Why would anyone find an article about people in another country taking action on energy efficiency and climate change to be scary? At worst this this would mean some new Norwegian buildings are a bit over-engineered.
Finding this news somehow frightening or offensive suggests that your feelings are... well, irrational. Either way -- scientific truth or Chinese hoax -- climate change is the biggest science and technology of the day. If you don't want to read about it, that's your business. If other people reading about it makes you feel bad, well there are plenty of denialist forums to keep your head stuck in if that's what it takes to make you feel safe.
You can also volunteer to canvas and phone bank for a candidate whose views you support. If that sounds like it sucks, it does kinda, and it's fun at the same time. In other words its an interesting experience and I think you should try it.
Here's why: the dirty little secret of popular democracy is that most voters are apathetic and don't pay much attention. About half them don't even show up in any given election, and many those that do aren't really clear on what's at stake and end up voting out of habit.
In this system the parties line up on either side of a largely arbitrary scrum line and try to gradually push that inert mass of apathetic habit voters in the direction they want it to go, election by election. Influence equals overcoming the inertia of that mass of voters, and money is very influential. But there are still some things nobody is rich enough to buy, yet. Not in quantity.
Think about how reluctant you'd be to spend a day hiking through a strange neighborhood and knocking on the doors of people you don't know to talk to them about politics. How much would they have to pay you to do that for a candidate you didn't care about one way or the other? And there you have it: even big political money can't afford to put many people like you on the ground, shifting fence sitters and connecting your candidate's positions to things that are important to apathetic voters.
The foundation of democracy isn't voting, it's persuasion. Voting is just a measure of how well you've done your persuasion. You as an ordinary citizen can shift an electoral result by as many as a dozen votes in a single afternoon of canvassing. And after all, you probably attempt to do that kind online all the time. Get your ass out and do it where it'll make a difference for a change.
You haven't really participated in democracy until you've tried to motivate a voter.
Happens to any place that people in general want to go, because money destroys what it loves. Key West used to be a funky, bohemian place; now the interesting oddball who serves you your drinks doesn't crash nearby anymore; he drives for a couple hours to get home when his shift is over.
Places that money loves, like Key West or San Francisco, gets turned into an Epcot Center versions of themselves. But California is a vast state.It is slightly larger in land area than Sweden. When somebody asks whether they want to move, they could well be moving to some place in-state. An hour's drive can make a three-fold difference in housing costs. People of moderate means get expelled from valuable real estate by expense or pulled by savings. That's capitalism for you. There's no such places as "your community"; if you rent in a place that catches the eye of the wealthy, you're going to have to find a new one.
Yes, it's annoying when people say "too much" of something is bad, because they forget the two magic words that contextualize that finding: it depends.
Well, China's a special case; China has a tendency to write strict sounding but vague laws, then enforce those laws in what *appears* to be a very spotty way. This is, in fact, how the party exerts control over people while adopting a progressive sounding posture. Everyone's guilty of something, so people keep away from things that will seriously antagonize the party. The party doesn't need to install zampolits everywhere like the Soviets did; uncertainty makes people into their own political commissars.
But China aside, there are no such things as "American car companies" anymore. Letting car companies sell dirty, primitive junk here in the US might help some, but they're still stuck selling better cars overseas. And they probably don't have much faith in the staying power of the more over-the-top deregulation.
Harsh? Depends on whose perspective you're taking. As the standards currently stand, many cities such as New York are enjoying air quality that would be unimaginably good thirty years ago.. But there are still a number of cities that aren't there yet, like LA, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis.
One of Obama's major policy goals was energy independence. He was very pro-fracking, despite its extreme unpopularity with the Democratic base. He wanted US natural gas exports would to Russian "gas diplomacy" in Europe. Likewise crude petroleum production nearly doubled under his watch, after years of decline. Last year the US became a net exporter of gas and this year, of oil, both facts which President Trump hailed as an accomplishment for his administration, but these things can't be instantly conjured by sheer mojo; or even by Rick Perry's white-hot intellect. It takes years.
What energy independence that do do with "harsh" emissions standards? All the relatively easy ways of improving ICE emissions are already on every car sold. Further reductions in emissions have to be done by making the car more fuel efficient, or at least by not making them less efficient.
If there is probable cause to arrest her and a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution, we are technically in our rights to ask Canada to extradite this person. And then if China offers a deal to get her back, it wouldn't be that unusual to let her return. We do that with spies all the time. With other types of convicted criminals sometimes the home country agrees to detains them for the rest of their American sentence, but that's not strictly necessary.
But to publicly announce that you are using somebody held in custody as a bargaining chip is astonishingly stupid. There is nothing to be gained by saying that, and the instant you do everyone starts operating off the assumption that this was a political arrest. This not only puts you at a disadvantage, you really encourage the other country to collect bargaining chips of their own.
This man is catastrophically incompetent. To be fair, political posturing is a big part of being president, and he's actually pretty good at that. But no amount of bullshitting brilliance can do the whole job for you.
Generally speaking computer geeks -- the kind of people who find themselves dragooned into giving other people technical support even when that's not their job -- tend to value customization-friendliness a lot more than normal people, who just want things to work in a predictable and stable way.
Really superficial things like wallpapers and ringtones aside, features intended to empower users to shape their user experience in functional ways tend not to have much market impact, although arguably they should have more.
Even computer geeks don't have an unlimited appetite for customization, or not all of them, at least. But we tend to act as if other people do.
When you walk through the forest, the obvious impression you'll get is that it is a phenomenon consisting principally of trees. In fact it would be more accurate to characterize a forest as a vast network of fungal mycelia in a symbiotic relationship with a superficial layer of trees. If Mark Watney's martian survival depended on some kind of tree, he'd be screwed without the fungi it depends upon.
But to see this truer picture, you literally have to dig deeper.
In the same vein, I once heard a talk by E.O. Wilson in which he said that if anyone in the audience had a life ambition of discovering a species unknown to science, they should go out in their back yard and start digging. Dig long enough and look closely enough, and you'll find it (although chances are it'll be some kind of nematode). Over the years I have shortened his advice to this: there's nothing like looking if you want to find something.
It would be an exaggeration to say we know less about what's underneath our own feet than we do about the surface of the Moon, but it's almost certain we know less about it than we think we do. That's because by its nature you don't even know you have that kind of ignorance until you go looking for it.
Well, that's one solution: convince corporations to act as if liberty is as important as profit. But unfortunately it's an "assume we had a can opener" solution. Business equates profit with liberty because from the position of corporate leadership that actually makes sense.
Another solution would be to get government to regulate business in a way that would protect American values. But that's also an "assume we had a can opener" solution. Government equates corporate profits with American values, because corporate money plays a king maker role in our system.
You know, Marx is starting to look kind of prescient. I don't mean all the stuff that was done in his name over the years, stuff like vanguard bodies and "communist" states. He didn't foresee or advocate any of that. He thought capitalism would annihilate itself, not because of external pressure or force, but through following its own unchecked nature. The only thing is I seriously doubt the aftermath will resemble any kind of worker's paradise.
Why should any country control the Internet? Because it can. And China will be able to, because its economic clout will soon exceed that of the US. Inevitably, that means its military power will catch up. And at present, US soft power is in the crapper.
A foreign company's transactions in the US are governed by US law. If they do those transactions under the false pretense of complying with US laws then that's considered fraudulent, and the US institution would not automatically be party to that fraud.
That seems to be the nature of the allegations here. The linked article mentions allegedly fraudulent dealings with US banks by Huawei, at a time another company called "Skycom" was doing business in Iran. The US alleges that Huawei was doing business through Skycom in order to skirt US legal restrictions on the banks itw as also doing business with.
It sounds to me like it's going to be hard to make that stick, given that the proof has to do with the dealings between two foreign companies. It's not like you can raid their offices and seize the evidence of collusion, you have to rely on the documents they voluntarily offer in response to your demands. If it were a chip or a software library, sure, but we seem to be talking money here, and you can't trace that without a trail to follow.
I wouldn't be surprised if some taxi companies have arbitration clauses, but they may not need them because of other dodges common in the industry.
Have you ever wondered what your insurance coverage is as a taxi passenger? Chances are, very little. Owners of large fleets divide those fleets up among many different paper companies, to take advantage of insurance requirement breaks intended for small operators. This also divides up their assets among different corporate persons to protect them in the case of a lawsuit. Given that kind of structure, it's not hard to shift profits away from the corporation that owns the taxi you're riding in, so that there are no assets to cover any kind of compensatory award against them.
Could a lawyer cut through that and ferret out assets to pay damages? Probably, but if you need to drive other people around you can't afford that kind of effort. You might be able to afford one to find a loophole in the contract you signed with a ridesharing company.
In the 1970s, greenhouse effect models correctly predicted that the aerosol cooling trend that dominated global climate between 1940 and 1980 would be reversed in the coming decades. And if you apply an impulse response filter (like moving average) to smooth out year-to-year weather effects, the predictions of those models as to global temperature anomalies hold up extremely well.
This is the strongest possible confirmation you can have for a scientific hypothesis, which is why the burden of proof is on people who make claims like the earth is not warming, or that anthropogenic CO2 emissions can't drive climate change. You can call the people who support AGW "chicken littles", but here's the thing: even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. The emotional basis of your beliefs has no relevance at all. It's what you claim and how you support it.
You can be a Young Earth creationist and a good scientist, as long as you don't make any unsupportable creationist claims in a scientific forum. In church you can say anything you damn well please.
Back in the 90s my wife worked for a large public water authority serving over a million people. She attended a board meeting in which the IT department presented a proposal to acquire this new thing called "anti-virus".
When one of the board members heardhow much this would cost, he balked. When challenged by other board members as to what they should do about computer viruses, this was his response: "We don't have to do anything. We've spent millions of dollars on these systems, and the integrity of those systems will protect them."
In other words, he didn't have any specific justification for his position, he was just certain they didn't need to do anything about the problem. He was certain because that's what his gut was telling him. And his gut was telling him that because he didn't like what he'd have to do if it were a problem.
This is, in fact, the way most people think. Only people trained in specific disciplines like science think differently, and with social media it's very easy to construct an information bubble in which science sounds outlandish, because everyone knows Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs.
It's not global climate change that's driving this, it's local habitat disruption. Global climate change creates local habitat disruption, but so do other things, like people introducing non-native species to a locality, or hunting a local keystone species to extinction.
You are thinking as if the only kind of "cause" is one that is both necessary and sufficient. Climate change, exotic species introduction, human predation, human transformation of landscape for agriculture or development... none of these are both necessary and sufficient causes of a mass extinction. It doesn't mean they can't contribute to one.
The obvious counterargument to the notion that obesity is a person's genetic destiny is that 50 years ago, people were much less fat. 75 years ago we were slimmer still.
Unless there has been incredibly rapid natural selection for fatter genes on a massive scale, the difference has to be environmental. That's the food we eat, how and when we eat it, and the activities which burn calories. And if you look at the differences in the way people live, it's a perfect storm. People move much less -- even when controlling for how sedentary their occupations are; and they live in an environment where there is continual access to food that has been engineered to be quick and convenient to consume almost mindlessly. Honestly if it were just sandwiches, I think we'd be OK, but so much food today is designed to be psychologically rewarding but not sating. The Cheet-O is the perfect food commodity: eat one and you'll want another, and you will never feel like you've had enough, much less too much.
Genetics plays a role, sure; but the majority of healthy people will put on weight in the kind of environment we've created for ourselves. Increasingly it's the genetic outliers who don't do that.
Our attitudes toward things like hunger haven't helped. We've been trained to view ordinary hunger in an otherwise well-nourished person as a crisis to be avoided at all costs. Many doctors advise their patients to avoid it all costs by continually feeding themselves small meals. That can work, but it's extremely challenging to balance energy input and output.
If you've ever tried fasting, that all seems kind of ridiculous. You don't need food every couple of hours, you can go days without food with no harmful effects at all. Learning to treat hunger as a normal, non-urgent situation is a big part in learning not to overeat in a food-saturated world. Once you've done it a few times, you realize a hunger pang isn't an emergency alarm. It's a routine reminder to think about getting some food, one that turns off in a few minutes and can be safely ignored for a few hours or even days in a world where food is nearly always at arms reach.
I spent a year developing on it, and that was in the early 90s. Remember, this was in the age of segmented memory models, so limited field sizes were pretty much universal. Handling any structure larger than 64kb was ridiculously complicated under the covers. The 80386 supported a flat memory model as early as 1985, but it'd be ten more years before there was Windows OS support for that (except under NT, which nobody ran on their client workstations).
So by the time it was possible to fix the limitations of Notes, it had already lost out in the market to Outlook and Exchange. Lotus put its efforts into modernizing it's flagship 1-2-3 spreadsheet, and slapped some half-assed. UI changes on top of Notes. But it never got the major overhaul that every major piece of software needed in the transition to 32 bit and beyond, nor did it track rising expectations in the UX area.
Still, the basic security architecture of the system beats most stuff that's out there today.
It is still better in many ways than systems people still use. For example if the DNC and RNC were using it, it wouldn't matter that the Russians hacked into their email system. All they'd get is strongly encrypted gibberish.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would anyone find an article about people in another country taking action on energy efficiency and climate change to be scary? At worst this this would mean some new Norwegian buildings are a bit over-engineered.
Finding this news somehow frightening or offensive suggests that your feelings are... well, irrational. Either way -- scientific truth or Chinese hoax -- climate change is the biggest science and technology of the day. If you don't want to read about it, that's your business. If other people reading about it makes you feel bad, well there are plenty of denialist forums to keep your head stuck in if that's what it takes to make you feel safe.
You can also volunteer to canvas and phone bank for a candidate whose views you support. If that sounds like it sucks, it does kinda, and it's fun at the same time. In other words its an interesting experience and I think you should try it.
Here's why: the dirty little secret of popular democracy is that most voters are apathetic and don't pay much attention. About half them don't even show up in any given election, and many those that do aren't really clear on what's at stake and end up voting out of habit.
In this system the parties line up on either side of a largely arbitrary scrum line and try to gradually push that inert mass of apathetic habit voters in the direction they want it to go, election by election. Influence equals overcoming the inertia of that mass of voters, and money is very influential. But there are still some things nobody is rich enough to buy, yet. Not in quantity.
Think about how reluctant you'd be to spend a day hiking through a strange neighborhood and knocking on the doors of people you don't know to talk to them about politics. How much would they have to pay you to do that for a candidate you didn't care about one way or the other? And there you have it: even big political money can't afford to put many people like you on the ground, shifting fence sitters and connecting your candidate's positions to things that are important to apathetic voters.
The foundation of democracy isn't voting, it's persuasion. Voting is just a measure of how well you've done your persuasion. You as an ordinary citizen can shift an electoral result by as many as a dozen votes in a single afternoon of canvassing. And after all, you probably attempt to do that kind online all the time. Get your ass out and do it where it'll make a difference for a change.
You haven't really participated in democracy until you've tried to motivate a voter.
Forget about fire. There was a world before fire. People used to bang rocks together for a living, and it worked for them.
Happens to any place that people in general want to go, because money destroys what it loves. Key West used to be a funky, bohemian place; now the interesting oddball who serves you your drinks doesn't crash nearby anymore; he drives for a couple hours to get home when his shift is over.
Places that money loves, like Key West or San Francisco, gets turned into an Epcot Center versions of themselves. But California is a vast state.It is slightly larger in land area than Sweden. When somebody asks whether they want to move, they could well be moving to some place in-state. An hour's drive can make a three-fold difference in housing costs. People of moderate means get expelled from valuable real estate by expense or pulled by savings. That's capitalism for you. There's no such places as "your community"; if you rent in a place that catches the eye of the wealthy, you're going to have to find a new one.
Yes, it's annoying when people say "too much" of something is bad, because they forget the two magic words that contextualize that finding: it depends.
Or idiomatically translated: You have been weighed and the tally has come up short, in the estimation of the foreigners.
Well, China's a special case; China has a tendency to write strict sounding but vague laws, then enforce those laws in what *appears* to be a very spotty way. This is, in fact, how the party exerts control over people while adopting a progressive sounding posture. Everyone's guilty of something, so people keep away from things that will seriously antagonize the party. The party doesn't need to install zampolits everywhere like the Soviets did; uncertainty makes people into their own political commissars.
But China aside, there are no such things as "American car companies" anymore. Letting car companies sell dirty, primitive junk here in the US might help some, but they're still stuck selling better cars overseas. And they probably don't have much faith in the staying power of the more over-the-top deregulation.
Harsh? Depends on whose perspective you're taking. As the standards currently stand, many cities such as New York are enjoying air quality that would be unimaginably good thirty years ago.. But there are still a number of cities that aren't there yet, like LA, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis.
One of Obama's major policy goals was energy independence. He was very pro-fracking, despite its extreme unpopularity with the Democratic base. He wanted US natural gas exports would to Russian "gas diplomacy" in Europe. Likewise crude petroleum production nearly doubled under his watch, after years of decline. Last year the US became a net exporter of gas and this year, of oil, both facts which President Trump hailed as an accomplishment for his administration, but these things can't be instantly conjured by sheer mojo; or even by Rick Perry's white-hot intellect. It takes years.
What energy independence that do do with "harsh" emissions standards? All the relatively easy ways of improving ICE emissions are already on every car sold. Further reductions in emissions have to be done by making the car more fuel efficient, or at least by not making them less efficient.
They are subject to US laws when transacting business in the US, however.
I think it depends.
If there is probable cause to arrest her and a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution, we are technically in our rights to ask Canada to extradite this person. And then if China offers a deal to get her back, it wouldn't be that unusual to let her return. We do that with spies all the time. With other types of convicted criminals sometimes the home country agrees to detains them for the rest of their American sentence, but that's not strictly necessary.
But to publicly announce that you are using somebody held in custody as a bargaining chip is astonishingly stupid. There is nothing to be gained by saying that, and the instant you do everyone starts operating off the assumption that this was a political arrest. This not only puts you at a disadvantage, you really encourage the other country to collect bargaining chips of their own.
This man is catastrophically incompetent. To be fair, political posturing is a big part of being president, and he's actually pretty good at that. But no amount of bullshitting brilliance can do the whole job for you.
It's been subsisting on the brains of other operating systems.
Generally speaking computer geeks -- the kind of people who find themselves dragooned into giving other people technical support even when that's not their job -- tend to value customization-friendliness a lot more than normal people, who just want things to work in a predictable and stable way.
Really superficial things like wallpapers and ringtones aside, features intended to empower users to shape their user experience in functional ways tend not to have much market impact, although arguably they should have more.
Even computer geeks don't have an unlimited appetite for customization, or not all of them, at least. But we tend to act as if other people do.
When you walk through the forest, the obvious impression you'll get is that it is a phenomenon consisting principally of trees. In fact it would be more accurate to characterize a forest as a vast network of fungal mycelia in a symbiotic relationship with a superficial layer of trees. If Mark Watney's martian survival depended on some kind of tree, he'd be screwed without the fungi it depends upon.
But to see this truer picture, you literally have to dig deeper.
In the same vein, I once heard a talk by E.O. Wilson in which he said that if anyone in the audience had a life ambition of discovering a species unknown to science, they should go out in their back yard and start digging. Dig long enough and look closely enough, and you'll find it (although chances are it'll be some kind of nematode). Over the years I have shortened his advice to this: there's nothing like looking if you want to find something.
It would be an exaggeration to say we know less about what's underneath our own feet than we do about the surface of the Moon, but it's almost certain we know less about it than we think we do. That's because by its nature you don't even know you have that kind of ignorance until you go looking for it.
Well, that's one solution: convince corporations to act as if liberty is as important as profit. But unfortunately it's an "assume we had a can opener" solution. Business equates profit with liberty because from the position of corporate leadership that actually makes sense.
Another solution would be to get government to regulate business in a way that would protect American values. But that's also an "assume we had a can opener" solution. Government equates corporate profits with American values, because corporate money plays a king maker role in our system.
You know, Marx is starting to look kind of prescient. I don't mean all the stuff that was done in his name over the years, stuff like vanguard bodies and "communist" states. He didn't foresee or advocate any of that. He thought capitalism would annihilate itself, not because of external pressure or force, but through following its own unchecked nature. The only thing is I seriously doubt the aftermath will resemble any kind of worker's paradise.
Why should any country control the Internet? Because it can. And China will be able to, because its economic clout will soon exceed that of the US. Inevitably, that means its military power will catch up. And at present, US soft power is in the crapper.
A foreign company's transactions in the US are governed by US law. If they do those transactions under the false pretense of complying with US laws then that's considered fraudulent, and the US institution would not automatically be party to that fraud.
That seems to be the nature of the allegations here. The linked article mentions allegedly fraudulent dealings with US banks by Huawei, at a time another company called "Skycom" was doing business in Iran. The US alleges that Huawei was doing business through Skycom in order to skirt US legal restrictions on the banks itw as also doing business with.
It sounds to me like it's going to be hard to make that stick, given that the proof has to do with the dealings between two foreign companies. It's not like you can raid their offices and seize the evidence of collusion, you have to rely on the documents they voluntarily offer in response to your demands. If it were a chip or a software library, sure, but we seem to be talking money here, and you can't trace that without a trail to follow.
I wouldn't be surprised if some taxi companies have arbitration clauses, but they may not need them because of other dodges common in the industry.
Have you ever wondered what your insurance coverage is as a taxi passenger? Chances are, very little. Owners of large fleets divide those fleets up among many different paper companies, to take advantage of insurance requirement breaks intended for small operators. This also divides up their assets among different corporate persons to protect them in the case of a lawsuit. Given that kind of structure, it's not hard to shift profits away from the corporation that owns the taxi you're riding in, so that there are no assets to cover any kind of compensatory award against them.
Could a lawyer cut through that and ferret out assets to pay damages? Probably, but if you need to drive other people around you can't afford that kind of effort. You might be able to afford one to find a loophole in the contract you signed with a ridesharing company.
In the 1970s, greenhouse effect models correctly predicted that the aerosol cooling trend that dominated global climate between 1940 and 1980 would be reversed in the coming decades. And if you apply an impulse response filter (like moving average) to smooth out year-to-year weather effects, the predictions of those models as to global temperature anomalies hold up extremely well.
This is the strongest possible confirmation you can have for a scientific hypothesis, which is why the burden of proof is on people who make claims like the earth is not warming, or that anthropogenic CO2 emissions can't drive climate change. You can call the people who support AGW "chicken littles", but here's the thing: even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. The emotional basis of your beliefs has no relevance at all. It's what you claim and how you support it.
You can be a Young Earth creationist and a good scientist, as long as you don't make any unsupportable creationist claims in a scientific forum. In church you can say anything you damn well please.
Hondurans are the same species we are, dimwit.
Back in the 90s my wife worked for a large public water authority serving over a million people. She attended a board meeting in which the IT department presented a proposal to acquire this new thing called "anti-virus".
When one of the board members heardhow much this would cost, he balked. When challenged by other board members as to what they should do about computer viruses, this was his response: "We don't have to do anything. We've spent millions of dollars on these systems, and the integrity of those systems will protect them."
In other words, he didn't have any specific justification for his position, he was just certain they didn't need to do anything about the problem. He was certain because that's what his gut was telling him. And his gut was telling him that because he didn't like what he'd have to do if it were a problem.
This is, in fact, the way most people think. Only people trained in specific disciplines like science think differently, and with social media it's very easy to construct an information bubble in which science sounds outlandish, because everyone knows Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs.
It's not global climate change that's driving this, it's local habitat disruption. Global climate change creates local habitat disruption, but so do other things, like people introducing non-native species to a locality, or hunting a local keystone species to extinction.
You are thinking as if the only kind of "cause" is one that is both necessary and sufficient. Climate change, exotic species introduction, human predation, human transformation of landscape for agriculture or development... none of these are both necessary and sufficient causes of a mass extinction. It doesn't mean they can't contribute to one.
The obvious counterargument to the notion that obesity is a person's genetic destiny is that 50 years ago, people were much less fat. 75 years ago we were slimmer still.
Unless there has been incredibly rapid natural selection for fatter genes on a massive scale, the difference has to be environmental. That's the food we eat, how and when we eat it, and the activities which burn calories. And if you look at the differences in the way people live, it's a perfect storm. People move much less -- even when controlling for how sedentary their occupations are; and they live in an environment where there is continual access to food that has been engineered to be quick and convenient to consume almost mindlessly. Honestly if it were just sandwiches, I think we'd be OK, but so much food today is designed to be psychologically rewarding but not sating. The Cheet-O is the perfect food commodity: eat one and you'll want another, and you will never feel like you've had enough, much less too much.
Genetics plays a role, sure; but the majority of healthy people will put on weight in the kind of environment we've created for ourselves. Increasingly it's the genetic outliers who don't do that.
Our attitudes toward things like hunger haven't helped. We've been trained to view ordinary hunger in an otherwise well-nourished person as a crisis to be avoided at all costs. Many doctors advise their patients to avoid it all costs by continually feeding themselves small meals. That can work, but it's extremely challenging to balance energy input and output.
If you've ever tried fasting, that all seems kind of ridiculous. You don't need food every couple of hours, you can go days without food with no harmful effects at all. Learning to treat hunger as a normal, non-urgent situation is a big part in learning not to overeat in a food-saturated world. Once you've done it a few times, you realize a hunger pang isn't an emergency alarm. It's a routine reminder to think about getting some food, one that turns off in a few minutes and can be safely ignored for a few hours or even days in a world where food is nearly always at arms reach.
Who woulda thunk it.
I spent a year developing on it, and that was in the early 90s. Remember, this was in the age of segmented memory models, so limited field sizes were pretty much universal. Handling any structure larger than 64kb was ridiculously complicated under the covers. The 80386 supported a flat memory model as early as 1985, but it'd be ten more years before there was Windows OS support for that (except under NT, which nobody ran on their client workstations).
So by the time it was possible to fix the limitations of Notes, it had already lost out in the market to Outlook and Exchange. Lotus put its efforts into modernizing it's flagship 1-2-3 spreadsheet, and slapped some half-assed. UI changes on top of Notes. But it never got the major overhaul that every major piece of software needed in the transition to 32 bit and beyond, nor did it track rising expectations in the UX area.
Still, the basic security architecture of the system beats most stuff that's out there today.
It is still better in many ways than systems people still use. For example if the DNC and RNC were using it, it wouldn't matter that the Russians hacked into their email system. All they'd get is strongly encrypted gibberish.