If you don't work 996 when you are young, when can you ever work 996?
This is asking the wrong question. The question is not "when can you ever work 996?", it's "should you ever work 996?" There are plenty of studies that show working overtime is only effective in the short term. The extra hours give extra time to get work done, but they also wear people out. Tired workers are less productive than well rested ones, so the amount of work done on the day someone works overtime is less than expected based on the time they worked. And being tired carries over, so they're less and less productive each day of working overtime. In fairly short order- no more than a few weeks- they're less productive working 996 than they would be working a conventional 40 hour work week, because they're too frazzled to do their best work.
And this isn't something that's limited to people doing physical labor. It holds just as true of people doing mental labor. This is why businesses were willing to accept a 40 hour work week. It wasn't just pressure from the workers; it was also evidence showing that demanding longer work weeks wasn't getting any more work done. It's amazing that so many people have either ignored or refused to learn this.
This is a nice theory, but it doesn't work very well when the problem people are complaining about is a quality issue that doesn't show up until well after purchase.
The problem is where to put the new reservoir. It's not easy. A major reason the watercourses were channelized back in the day was to make it possible to develop the land near them, so putting in dams now would flood a lot of very pricey real estate. And the development goes all the way from the hills to the shore, so you can't just build a dam somewhere downstream.
Seriously, look at a map of the Los Angeles area and try to find where to put a reservoir to store runoff from the city. The only places you can put them that don't require flooding developed areas either already have dams or are way upstream in the mountains so you'd have to pump that storm water uphill to store it. We're actually working on the second one, but it's not a cheap and simple piece of engineering.
It also downplayed the vulnerability, however, saying that to exploit it, an attacker would need control over Swiss PostÃ(TM)s secured IT infrastructure "as well as help from several insiders with specialist knowledge of Swiss Post or the cantons."
Saying that the only people who could steal an election are a small cabal of government insiders is not particularly reassuring.
buy a new $800,000 bus to save $30,000 a year paying a driver?
A few points:
1) Buses have a limited lifespan, so they'll need to be replaced eventually anyway. As long as they're only buying the new buses as part of their regular fleet replacement, you need to look at the difference in cost between an autonomous bus and a conventional bus. Since even a diesel bus can cost over $500,000, paying $800,000 for a driverless bus is much less of a stretch.
2) The amount you're suggesting for driver pay would only cover a single driver working a conventional workweek. Most bus routes run way more than 8 hours a day 5 days a week. You'd need at least 2 full time drivers to cover a route that's 12 hours a day 7 days a week, and more like 3 drivers if it's 18 hours a day.
3) Drivers need more than just their hourly wage. You'll also need to pay for benefits, a manager to oversee them, HR overhead, etc. That's going to add considerably to the cost of hiring them.
Add it all up, and an autonomous bus can pay for itself pretty quickly in reduced driving costs.
And that's also assuming they're intending to maintain existing service levels. As it is, a metro system needs to buy enough buses to serve its peak service levels, but it takes many of those buses out of service during off-peak periods to save on driver costs. If they eliminate the need to pay for more drivers, they can improve their off-peak service levels cheaply, which makes the service more attractive.
The reason Singapore is interested in public transportation is because their roads are too crowded. They've already implemented a bunch of measures to reduce individual driving, like limiting the number of cars sold in the country and
congestion pricing in the busiest areas of the city. They absolutely do not want to encourage more driving, even by autonomous vehicles.
It's not just four distinct nucleotides, you also need a decoder
You need more than just a decoder. You also need a supply of the nucleotides. If you're doing this as a proof of concept experiment in vitro, you can get away with synthesizing them chemically, but if you want it to work in vivo, you need would need a whole set of enzymes to synthesize, metabolize, and transport those nucleotides. That would probably require dozens of new enzymes, which is way beyond the current state of the art.
"Activists" Investors is a loaded term that leads you to think of SJW idiots wanting some kind of SJW actions.
Calling them "activist" is a way for management to dismiss investors who have the old-fashioned belief that owning stock in the company is supposed to give them a say in the way it's run. Plenty of CEOs don't like that; they want to be able to run their companies as their personal fiefdoms regardless of what the shareholders want.
Ahm.. wasn't blitzkrieg something that ultimately did well as a short term tactic but failed as part of a larger strategy?
Not exactly. Blitzkrieg, or the tactics that led to it, were something that worked really well against enemies who didn't have the tactics and equipment to counter it. Once the enemy had the tactics, troops, and equipment to counter blitzkrieg, it became less and less capable of producing the kind of dramatic results it did early in the war. To a considerable extent, this worked to Germany's advantage; they were on the offense when blitzkrieg was effective and on the defense when it had lost its effectiveness. The problem Germany had in WWII wasn't with their tactics but with adopting war aims that were beyond their ability to achieve. It was always a mistake to go to war with the world's largest country and the world's richest country at the same time.
As far as the "enemies who don't have the tactics to counter it" part, I suspect we may already be past that point when it comes to VC trying to win monopolies. Everyone now knows that is the goal, and the competition is going to be trying the same stunt. At some level, the entrenched businesses that they're trying to supplant know it, too, and they're going to do everything in their power to slow the newcomers down. As an example, look at the political pushback existing taxi companies orchestrated against Uber and Lyft.
So the removed features don't bother me much, but I also don't see the advantage for me.
Every port and button is one more place water and dust can get into the guts of the phone, and sealing them adds cost. A phone with no external ports or buttons will be much easier to protect against the environment.
The current average price of whole milk is $15.12 per 100 pounds, which is much lower than the price required for dairy farmers to break even.
If an industry consistently produces more than consumers demand and has prices below break even, the normal market response would be for some of the producers to go out of business. The only reason they don't is because of government subsidies. There's no good reason for the government to constantly exempt farmers from the normal law of supply and demand.
Actually, fingerprint evidence is used in a number of ways. One way is to get a match vs no match on the suspect. Another way is to query a fingerprint database to find a list of possible suspects. The key is that the defendant is allowed to have their expert look at the evidence, so the person trying to frame them can't control and make sure it's only used for match/no match. If the defendant's expert uses it to query the database and finds it's a match to 20% of the fingerprints there, you have instant reasonable doubt.
I wonder how many people have been framed? And how would you ever prove your innocence?
I don't think this would be very helpful for framing anyone; the goal is completely different. The goal when framing somebody is to create a unique match, while this technique creates a fingerprint that matches something like 20% of the database. If you could manage to plant one of these fingerprints, it might well match the person you're trying to frame, but it would match many other people who you aren't trying to frame, too. That would actually create reasonable doubt rather than remove it.
The contention that because the FCC claims they don't have the authority to enforce NN they cannot prevent the states from enacting the same regulation is not logically related.
It is precisely related. The argument in the California case is a federal supremacy claim: that the FCC has the power to enforce network neutrality, and that it's refusal to do so is a positive action that supersedes any state action. But in this case they're claiming they lack the authority to regulate network neutrality. They can't have the authority in one case and not have it in another.
The data breach is also likely to cost money from Google itself. They're legally required to disclose this stuff in a timely manner, and they are almost certainly going to face a big class action suit both for the data breach and for the failure to disclose. That's at least going to cost them some money defending the suit and potentially a lot of money if there's a judgment against them.
So we think because the FANG companies will not give us access to the numbers that they have, we have to apply a broad-based levy.
This is such total bullshit. If they're going for a legislative solution, why not pass a law requiring online streaming companies to open their books and share details of what they're streaming? That would solve what they claim is the real problem (lack of information) without imposing a new tax. But of course that's not what they really want. They want a nice guaranteed revenue stream they can leech off no matter what's actually using that bandwidth.
Not so much. The thing that makes lithium batteries nasty is that they can let out all their stored energy in a great hurry if they're damaged. If they're discharged, there isn't any energy left to release, so they are pretty boring when you damage them.
During the Obama admin CA applied for tougher emissions standards for the car and was granted permission. (Was revoked this year.) The outsize influence of CA means they can't do whatever they want if they want to be a state in the union.
This is arrant nonsense. When the first automobile emissions standards laws were passed, California was explicitly granted the right to set its own, stricter standards as a response to the terrible pollution in the Los Angeles area. Other states have the right to adopt either the national standards or the California standards.
I think you're misreading what they're saying. They're talking about possibilities, not certainties. Electric cars may be the wave of the future, and car companies need to position themselves to be ready to deal with that potential future. If they don't take a gamble on electric cars now, they'll be out of business if/when they do take over.
You can get some of that from their next statement, "and we're going all in". That means that a company can make a big bet or a small bet on electric, and Mercedes is excited enough about electric's future to make a big bet.
That is correct. First of all, bookmakers have gotten incredibly good at setting the line. Almost all the time, the same amount of money comes down on either side. When it doesn't, they lay their bets off on a bigger book.
As I understand it, this isn't true anymore and it's part of the reason bookmakers are upset about smart money. Putting the line somewhere that keeps the sides balanced is the safest way of running a sports book, but it isn't necessarily the most lucrative. The bookmaker can make more if he's smarter than the average better and sets an unbalanced line that leaves him with smart money bets.
According to 538, at least, that's what has been happening. The bookies used to try to balance their bets, but they've been getting better at keeping some of the smart action for themselves. If that's true- and that's what the numbers seem to say- then their bottom line really is helped by keeping sophisticated betters out of the action.
The thing I always wonder about this kind of thing is how well it scales. Your coworkers can tell a code snippet is from you because there are only a relative handful of people contributing to your project. But if you trained a program on just your group and then asked it to find your work on GitHub, it would probably find a whole lot of false positives-- other programmers whose style is similar enough to yours that it's fooled.
This actually shows up in the article. The researchers claim to be 96% accurate when looking at a group of 100 programmers, but only 83% accurate when looking at a group of 600. If they were looking at tens of thousands, they probably woudn't be able to do better than to guess that it was one member from a small group. That can still be useful- being able to reduce the search space is always good- but they're far from being able to pick one person out of millions.
Slashdot Mirror
This is asking the wrong question. The question is not "when can you ever work 996?", it's "should you ever work 996?" There are plenty of studies that show working overtime is only effective in the short term. The extra hours give extra time to get work done, but they also wear people out. Tired workers are less productive than well rested ones, so the amount of work done on the day someone works overtime is less than expected based on the time they worked. And being tired carries over, so they're less and less productive each day of working overtime. In fairly short order- no more than a few weeks- they're less productive working 996 than they would be working a conventional 40 hour work week, because they're too frazzled to do their best work.
And this isn't something that's limited to people doing physical labor. It holds just as true of people doing mental labor. This is why businesses were willing to accept a 40 hour work week. It wasn't just pressure from the workers; it was also evidence showing that demanding longer work weeks wasn't getting any more work done. It's amazing that so many people have either ignored or refused to learn this.
This is a nice theory, but it doesn't work very well when the problem people are complaining about is a quality issue that doesn't show up until well after purchase.
The problem is where to put the new reservoir. It's not easy. A major reason the watercourses were channelized back in the day was to make it possible to develop the land near them, so putting in dams now would flood a lot of very pricey real estate. And the development goes all the way from the hills to the shore, so you can't just build a dam somewhere downstream.
Seriously, look at a map of the Los Angeles area and try to find where to put a reservoir to store runoff from the city. The only places you can put them that don't require flooding developed areas either already have dams or are way upstream in the mountains so you'd have to pump that storm water uphill to store it. We're actually working on the second one, but it's not a cheap and simple piece of engineering.
Saying that the only people who could steal an election are a small cabal of government insiders is not particularly reassuring.
A few points:
1) Buses have a limited lifespan, so they'll need to be replaced eventually anyway. As long as they're only buying the new buses as part of their regular fleet replacement, you need to look at the difference in cost between an autonomous bus and a conventional bus. Since even a diesel bus can cost over $500,000, paying $800,000 for a driverless bus is much less of a stretch.
2) The amount you're suggesting for driver pay would only cover a single driver working a conventional workweek. Most bus routes run way more than 8 hours a day 5 days a week. You'd need at least 2 full time drivers to cover a route that's 12 hours a day 7 days a week, and more like 3 drivers if it's 18 hours a day.
3) Drivers need more than just their hourly wage. You'll also need to pay for benefits, a manager to oversee them, HR overhead, etc. That's going to add considerably to the cost of hiring them.
Add it all up, and an autonomous bus can pay for itself pretty quickly in reduced driving costs.
And that's also assuming they're intending to maintain existing service levels. As it is, a metro system needs to buy enough buses to serve its peak service levels, but it takes many of those buses out of service during off-peak periods to save on driver costs. If they eliminate the need to pay for more drivers, they can improve their off-peak service levels cheaply, which makes the service more attractive.
The reason Singapore is interested in public transportation is because their roads are too crowded. They've already implemented a bunch of measures to reduce individual driving, like limiting the number of cars sold in the country and congestion pricing in the busiest areas of the city. They absolutely do not want to encourage more driving, even by autonomous vehicles.
You need more than just a decoder. You also need a supply of the nucleotides. If you're doing this as a proof of concept experiment in vitro, you can get away with synthesizing them chemically, but if you want it to work in vivo, you need would need a whole set of enzymes to synthesize, metabolize, and transport those nucleotides. That would probably require dozens of new enzymes, which is way beyond the current state of the art.
Calling them "activist" is a way for management to dismiss investors who have the old-fashioned belief that owning stock in the company is supposed to give them a say in the way it's run. Plenty of CEOs don't like that; they want to be able to run their companies as their personal fiefdoms regardless of what the shareholders want.
Not exactly. Blitzkrieg, or the tactics that led to it, were something that worked really well against enemies who didn't have the tactics and equipment to counter it. Once the enemy had the tactics, troops, and equipment to counter blitzkrieg, it became less and less capable of producing the kind of dramatic results it did early in the war. To a considerable extent, this worked to Germany's advantage; they were on the offense when blitzkrieg was effective and on the defense when it had lost its effectiveness. The problem Germany had in WWII wasn't with their tactics but with adopting war aims that were beyond their ability to achieve. It was always a mistake to go to war with the world's largest country and the world's richest country at the same time.
As far as the "enemies who don't have the tactics to counter it" part, I suspect we may already be past that point when it comes to VC trying to win monopolies. Everyone now knows that is the goal, and the competition is going to be trying the same stunt. At some level, the entrenched businesses that they're trying to supplant know it, too, and they're going to do everything in their power to slow the newcomers down. As an example, look at the political pushback existing taxi companies orchestrated against Uber and Lyft.
Every port and button is one more place water and dust can get into the guts of the phone, and sealing them adds cost. A phone with no external ports or buttons will be much easier to protect against the environment.
I'm pretty sure Donald Trump's BFF cares a lot more about borscht than poutine.
If an industry consistently produces more than consumers demand and has prices below break even, the normal market response would be for some of the producers to go out of business. The only reason they don't is because of government subsidies. There's no good reason for the government to constantly exempt farmers from the normal law of supply and demand.
Actually, fingerprint evidence is used in a number of ways. One way is to get a match vs no match on the suspect. Another way is to query a fingerprint database to find a list of possible suspects. The key is that the defendant is allowed to have their expert look at the evidence, so the person trying to frame them can't control and make sure it's only used for match/no match. If the defendant's expert uses it to query the database and finds it's a match to 20% of the fingerprints there, you have instant reasonable doubt.
I don't think this would be very helpful for framing anyone; the goal is completely different. The goal when framing somebody is to create a unique match, while this technique creates a fingerprint that matches something like 20% of the database. If you could manage to plant one of these fingerprints, it might well match the person you're trying to frame, but it would match many other people who you aren't trying to frame, too. That would actually create reasonable doubt rather than remove it.
It is precisely related. The argument in the California case is a federal supremacy claim: that the FCC has the power to enforce network neutrality, and that it's refusal to do so is a positive action that supersedes any state action. But in this case they're claiming they lack the authority to regulate network neutrality. They can't have the authority in one case and not have it in another.
The data breach is also likely to cost money from Google itself. They're legally required to disclose this stuff in a timely manner, and they are almost certainly going to face a big class action suit both for the data breach and for the failure to disclose. That's at least going to cost them some money defending the suit and potentially a lot of money if there's a judgment against them.
This is such total bullshit. If they're going for a legislative solution, why not pass a law requiring online streaming companies to open their books and share details of what they're streaming? That would solve what they claim is the real problem (lack of information) without imposing a new tax. But of course that's not what they really want. They want a nice guaranteed revenue stream they can leech off no matter what's actually using that bandwidth.
Not so much. The thing that makes lithium batteries nasty is that they can let out all their stored energy in a great hurry if they're damaged. If they're discharged, there isn't any energy left to release, so they are pretty boring when you damage them.
I would think they'd make damage control very difficult though.
This is arrant nonsense. When the first automobile emissions standards laws were passed, California was explicitly granted the right to set its own, stricter standards as a response to the terrible pollution in the Los Angeles area. Other states have the right to adopt either the national standards or the California standards.
Even if we could cut new plastic pollution to zero, we still need to clean up the mess we've already made.
I think you're misreading what they're saying. They're talking about possibilities, not certainties. Electric cars may be the wave of the future, and car companies need to position themselves to be ready to deal with that potential future. If they don't take a gamble on electric cars now, they'll be out of business if/when they do take over.
You can get some of that from their next statement, "and we're going all in". That means that a company can make a big bet or a small bet on electric, and Mercedes is excited enough about electric's future to make a big bet.
As I understand it, this isn't true anymore and it's part of the reason bookmakers are upset about smart money. Putting the line somewhere that keeps the sides balanced is the safest way of running a sports book, but it isn't necessarily the most lucrative. The bookmaker can make more if he's smarter than the average better and sets an unbalanced line that leaves him with smart money bets.
According to 538, at least, that's what has been happening. The bookies used to try to balance their bets, but they've been getting better at keeping some of the smart action for themselves. If that's true- and that's what the numbers seem to say- then their bottom line really is helped by keeping sophisticated betters out of the action.
The thing I always wonder about this kind of thing is how well it scales. Your coworkers can tell a code snippet is from you because there are only a relative handful of people contributing to your project. But if you trained a program on just your group and then asked it to find your work on GitHub, it would probably find a whole lot of false positives-- other programmers whose style is similar enough to yours that it's fooled.
This actually shows up in the article. The researchers claim to be 96% accurate when looking at a group of 100 programmers, but only 83% accurate when looking at a group of 600. If they were looking at tens of thousands, they probably woudn't be able to do better than to guess that it was one member from a small group. That can still be useful- being able to reduce the search space is always good- but they're far from being able to pick one person out of millions.
Seals man have even richer milk than reindeer, but I've never heard of anyone keeping them as dairy animals.