxygen.
You get a good test of if the resources you planned to take with you
If by resources you mean "food" then this is a problem that has been solved since sailors discovered oranges prevented scurvy. I would be much more interested in a biodome experiment where they actually tried to keep a closed system going. I wouldn't even mind if they "cheated" and vented or used compressed air or other resources to regulate it as long as they tracked exactly how much outside resources were actually used. This would be useful data. How good are we at keeping the environment at the correct levels and how much resources do we need to sustain it. We have a small environment on the space station but I would love to see a 1 acre simulation. To prevent accidental leakage, I would recommend putting it in underwater in shallow water somewhere.
Having too many taxis does, however, hurt the income of the taxi drivers, or at least of the companies that own all the medallions.
This should be a self-correcting problem.
What I don't fully understand is why taxi drivers themselves aren't Ubering in between regular fares.
My guess is that they can't. They have a certain rate that they have to charge which is required by law. That's the whole problem. Uber is based on supply/demand. If the fares get too cheap then drivers drop out. If it gets too expensive then passengers drop out. If they need more drivers, uber can pay the drivers more. If there are too many passengers wanting rides, uber can do surge pricing until passengers start removing themself from the pool.
Many taxis have none of these flexibilities and charge a fixed price 24/7. If taxis were allowed to set their own price, they might decide that a 2am cab ride should cost more than a 10am cab ride, or a million other factors. The current laws came about because taxis were making up the price on the fly and cheating customers. There are plenty of ways to make taxis fair without making them charge a fixed price.
I take the bay bridge to avoid that toll, I guess I am a 0.01%er.
Yes and you would likely avoid it if it was a two-way toll as well.
They should really just UBI it for taxis.
Everyone with a hack medallion gets as much money as they would have gotten, had they actually done their job, and then whatever that costs, tax the ride sharing companies that. Then the taxi drivers won't have to work at all, instead of working only profitable areas, despite being called for an unprofitable pickup, which they just ignore anyway.
Then hack medallions can be like dividend paying stock investments, instead of licenses to work in a government granted monopoly market with enforced artificial scarcity.
If the government really wanted to help the taxi drivers, it should offer to buy the medallions back at the price they sold for 5 years ago and then throw them all in the trash. The whole medallion "lottery monopoly" is as stupid as it gets. In certain places this makes sense. For instance having a "lottery monopoly" for crab fishing where too many fishing boats can hurt the crab population makes a certain amount of sense but it's hard to make the same argument that too many taxis hurts the population of taxi riders.
Instead, the tolls are one way: you pay them, if you are a nasty, low income person coming from Emeryville into San Francisco, but not if you are a wonderful, high income person going from San Francisco to Emeryville.
The tolls are one-way because they know that 99.99% of people travel back to where they came from so instead of making people stop twice to pay the toll, it's more convenient for *everyone* to just collect it once.
Want to make fake meat a success? Make it better than real meat. And stop calling it "meat", when it isn't. It needs to be it's own thing, not an imitation of something else.
I agree completely with this but imitating the real thing first is a useful step. Once you know the "formula" for beef and how it differs from pork, it should give you the ability to tweak it to make it better than beef.
We've done this quite a bit where we imitated nature until we surpassed it. They even did that in the movie Nemo. First, they recreated a scene as realistically as possible then they backed up and made it less realistic but more fantastical.
When humans stop eating meat and switch to whole-food plant based diets, the rates of all leading causes of death (obesity, cancer, heart disease, and pretty diseases of inflammation) drop
Many of those articles like "Prevalence of obesity is low in people who do not eat meat. " is like saying "people who don't watch tv are less violent". There is a huge selection bias going on. Most people who don't eat meat or eat "whole food based diets" or almost any fad diet, yeah, they might cut out fat, or bread, or some other random bad guy but they also almost all cut out processed sugar. It's the sugar not the meat and fat that is killing us.
More people should eat goat or lamb or chicken or rabbit. All of which ate many times more efficient at meat production than any amount of beef.
I've been eating a lot more pork and chicken lately partly because it is cheaper than beef. I would have no problem buying lamb, goat, or rabbit if I saw it in the store. I occasionally do see lamb but it's always considerably more expensive than even beef. If it's really more efficient, you would think you would see it more often and at a lower price point. I really like the taste of lamb and would gladly buy it if available. I've never had goat or chicken because I've never seen it. I've seen goat milk but it's always more expensive that cow milk and doesn't taste as good. There are plenty of consumers that would eat alternative meats especially if they were priced cheaper that beef and if they are truly more efficient then they should be able to be priced cheater than beef.
On the other hand . . . good old Jacob Bronowski taught us the eating meat was a very important step in the Ascent of Man. Meat is a more concentrated form of protein, and freed up time to work on other stuff, besides food collection in the stone ages.
Meat is great for the hunter/gatherer who has the scrounge for food because you can eat the bird that found and ate the berries without having to find the berries yourself. Per calorie, hunting meat gives you more calories per calorie expended than hunting berries. So yes, it gave us slightly more time but the real time saving was agriculture. Raising crops gave us ton more calories per time expended. Raising almost any type of edible crop is far more efficient that raising or hunting for meat. If you look at modern humans, most modern humans ate primarily grains and supplemented here and there with meat and they have been doing this 20k+ years. You would have to go back further than written history to get to primarily meat eating ancestors. There are obviously exceptions but these exceptions are not in the areas that grew into modern society. Modern society grew out of a stable, stay in one place agricultural society. It was the agricultural society that gave us the extra manpower to advance.
So, you "don't care if it's encrypted", why do you care about the warning?
I don't care about the warning. Most warnings are just an annoyance. There are plenty of sites that use encryption that really don't need to. If I'm connecting to a random untrusted site on the internet then what difference does it make that my connection to them is secure or even being intercepted by a second random untrusted site?
More proof of systemic racism: even though the white recruiters were given an incentive to hire for diversity, their innate racist tendencies overrode that incentive and they continued to hire cisgender white males.
- AmiMojo
Nice try but if you look at the actual numbers, facebook, google, etc.. are hiring a *higher* percentage of minorities than are graduating from college. You can't hire what doesn't exists. You either need to start much earlier in the process (high school, grade school) or you need to admit that people are different and their interests and abilities push them to different paths. You rarely hear anything about the lack of male nurses, male teachers, male social workers, etc... The one traditionally male profession that does attract a large percentage of females (doctors) has flipped to being more female. The truth is that most women don't want to code and the ones that do have no problem getting a job.