This isn't expensive. You don't have to be rich. You just have to have the right mindset.
The illusion that you'd be in control of the situation? If there was say a huge earthquake or meteor strike here I'll probably be buried in the rubble and die or survive long enough for help to arrive. Most casual prepping is a bit like the airplane safety instructions, sure it's nice to know where the nearest emergency exit is but it won't really matter if we go crashing into a mountain side.
If the answer to any of these is "no", the term for you is "future victim". Remember the hurricane Katrina and the sad sacks sitting on their roofs with signs saying "Need water"? Why weren't they prepared?
Did any of those sad sacks die of thirst? There was ~1.3 million people in the New Orleans metropolitan area before the evacuation and 99.9% survived...
When an emergency hits you won't have time to assemble a bug out kit. (...) And by the way, in case of a disaster, don't expect people to share.
Bullshit. In most emergencies we see people helping each other out because we think it's only a matter of time before help comes rolling in. The only ones who think we swap from that to post-apocalyptic rules in a day are the preppers. Sure if it's WW3 or another dino-killer then maybe but after something like Katrina you're basically just waiting for the National Guard to show up. And if it's that big it's not going to be over in a few days either, like WW2 lasted 6 years. Would you bug out 1939-1945?
I mean with all the world's big and small disasters you should be seeing some prepper success stories, right? But it's always some kind of strange fear they have of the future, there's very few examples of successful bug outs. I mean where they went when shit happens, survived whatever calamity happened and like good call. It's more peace of mind than an actual solution...
So if I say "you're cluelessly explaining", versus "you're cluelessly explaining in a MAN way", does the second add any information besides the implication that men are bad? If "mansplaining" is a pejorative term, this situation becomes simple: in the US, if someone is a bigot in public and gets caught, their company typically fires them.
I don't think you've quite gotten the definition of "mansplaining", it's men making simple, condescending explanations to women on the assumption that women are either ignorant or less intelligent. Basically she's accusing him of being a bigot and that he'd not talk like that to her if she was a man. However the world is full of armchair quarterbacks who offer advice or opinions on things they know very little about, often dismissing or belittling experts with many years of experience. Like for example every time dust on the Mars rovers' solar panels comes up somebody goes "Duh, should have put windshield wipers on them." like they got the answer. And if you go into a parenting forum as a male you'll see plenty "womansplaining" too.
Now sexism, racism, ageism, discrimination of sexual or gender identity and various other forms of bigotry are real but you need to have some sort of smoking gun or pattern of behavior to go on. If you're just jumping to the conclusion that everything negative anyone says is because of your sex, skin color and so on throwing out accusations in every direction you're a SJW nutter. And for the longest time you couldn't touch them because that'd only invoke an even bigger accusation of bigotry. I'm sure this woman is now going around saying she got fired for being a woman and standing up for women's rights and the male leader and the male gaming community aka the patriarchy got her fired.
I'm not saying Facebook is necessarily wrong, but it is concerning that the public debate has pretty much moved from the public town square to the private mall floor where mall cops are effectively the gatekeepers and anyone can be restricted or evicted on a whim because it's private property. Particularly since government and commercial interests are threatening the mall owners if they let behavior they don't like go unchecked like piracy, hate speech, harassment and so on.
Despite being a "site" Facebook is primarily a communication medium, like if anyone said they'd want the post office to read your mail, the phone company to listen to your phone calls or the ISP to read your email we'd probably consider that a violation of privacy. But Facebook, somehow it's okay how they're the man in the middle in every debate and conversation. Which means that someone quotes the declaration of independence and boom, in come the censors saying you can't do that.
Yes, it does shield users from a lot of the nasty and toxic people out there. But it can also be used as a means to whitewash the debate to only include "acceptable" viewpoints or to promote/bury posts based on an agenda. Take for example the problem with fake news, of course a lot of articles are bogus but once you try policing it you have to set yourself up as the arbitrator of truth. Advocacy is fine, there's no shame in picking a side and arguing for it but not pretending to be neutral ground while tilting the table.
Oh please... slashdot hasn't made any effort to even try being user friendly. For example in Norwegian we have: æÃÃ¥
Didn't parse correctly? Here it is with HTML entities: æ = æ ø = ø å = å
What about a simple thing as micrometers: µ = nope
A simple formula with like delta, epsilon or sigma? δ = nope ε = nope σ = nope
Nobody has made the least bit of effort to whitelist basic scientific characters. Or tried to make characters that actually are whitelisted work through normal input. I have worked with Unicode, if you want an "open" interpretation it's pretty hard. If you just want a "closed" interpretation of basic character sets (what 99.99% need) it's pretty damn easy.
I get whiplash trying to keep up with their constant quest to find a profitable business model, and somehow it still hasn't occurred to them that "bring in more money than you spend" is the only viable solution.
The cinemas already got that market cornered. I mean imagine someone said they'd create a TaxiPass, people pay us for a subscription to taxis and we pay the actual taxi bills. But because people are stupid they'll spend more money our way, so we can skim a profit and still pay for the taxis. And then it turns out people who only take a taxi ride once or twice a month pay for it directly, while those who take dozens of rides get a pass and you lose a ton of money. And nobody is surprised, except for some reason those who invested in MoviePass. If they'd put that business model in front of me I'd run screaming the other way.
6) Keeping track of them, the normal way to safely cave and wreck dive is to follow a guide line that you've tied and run through the system, this means the kids have to pull themselves along it for an hour. That's fine in itself but what if they lose it?
I don't know if it's asking for more trouble but couldn't you use something like a carabiner to actually attach them to the line? They'd probably have to unhook/rehook at each turn but it'd be a lot shorter than a buddy line. Mentally that could be a big help as well, doesn't matter if they lose the grip or can't see they're not lost. It'd be slower but I'm assuming there's enough dry pockets they can set up rest/refill stations.
It's some boys in a cave in a country with a GDP of $400 billion that have hit top international headlines, I'm pretty sure Thailand won't let cost be an issue. The rest sounds like the plot for Armageddon, you're the one person who can save us through your drilling skills. Oh please... this is just Musk getting high on his own savior-complex, there's nothing they need him for.
They can do that already... itâ(TM)s called public transportation. I take the train to work, so I am free to read, watch movies, listen to podcasts, or nap during my commute.
Well obviously, with all the limitations of being on a fixed route on a schedule in a shared vehicle and if you need a car for other reasons it's mostly a sunk cost. It's not feasible for most car drivers to switch to public transport to get that, but if they could get it in their own car they'd be more willing to spend time there. I know I would, leisure time is precious and if I could move my "TV" time to my commute that'd be great. If I could get that in my own car, with a big screen and real speakers instead of earbuds/headphones that'd be excellent. Luckily I don't get carsick...
Maybe you got lucky, but paying you very well is not the Scandinavian model. They pay everyone moderately well, try to make it a nice place to work and give you a good work-life balance and hope you don't throw it all away chasing a few more dollars. If you really want to maximize your salary you probably need to do some job hopping here too but it doesn't have nearly the same benefit, like the CEO is often paid 2-5x that of a regular employee and everyone else is somewhere in between.
I think after Lost writers realized they can succeed by making things confusing, instead of having an actual plot. Keep it confusing enough and then come up with a Deus ex machina at the end. As a bonus, you can keep it going as long as people keep paying. I'm looking at Mr Robot and the new Star Wars here specifically. As a counterpoint, the Marvel stuff is turning out to be coherent beyond expectations, even though they don' t need to.
I'll admit I haven't seen all the old Doctor Who, but I've seen all the new ones. The series basically got three choices:
1) Ignore the implications of time travel and every episode is some random time/place disconnected from the rest of the universe. This is possible, but kinda boring because there's very little story arc and character development. It worked before the age of VHS/Netflix because you had to wait a week and forgot most the show, as a binge watching experience it's terrible. 2) Take time travel "seriously" and try to make up meaningful rules of why you just can't go back to any time and change anything an unlimited number of times, which would be the ultimate deus ex machina. It will be terrible, arbitrary and stupid with lots of quasi-mumble and building up a terrible burden of canon that would eventually lead to painting yourself in a corner. 3) Just don't give a fuck and make it up as you go along, I mean half the point of Doctor Who is trying to be an enigma. What's he really, a man travelling the world to fix small injustices here and there? A destroyer of worlds, a killer without a gun? With all the other time lords gone, is he some sort of demi-god, the lone master of space and time? Is he the good guy against the villain the Master?
The problem is that you have to struggle really hard to give meaningful drips of information/insight for season after season while still keeping him an enigma. We kinda got him figured out now and that's really what's killing the show. I mean I don't know this episode's story, but I kinda feel I know what the Doctor's part will be. So they have to throw in some other plot twist to make it interesting which is rather hard in the long run.
If it's cheap for your city to do, it's probably cheap for some other city to do too. Then they will do a little more. Then you will have to do a bit more than that again. It's like an auction, you don't win until all the other bidders quit. Whatever incentives you offer they'll just recalculate it in $$$ and pick the highest bidder.
But, it does have a nifty "Busy" and "Do Not Disturb" setting. My boss was like "why are you always in those modes". To which I reply, "Oh, I can multi-task, but don't fret over any mistakes I might introduce"
You're at work, the normal state is that you're working not goofing off. Those settings are useful to say "Busy = This better be important" or "DND = This better be an emergency" but if you're constantly using them they mean nothing. If anything it makes you look like you're crying wolf or consider yourself too important to talk to mere mortals. If people bother you with stupid shit when you're available then take up what role you have and who should be contacting you and why. And if they don't have a reasonable sense of urgency just point them to your mailbox or service desk system and say if they want you to drop what you're working on now then talk to the boss. Maybe you should have some sort of team leader or scrum master or other form of gateway before it reaches you. Because you make it sound like you can either sit idle at your desk and answer the phone or sit in total isolation and code and those are the only two options.
Why would marketing even have access to the whole movie?
A trailer is pretty much a giant ad. Why wouldn't marketing be involved in the creation of it? They're probably also making posters and billboards and paper ads and merchandise design and whatever, lots of reasons they could have access to the whole movie. It makes everything easier until someone screws up...
And now its name is mud, the CD an object of widespread scorn. How did it come to this? Why did this brilliant thing fall so far out of fashion?
Because for most people it became a really annoying way to get music on their MP3 player/iPod? Where you could have your playlists, not just in-order or shuffle. It was too much effort to change CDs to hear just the hits, so you listened through a lot of filler. Maybe a few albums were solid start to finish, but they were the exception.
Now then, ask yourself: is Google competent? Probably. Trustworthy? Hell no...
As a company? They don't want to be sued for breach of contract, they got deep pockets and could end up on the hook for a lot of money. Also losing/misplacing data and/or conducting industrial espionage would be a PR nightmare, just make sure the redundancy and confidentiality clauses are in the SLA and I'm pretty sure you'll get it. That is, as long as what you're paying for is a hosting service and not a free service you pay through letting them rifle through your data like GMail. As for Google's employees, well you'll probably be hiring out of the same pool of untrustworthy and incompetent people. You can of course assume you'll do so much better, but often it's in a bigger and more professional environment you spot the frauds because you have other qualified people to check their work.
That's the problem, though. Using only the information you've given here (so not relating to your co-worker himself), let's consider the scenario objectively. If he's saying something that is concerning enough to take children away, why would it be better if he could say those things anonymously or pseudonymously? Having an attached real identity doesn't change the factual basis of what he said, or the fact that he said it, or that whatever he said is concerning enough to make the court question the well-being of children in his custody.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand
"Don't talk to the police" -- James Duane & many others
Basically, anything you say can and will be used against you but not for you. The more you say, the more ammunition you give someone to play devil's advocate and take things out of context or discussing hypothetical possibilities and so on.
It also doesn't mean that what you're doing is wrong and the reaction you get is fair or whether you're with the majority or minority. Take for example James Reeb, he was a white man that got beaten to death for supporting MLK. I'm not saying he'd want to be pseudonymous or anonymous, but he'd sure run a lot less risk that way. You never know what kind of fanatic/lunatic will latch on to you and decide to make your life miserable.
Didn't you get the memo? Puritanism is in again, and the sexual revolution all but forgotten. Even schools are now teaching that 'porn is bad', which makes one wonder who is behind this new trend back to Dark-Ages values.
I don't think teens got the memo, every indication I've seen is that teens have better access to porn, watch more porn and try to act more like in porn. And porn is bad if you think porn is an accurate representation of reality and not a staged and edited fantasy. It's full of pretty faces with silicone tits, botox lips, waxed slits, bleached assholes and men with really large dicks. Nobody in porn has erection problems or premature ejaculation or trouble coming or use any lube or let out a fart and everyone is super horny and ready for sex in any hole or all holes and group sex and girls like having their face sprayed with cum and have multi-orgasms if you touch their elbows. And nobody is ever rejected or refused or asked to stop.
A lot of young, insecure people get performance anxiety from porn. And they do things or accept things because porn makes them think it's okay or how sex should be. Of course there are a few that still want to back to abstinence and figuring it out on the wedding night under the covers with the lights off but I'm pretty sure they've lost and are still losing ground. The rest are mostly worried that porn is giving people a false pictures and wants more love and feelings, less sex olympics. Not that it's just porn, all of society has gotten pretty sex fixated. And having sex is constantly becoming more casual through apps like Tinder and such and of course if you disconnect sex from having feelings for the person you're having sex with then it's all about the performance. 7/10 would fuck again.
A large low risk institutional investor like a retirement fund will average something like 3%/year. So every move would eat up 4 month's profit, that's extremely high and would slow liquidity to a crawl. If you wanted to kill HFT and reset the clock back to day traders then 0.01% would be enough, you could change horse every couple days but not buy and sell hundreds of times in a day like they do now.
I think you're trying to turn a simple truth into a complex conspiracy theory: The profit is in users that make no fuss. Every time somebody clicks "report video" on YouTube it costs Google money. Every harassment report on Xbox costs Microsoft money. Dealing with borderline content or behavior isn't about giving you a fair trial, it's about minimizing expenses. What that means in practice is lots of automation, lowest-bid contracting, broad rules and zero tolerance policies. Did you break the rules? Yes. Is that legal grounds to kick you off the service? Yes. Then bye-bye. Reactions don't have to be "reasonable", take this example from the GPLv2:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
It doesn't matter if you did it accidentally, one mistake and it's instant death penalty. That's got nothing to do with bad faith, as long as Google/Microsoft isn't misleading you about what the terms are and wants you to use the service by their terms they're acting in good faith. If anything, the claim would probably have to be that the terms are unconscionable but that's a really high bar to pass and particularly for a free service.
Pretty much, yeah. You'd think this story was from 1990 when good password management hadn't been drilled into the skulls of even the dimmest of dimwits yet.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
Lots of unrealistic projects with terrible specifications meets barely literate lowest-bid outsourcing, what could possibly go right? I just looked through a few projects, it's not worth my time even trying to find a reasonable project proposal. And if there was one, would they find me in the pile of junk responses they get? No. And if you get ripped off one way or the other, you'll be stuck in a dispute resolution process on your own dime. Basically if you find someone qualified it's a huge advantage to just use them again. That's not a gig economy, that's a market for temp workers. The initial work should basically just be risk money to test them out before you offer a real contract. And in most cases I'd switch from a fixed price to hourly rate for any decent developer, unless the scope is very specific.
Birth rates shrink everywhere, also in so called Third World countries. The only places that see high birthrates right now are country with very long civil wars going on, like Afghanistan or Congo, both which have civil wars which date back to the 1970ies.
Not only those places, birth rates are also very much a cultural thing and countries like Nigeria still have a birth rate of 5.5 kids/woman even though the GDP/capita has been growing quite a bit because that must become the new normal. I also think you forgot a 3) Women have their own education, career and life rather than be child-bearing/raising housewives married away at 15. Obviously if you dedicate 50% of your economic/leisure potential to raising kids you can have your own soccer team. While in the western world most consider popping out a couple when they're 30. The funny part is that certain people go crazy over immigrants with like crazy high birth numbers while at the same same time wailing that the natives aren't producing enough children. Like, they want more children but not those children. Otherwise we could trivially fix this by simply giving more benefits to those who'll take on the "job" of having kids until supply meets demand.
What they show is that the mortality rate is bounded, and thus, there is always a small chance of survival. There is never 100% chance of dying during in year.
They built a model based on extrapolating to infinity from a very tiny plateau in a very tiny data set which I showed was totally wrong using data from a different country and that doesn't pass the sniff test.
As a biologist, I find nothing medically ridiculous until proven otherwise. Aging is something that is not well understood excepted on/.
Ah, the people who failed math, statistics and logic in general. Let me try to dumb it down, if a 106yo would have the same mortality rate as a 105yo then all other things being equal it would mean that no part of the body is worse off than last year. A 106yo heart is as good as a 105yo heart, 106yo lungs are as good as 105yo lungs, 106yo kidneys as good as 105yo kidneys, 106yo bones as strong as 105yo bones. It would basically mean that there's no wear and tear, no weakening of the immune system, no accumulation of faulty cells, waste products or toxins - basically no bodily decay at all. It goes against everything we know about aging in <105yos, aging in other species or even basic product reliability - more and more parts wear out and risk breaking.
If you look at a conclusion that's medically ridiculous then rather than looking for a magic island of coin flips you should probably sanity check against other data. Here in Norway I looked it up and we have 66 people age 105 or older. Our currently oldest person is 108 years, 273 days at last update. If we were doing coin flips you'd expect 33 age 106, 16 age 107, 8 age 108, 4 age 109, 2 age 110, 1 age 111. The reality is we have 4 age 108, all the rest died at 105, 106 or 107 or in other words quite consistent with an exponential increase. Of course the odd exception does happen, last year our second oldest person ever died at 112 but she was probably one in a million.
The main reason I doubt people even with official papers is that as late as the 90s a classmate of mine was issued an incorrect passport, it was still being typed by hand and listed him as two years older than he actually was. Guess who got to buy beer and booze early? Now that wasn't the master data so the extra years "disappeared" at the next renewal but just because something is written and stamped as an official record doesn't make it correct. And being able to retire a few years early and claim senior citizen discounts on everything is a pretty big benefit, there's little doubt in my mind that this happens in systems that allow it. And things were a little different 100+ years ago...
Ubuntu 18.04 has those same issues. you know Mint doesn't make those video drivers or VLC, right? of course they are dependent on upstream for any solutions to those problems. of course they won't say they'll fix it, how could they?
Why would the average user know any of that? If it comes as part of Linux Mint then it could be a packaging bug. It could be an outdated version. Even if it's a valid upstream bug the user shouldn't have to know where all the thousands of packages come from and what their bug reporting process is.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't expensive. You don't have to be rich. You just have to have the right mindset.
The illusion that you'd be in control of the situation? If there was say a huge earthquake or meteor strike here I'll probably be buried in the rubble and die or survive long enough for help to arrive. Most casual prepping is a bit like the airplane safety instructions, sure it's nice to know where the nearest emergency exit is but it won't really matter if we go crashing into a mountain side.
If the answer to any of these is "no", the term for you is "future victim". Remember the hurricane Katrina and the sad sacks sitting on their roofs with signs saying "Need water"? Why weren't they prepared?
Did any of those sad sacks die of thirst? There was ~1.3 million people in the New Orleans metropolitan area before the evacuation and 99.9% survived...
When an emergency hits you won't have time to assemble a bug out kit. (...) And by the way, in case of a disaster, don't expect people to share.
Bullshit. In most emergencies we see people helping each other out because we think it's only a matter of time before help comes rolling in. The only ones who think we swap from that to post-apocalyptic rules in a day are the preppers. Sure if it's WW3 or another dino-killer then maybe but after something like Katrina you're basically just waiting for the National Guard to show up. And if it's that big it's not going to be over in a few days either, like WW2 lasted 6 years. Would you bug out 1939-1945?
I mean with all the world's big and small disasters you should be seeing some prepper success stories, right? But it's always some kind of strange fear they have of the future, there's very few examples of successful bug outs. I mean where they went when shit happens, survived whatever calamity happened and like good call. It's more peace of mind than an actual solution...
So if I say "you're cluelessly explaining", versus "you're cluelessly explaining in a MAN way", does the second add any information besides the implication that men are bad? If "mansplaining" is a pejorative term, this situation becomes simple: in the US, if someone is a bigot in public and gets caught, their company typically fires them.
I don't think you've quite gotten the definition of "mansplaining", it's men making simple, condescending explanations to women on the assumption that women are either ignorant or less intelligent. Basically she's accusing him of being a bigot and that he'd not talk like that to her if she was a man. However the world is full of armchair quarterbacks who offer advice or opinions on things they know very little about, often dismissing or belittling experts with many years of experience. Like for example every time dust on the Mars rovers' solar panels comes up somebody goes "Duh, should have put windshield wipers on them." like they got the answer. And if you go into a parenting forum as a male you'll see plenty "womansplaining" too.
Now sexism, racism, ageism, discrimination of sexual or gender identity and various other forms of bigotry are real but you need to have some sort of smoking gun or pattern of behavior to go on. If you're just jumping to the conclusion that everything negative anyone says is because of your sex, skin color and so on throwing out accusations in every direction you're a SJW nutter. And for the longest time you couldn't touch them because that'd only invoke an even bigger accusation of bigotry. I'm sure this woman is now going around saying she got fired for being a woman and standing up for women's rights and the male leader and the male gaming community aka the patriarchy got her fired.
I'm not saying Facebook is necessarily wrong, but it is concerning that the public debate has pretty much moved from the public town square to the private mall floor where mall cops are effectively the gatekeepers and anyone can be restricted or evicted on a whim because it's private property. Particularly since government and commercial interests are threatening the mall owners if they let behavior they don't like go unchecked like piracy, hate speech, harassment and so on.
Despite being a "site" Facebook is primarily a communication medium, like if anyone said they'd want the post office to read your mail, the phone company to listen to your phone calls or the ISP to read your email we'd probably consider that a violation of privacy. But Facebook, somehow it's okay how they're the man in the middle in every debate and conversation. Which means that someone quotes the declaration of independence and boom, in come the censors saying you can't do that.
Yes, it does shield users from a lot of the nasty and toxic people out there. But it can also be used as a means to whitewash the debate to only include "acceptable" viewpoints or to promote/bury posts based on an agenda. Take for example the problem with fake news, of course a lot of articles are bogus but once you try policing it you have to set yourself up as the arbitrator of truth. Advocacy is fine, there's no shame in picking a side and arguing for it but not pretending to be neutral ground while tilting the table.
Oh please... slashdot hasn't made any effort to even try being user friendly. For example in Norwegian we have: æÃÃ¥
Didn't parse correctly? Here it is with HTML entities:
æ = æ
ø = ø
å = å
What about a simple thing as micrometers:
µ = nope
A simple formula with like delta, epsilon or sigma?
δ = nope
ε = nope
σ = nope
Nobody has made the least bit of effort to whitelist basic scientific characters. Or tried to make characters that actually are whitelisted work through normal input. I have worked with Unicode, if you want an "open" interpretation it's pretty hard. If you just want a "closed" interpretation of basic character sets (what 99.99% need) it's pretty damn easy.
I get whiplash trying to keep up with their constant quest to find a profitable business model, and somehow it still hasn't occurred to them that "bring in more money than you spend" is the only viable solution.
The cinemas already got that market cornered. I mean imagine someone said they'd create a TaxiPass, people pay us for a subscription to taxis and we pay the actual taxi bills. But because people are stupid they'll spend more money our way, so we can skim a profit and still pay for the taxis. And then it turns out people who only take a taxi ride once or twice a month pay for it directly, while those who take dozens of rides get a pass and you lose a ton of money. And nobody is surprised, except for some reason those who invested in MoviePass. If they'd put that business model in front of me I'd run screaming the other way.
6) Keeping track of them, the normal way to safely cave and wreck dive is to follow a guide line that you've tied and run through the system, this means the kids have to pull themselves along it for an hour. That's fine in itself but what if they lose it?
I don't know if it's asking for more trouble but couldn't you use something like a carabiner to actually attach them to the line? They'd probably have to unhook/rehook at each turn but it'd be a lot shorter than a buddy line. Mentally that could be a big help as well, doesn't matter if they lose the grip or can't see they're not lost. It'd be slower but I'm assuming there's enough dry pockets they can set up rest/refill stations.
It's some boys in a cave in a country with a GDP of $400 billion that have hit top international headlines, I'm pretty sure Thailand won't let cost be an issue. The rest sounds like the plot for Armageddon, you're the one person who can save us through your drilling skills. Oh please... this is just Musk getting high on his own savior-complex, there's nothing they need him for.
They can do that already... itâ(TM)s called public transportation. I take the train to work, so I am free to read, watch movies, listen to podcasts, or nap during my commute.
Well obviously, with all the limitations of being on a fixed route on a schedule in a shared vehicle and if you need a car for other reasons it's mostly a sunk cost. It's not feasible for most car drivers to switch to public transport to get that, but if they could get it in their own car they'd be more willing to spend time there. I know I would, leisure time is precious and if I could move my "TV" time to my commute that'd be great. If I could get that in my own car, with a big screen and real speakers instead of earbuds/headphones that'd be excellent. Luckily I don't get carsick...
Maybe you got lucky, but paying you very well is not the Scandinavian model. They pay everyone moderately well, try to make it a nice place to work and give you a good work-life balance and hope you don't throw it all away chasing a few more dollars. If you really want to maximize your salary you probably need to do some job hopping here too but it doesn't have nearly the same benefit, like the CEO is often paid 2-5x that of a regular employee and everyone else is somewhere in between.
I think after Lost writers realized they can succeed by making things confusing, instead of having an actual plot. Keep it confusing enough and then come up with a Deus ex machina at the end. As a bonus, you can keep it going as long as people keep paying. I'm looking at Mr Robot and the new Star Wars here specifically. As a counterpoint, the Marvel stuff is turning out to be coherent beyond expectations, even though they don' t need to.
I'll admit I haven't seen all the old Doctor Who, but I've seen all the new ones. The series basically got three choices:
1) Ignore the implications of time travel and every episode is some random time/place disconnected from the rest of the universe. This is possible, but kinda boring because there's very little story arc and character development. It worked before the age of VHS/Netflix because you had to wait a week and forgot most the show, as a binge watching experience it's terrible.
2) Take time travel "seriously" and try to make up meaningful rules of why you just can't go back to any time and change anything an unlimited number of times, which would be the ultimate deus ex machina. It will be terrible, arbitrary and stupid with lots of quasi-mumble and building up a terrible burden of canon that would eventually lead to painting yourself in a corner.
3) Just don't give a fuck and make it up as you go along, I mean half the point of Doctor Who is trying to be an enigma. What's he really, a man travelling the world to fix small injustices here and there? A destroyer of worlds, a killer without a gun? With all the other time lords gone, is he some sort of demi-god, the lone master of space and time? Is he the good guy against the villain the Master?
The problem is that you have to struggle really hard to give meaningful drips of information/insight for season after season while still keeping him an enigma. We kinda got him figured out now and that's really what's killing the show. I mean I don't know this episode's story, but I kinda feel I know what the Doctor's part will be. So they have to throw in some other plot twist to make it interesting which is rather hard in the long run.
If it's cheap for your city to do, it's probably cheap for some other city to do too. Then they will do a little more. Then you will have to do a bit more than that again. It's like an auction, you don't win until all the other bidders quit. Whatever incentives you offer they'll just recalculate it in $$$ and pick the highest bidder.
But, it does have a nifty "Busy" and "Do Not Disturb" setting. My boss was like "why are you always in those modes". To which I reply, "Oh, I can multi-task, but don't fret over any mistakes I might introduce"
You're at work, the normal state is that you're working not goofing off. Those settings are useful to say "Busy = This better be important" or "DND = This better be an emergency" but if you're constantly using them they mean nothing. If anything it makes you look like you're crying wolf or consider yourself too important to talk to mere mortals. If people bother you with stupid shit when you're available then take up what role you have and who should be contacting you and why. And if they don't have a reasonable sense of urgency just point them to your mailbox or service desk system and say if they want you to drop what you're working on now then talk to the boss. Maybe you should have some sort of team leader or scrum master or other form of gateway before it reaches you. Because you make it sound like you can either sit idle at your desk and answer the phone or sit in total isolation and code and those are the only two options.
Why would marketing even have access to the whole movie?
A trailer is pretty much a giant ad. Why wouldn't marketing be involved in the creation of it? They're probably also making posters and billboards and paper ads and merchandise design and whatever, lots of reasons they could have access to the whole movie. It makes everything easier until someone screws up...
And now its name is mud, the CD an object of widespread scorn. How did it come to this? Why did this brilliant thing fall so far out of fashion?
Because for most people it became a really annoying way to get music on their MP3 player/iPod? Where you could have your playlists, not just in-order or shuffle. It was too much effort to change CDs to hear just the hits, so you listened through a lot of filler. Maybe a few albums were solid start to finish, but they were the exception.
Now then, ask yourself: is Google competent? Probably. Trustworthy? Hell no...
As a company? They don't want to be sued for breach of contract, they got deep pockets and could end up on the hook for a lot of money. Also losing/misplacing data and/or conducting industrial espionage would be a PR nightmare, just make sure the redundancy and confidentiality clauses are in the SLA and I'm pretty sure you'll get it. That is, as long as what you're paying for is a hosting service and not a free service you pay through letting them rifle through your data like GMail. As for Google's employees, well you'll probably be hiring out of the same pool of untrustworthy and incompetent people. You can of course assume you'll do so much better, but often it's in a bigger and more professional environment you spot the frauds because you have other qualified people to check their work.
That's the problem, though. Using only the information you've given here (so not relating to your co-worker himself), let's consider the scenario objectively. If he's saying something that is concerning enough to take children away, why would it be better if he could say those things anonymously or pseudonymously? Having an attached real identity doesn't change the factual basis of what he said, or the fact that he said it, or that whatever he said is concerning enough to make the court question the well-being of children in his custody.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand
"Don't talk to the police" -- James Duane & many others
Basically, anything you say can and will be used against you but not for you. The more you say, the more ammunition you give someone to play devil's advocate and take things out of context or discussing hypothetical possibilities and so on.
It also doesn't mean that what you're doing is wrong and the reaction you get is fair or whether you're with the majority or minority. Take for example James Reeb, he was a white man that got beaten to death for supporting MLK. I'm not saying he'd want to be pseudonymous or anonymous, but he'd sure run a lot less risk that way. You never know what kind of fanatic/lunatic will latch on to you and decide to make your life miserable.
Didn't you get the memo? Puritanism is in again, and the sexual revolution all but forgotten. Even schools are now teaching that 'porn is bad', which makes one wonder who is behind this new trend back to Dark-Ages values.
I don't think teens got the memo, every indication I've seen is that teens have better access to porn, watch more porn and try to act more like in porn. And porn is bad if you think porn is an accurate representation of reality and not a staged and edited fantasy. It's full of pretty faces with silicone tits, botox lips, waxed slits, bleached assholes and men with really large dicks. Nobody in porn has erection problems or premature ejaculation or trouble coming or use any lube or let out a fart and everyone is super horny and ready for sex in any hole or all holes and group sex and girls like having their face sprayed with cum and have multi-orgasms if you touch their elbows. And nobody is ever rejected or refused or asked to stop.
A lot of young, insecure people get performance anxiety from porn. And they do things or accept things because porn makes them think it's okay or how sex should be. Of course there are a few that still want to back to abstinence and figuring it out on the wedding night under the covers with the lights off but I'm pretty sure they've lost and are still losing ground. The rest are mostly worried that porn is giving people a false pictures and wants more love and feelings, less sex olympics. Not that it's just porn, all of society has gotten pretty sex fixated. And having sex is constantly becoming more casual through apps like Tinder and such and of course if you disconnect sex from having feelings for the person you're having sex with then it's all about the performance. 7/10 would fuck again.
An extremely modest 1% transaction tax
A large low risk institutional investor like a retirement fund will average something like 3%/year. So every move would eat up 4 month's profit, that's extremely high and would slow liquidity to a crawl. If you wanted to kill HFT and reset the clock back to day traders then 0.01% would be enough, you could change horse every couple days but not buy and sell hundreds of times in a day like they do now.
I think you're trying to turn a simple truth into a complex conspiracy theory: The profit is in users that make no fuss. Every time somebody clicks "report video" on YouTube it costs Google money. Every harassment report on Xbox costs Microsoft money. Dealing with borderline content or behavior isn't about giving you a fair trial, it's about minimizing expenses. What that means in practice is lots of automation, lowest-bid contracting, broad rules and zero tolerance policies. Did you break the rules? Yes. Is that legal grounds to kick you off the service? Yes. Then bye-bye. Reactions don't have to be "reasonable", take this example from the GPLv2:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
It doesn't matter if you did it accidentally, one mistake and it's instant death penalty. That's got nothing to do with bad faith, as long as Google/Microsoft isn't misleading you about what the terms are and wants you to use the service by their terms they're acting in good faith. If anything, the claim would probably have to be that the terms are unconscionable but that's a really high bar to pass and particularly for a free service.
Pretty much, yeah. You'd think this story was from 1990 when good password management hadn't been drilled into the skulls of even the dimmest of dimwits yet.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
Lots of unrealistic projects with terrible specifications meets barely literate lowest-bid outsourcing, what could possibly go right? I just looked through a few projects, it's not worth my time even trying to find a reasonable project proposal. And if there was one, would they find me in the pile of junk responses they get? No. And if you get ripped off one way or the other, you'll be stuck in a dispute resolution process on your own dime. Basically if you find someone qualified it's a huge advantage to just use them again. That's not a gig economy, that's a market for temp workers. The initial work should basically just be risk money to test them out before you offer a real contract. And in most cases I'd switch from a fixed price to hourly rate for any decent developer, unless the scope is very specific.
Birth rates shrink everywhere, also in so called Third World countries. The only places that see high birthrates right now are country with very long civil wars going on, like Afghanistan or Congo, both which have civil wars which date back to the 1970ies.
Not only those places, birth rates are also very much a cultural thing and countries like Nigeria still have a birth rate of 5.5 kids/woman even though the GDP/capita has been growing quite a bit because that must become the new normal. I also think you forgot a 3) Women have their own education, career and life rather than be child-bearing/raising housewives married away at 15. Obviously if you dedicate 50% of your economic/leisure potential to raising kids you can have your own soccer team. While in the western world most consider popping out a couple when they're 30. The funny part is that certain people go crazy over immigrants with like crazy high birth numbers while at the same same time wailing that the natives aren't producing enough children. Like, they want more children but not those children. Otherwise we could trivially fix this by simply giving more benefits to those who'll take on the "job" of having kids until supply meets demand.
What they show is that the mortality rate is bounded, and thus, there is always a small chance of survival. There is never 100% chance of dying during in year.
They built a model based on extrapolating to infinity from a very tiny plateau in a very tiny data set which I showed was totally wrong using data from a different country and that doesn't pass the sniff test.
As a biologist, I find nothing medically ridiculous until proven otherwise. Aging is something that is not well understood excepted on /.
Ah, the people who failed math, statistics and logic in general. Let me try to dumb it down, if a 106yo would have the same mortality rate as a 105yo then all other things being equal it would mean that no part of the body is worse off than last year. A 106yo heart is as good as a 105yo heart, 106yo lungs are as good as 105yo lungs, 106yo kidneys as good as 105yo kidneys, 106yo bones as strong as 105yo bones. It would basically mean that there's no wear and tear, no weakening of the immune system, no accumulation of faulty cells, waste products or toxins - basically no bodily decay at all. It goes against everything we know about aging in <105yos, aging in other species or even basic product reliability - more and more parts wear out and risk breaking.
If you look at a conclusion that's medically ridiculous then rather than looking for a magic island of coin flips you should probably sanity check against other data. Here in Norway I looked it up and we have 66 people age 105 or older. Our currently oldest person is 108 years, 273 days at last update. If we were doing coin flips you'd expect 33 age 106, 16 age 107, 8 age 108, 4 age 109, 2 age 110, 1 age 111. The reality is we have 4 age 108, all the rest died at 105, 106 or 107 or in other words quite consistent with an exponential increase. Of course the odd exception does happen, last year our second oldest person ever died at 112 but she was probably one in a million.
The main reason I doubt people even with official papers is that as late as the 90s a classmate of mine was issued an incorrect passport, it was still being typed by hand and listed him as two years older than he actually was. Guess who got to buy beer and booze early? Now that wasn't the master data so the extra years "disappeared" at the next renewal but just because something is written and stamped as an official record doesn't make it correct. And being able to retire a few years early and claim senior citizen discounts on everything is a pretty big benefit, there's little doubt in my mind that this happens in systems that allow it. And things were a little different 100+ years ago...
Ubuntu 18.04 has those same issues. you know Mint doesn't make those video drivers or VLC, right? of course they are dependent on upstream for any solutions to those problems. of course they won't say they'll fix it, how could they?
Why would the average user know any of that? If it comes as part of Linux Mint then it could be a packaging bug. It could be an outdated version. Even if it's a valid upstream bug the user shouldn't have to know where all the thousands of packages come from and what their bug reporting process is.