The numbers really don't support the idea that illegal immigration is a significant driver here. While it's always *possible* for someone to bring in measles, measles has an incubation period of about 10-12 days, so you only have to worry about the number of people who crossed the border illegally in the last week or so.
The total number of undocumented in the US is estimated to be around 11 million (useful fact to keep in mind in the immigration debate), two thirds of whom have lived here for a decade or more. By DHS's internal estimates, about 170,000 - 200,000 people annually cross the border illegally who are not caught.
Compare that to the number of Americans who travel abroad. Last year, that hit a record sixty-six million, twenty five million to Mexico alone. Since the vaccine has about a 2% failure rate, that means about 1.3 million non-immune Americans cross the US border legally every year, almost 10x the number of illegal immigrants. What's more Americans overwhelmingly fly in, which is significant given the incubation time of the virus. About 40% of illegal immigrants arrive by air, and these are overwhelmingly "overstays", people who enter the US illegally but overstay their visa. They are not "illegals" during the period they would be contagious.
It involves you even if you got your kids vaccinated.
No medication is 100% effective. About 2% of recipients fail to develop resistance -- more for patients using "alternative" vaccination schedules. Also for a significant number (about 5%) of patients immunity wanes after about ten years.
What this means is that everybody depends on herd immunity. Unless you've had wild measles, that includes you as an adult who received the vaccination decades ago.
You are operating under the assumption that people (or even a subset of people) are rational. Here's a simple test: does "gut" instinct play any part at all in your decision making processes? If so, you are at least to some degree irrational. Don't feel bad, you have lots of company: the rest of the human race.
If you look at the historical efforts of venture capitalists, you have to conclude that they're as irrational as anyone else. What injects realism into the process is failure. The thing is, having a bias against female team members doesn't necessarily result in failure. It results in narrowed opportunity for success, but if the rational aspects of the VCs decision processes bias those decisions enough to success, he'll still make money, and he'll feel completely vindicated in his mistaken belief in his rationality.
It's a case of the dog that didn't bark -- in this case the investment that you didn't take that would have made you a ton of money. However, now that this is out, it's possible that some smart VCs will start looking for undervalued opportunities. It will only be a matter of time before we have our first female rock star tech entrepreneur, and that will change things.
The medically accepted definition of schizophrenia implies specific things that would interfere with performing certain job duties. If you extend the definition of schizophrenia to include stuff outside those criteria like gender identification, then the use of the label to determine fitness for some particular job logically would have to change from "schizophrenics should not perform this job" to "some kinds of schizophrenics should not perform this job." Because you're no longer talking about the same thing.
There is an ongoing effort in psychology to improve definitions, and it constantly wrestles with the conflicting needs of having to assign a label to every patetient's condition, and knowing what to do when that label applies to someone. Having broad labels makes applying the label easier but it also makes knowing what to do harder. That's why the APA is constantly introducing new conditions nobody has ever heard of, like "dysthymia". Formerly that condition would have been considered "depression", but it turned out the conditions people had that used to be labelled "depression", while in a certain sense analogous, had different implications and had to be approached differently.
Transgender people used to be given a diagnostic label "schizophrenia", but if you are familiar with abnormal psychology you'll know that that label was hopelessly vague; it threw in people who "felt" an affinity for a different gender with people who heard voices telling them to do things. These are entirely different things, which is why we now have "Gender Dysphoria".
At one time homosexuality was commonly lumped in with hearing voices as "schizophrenia"; this largely predates DSM-1, which thoughtfully (for the time) gave homosexuality its own disease category. Now that a lot more gay people are out, they seem self-evidently normal, except for their sexual preference.
While this is true, 87 of 91 is an astonishingly high proportion.
Under the "no effect/sampling bias" hypothesis, the brains donated for NFL players would be reflective of the general population of people who suffer from dementia. That would mean that Alzheimer's and vascular dementia would account for the vast majority of cases. The chances of a random sampling of 91 dementia brains turning up 87 cases of traumatic injury is vanishingly small, meaning that it is quite reasonable to conclude that playing football professionally had something to do with the rate of CTE in this sample. So given that these results hold up, the next logical question is whether the difference in this sample are due to the obvious hypothesis -- that they resulted from playing football -- or some confounding factor as yet unidentified.
Real-life data is never perfect, which is why we do laboratory experiments -- where such experiments are feasible and ethical. But "imperfect" is far from useless, and if this study holds up, then I'd say the burden of proof is on the hypothesis that there was some kind of confounding factor.
That really is the essence of science; it's not about establishing truth, it's about establishing burden of proof.
Well, things are somewhat different for developer tools than they would be for end-user tools. As a developer you can always pull the code for the latest release and comment out annoying bit. Unless the annoying bits are part of some extensive rearchitecting, it should be straightforward.
Contrary to being "contrary to the open source spirit", this is exactly the open source spirit. I do what the hell I want with my code, and if you don't like it you can change it. For ordinary users the freedom mantra can sometimes ring hollow, but it shouldn't for a developer.
Before routers were appliances, they were computers with multiple network cards. If you google "router distro" you'll find plenty of feature-ful choices. You'll have to learn a bunch of stuff like iptables; that doesn't make sense for most people. But if you're the kind of person who's worried about having complete control of your router's operation, it makes sense for you.
Well, I doubt they know the position of Al-Baghdadi with enough precision to use either cruise missiles or even precision-guided bombs. You'd have to take a shotgun approach, which has never worked very well. It certainly wasn't how we got Saddam. The political cost/benefit of trying doesn't work out.
But there's lots of uses for a weapon that could take out any person or group of persons at a known location, deep inside well-defended or remote territory, without the need of bringing in naval assets, although those will still be useful.
The reason they didn't use a cruise missile on Bin Laden wasn't civilian casualties. They've never been excessively concerned about collateral damage when going after lower level Al Qaeda officials, why start worrying then? Because they wanted the body -- hard physical evidence that the job was done. It could have been called either way.
Which in a sense isn't such a big deal. Yes, it may go at hypersonic speeds, but the fact that it's deployed to ships means it's not really the same thing at all.
What where talking about is something that could be fired from the US mainland and hit any place on the Earth in under an hour. Such a weapon has profound political implications; it removes the single biggest political risk involved with the use of force: putting the men and women who wield that force in harm's way.
Basically the US president will be able to say, "I want so and so dead," and if the military knows where that person will be in an hour that person is as good as dead, unless that place is some kind of bunker.
I grew up in the city and moved out to the suburbs. While local activists in my current town have marked a lot of bike lanes, I don't see them getting much use; if you go out on any particular day you might see one or two cyclists using them. But I took a detour through the old neighborhood recently, and was astonished the degree to which bicycling has caught on there. Driving over the course of about a mile I must have seen at least fifty cyclists using the sharrow lanes.
The point is, to get people in my current neighborhood using bikes instead of cars, you'd have to invest serious money; the pavement and traffic impact alone in my old urban neighborhood probably pays for the lane markings. But where would the money be spent? Probably where there are already a lot of cyclists. It needs to be spent, ironically, where people find cycling inconvenient or dangerous.
Not far from my house is eight miles of bike path that link five communities with about 200,000 population. But the path is fractured into four fragments; getting from one to the other is a tricky and dangerous; the gaps amount to maybe 150 yards in total. At the end of the bike path there's another bike path that leads to the town where I grew up, an industrial suburb where 80,000 people live and quite a few people from the five communities work. It's only 700 feet away as the crow flies, but getting there by bike takes three miles of riding along a major traffic artery. That city has an extensive bike trail network, and you can get anywhere easily on a combination of quiet side streets and rail-converted trails.
If every cyclist in these five communities paid $12, perhaps we could close that roughly 1000 feet of gap, creating a single trail network linking over a quarter million people. Thousands would potentially be able to bike to work across a path where there are currently no good direct mass transit connections. City dwellers would have easy bike access (granted after a ten mile ride) to the beach, and to a 2200 acre forest.
30,000 pounds is on the high side for a modern bus. My local transit authority's buses weigh in at 27500, but then you do have to factor in the weight of passengers.
In fact transportation planners are quite aware of the pavement impact issue; it's one of several factors they have to balance. Increasing the number of passengers on the bus increases the pavement impact but decreases the air pollution impact; reducing the passenger load (e.g., with more frequent service) reduces the pavement impact and improves service, but increases air pollution.
Probably trackless trolleys are the champ here, with no fuel tanks, transmission, and a modest battery to travel short distances.
The local transit authority is introducing electric buses that are articulated, tri-axle affairs, probably because of the mass of battery involved. But possibly smaller, more frequent electric buses would be a better choice, at least from the pavement standpoint. Possibly when autonomous buses become practical.
I'm happy to pay my $30 annual fishing license, which pays for conservation and access programs, as well as a fish stocking program I'm not particularly partial to but serves a purpose for young anglers. It costs less than the sport fishing conservation organizations I belong to, and probably does more.
I'd be happy to pony up $12 on a bike, but I do see some difficulties. Money spent on access or conservation anywhere in the state benefits me as a fisherman, but bicycle infrastructure spending largely benefits local cyclists. So it's quite possible that some people will be paying the tax and seeing no benefit out of it.
One thing that might be useful is driver education. Sharrows are appearing all over the place, but I don't think most drivers understand what they mean. There's also widespread misunderstanding about some basic things like how a motorist is supposed to make a right turn after a stop across a bike lane (you're supposed to move into the bike lane in most jurisdictions; that eliminates the possibility of cutting of the cyclist).
However, new products are not an indicator for success. Sales is!
Not exactly; and sales does not necessarily equal good cash flow, although it contributes to it. You can nearly always generate more sales by spending more money on promotions -- more sales, more cash going in, but often even more cash going out.
What's more, sales and profit aren't necessarily the same thing; you can easily go bankrupt while profitable; you can also run a company that loses money for years on end if it has a cash cow.
What businesses need to keep going, day to day, is to meet current obligations (bills they have to pay right away). That's the significance of cash flow. Vendors will always accept cash for debt; getting them to accept a share of *Stranger Things* wouldn't work, although you can get bond holders, investors and banks to in effect do that, all at a price of course.
Having positive cash flow is always good; but burning cash, while always risky, is normal in certain circumstances (e.g. startups or companies acting like startups). So the big question isn't whether Netflix was cash negative, but whether cash flows are proceeding as planned.
If this is the cash flow situation Netflix expected, the CEO is right to point to things like the products they're developing. That shows that things are indeed proceeding as planned: they were always planning to burn cash over a number quarters to do stuff like that. However if cash inflows that were expected didn't materialize, or if cash outlays occurred that were unexpected, that's just bad. It's not necessarily fatal, however. As long as Netflix can keep paying the bills and is generating *value*, it's possible to engineer some kind of soft landing.
Retailers, so far, have been extremely reluctant to share what's actually sold and more importantly, for what price, whether it's with the CC company or vendors.
If they become totally dependent upon Visa, Visa may gain leverage that outweighs that reluctance.
If you do carry a wad of cash, here's a tip from an old-timer: keep the small denominations on the outside. If you have a fat wad of cash with a $20 on the outside, if someone sees you handling it they'll think it's a wad of $20s.
Also, keeping a sacrificial wad is a good idea: all ones with a $20 on the outside. If you're mugged you throw it and run the other way.
It happens all the time that the role you play with respect to someone changes what you can do with or to them. For example by default you can have sex with anyone who is willing, but if you're their psychotherapist that's grounds for malpractice and having your licensed revoked.
You can by default gossip about people; any information that came into your hands legally is fair game for passing on. Unless you are that person's lawyer.
Saying that as an employer or prospective employer you're restricted in the ways you can poke around in an employee's private life isn't problematic in principle. The problem it presents is practical: you can only catch people if they're stupid and blab about it. In general as a hiring manager you should never discuss the reason you didn't hire a candidate with that candidate, if you don't want your justification challenged in a court of law (or even public opinions). If asked, you give the candidate a vague, non-negatable justification, e.g., "We felt there were other candidates who were a better fit."
So what a law like this does is enables foolish employers to hire foolish employees.
The failure in this case isn't science. There is no scientific question about getting to Mars with SLS and Orion. The failure here is engineering.
Cost is an integral part of engineering. Many, many unfeasible engineering projects are physically possible. The art of engineering is finding approaches to achieve goals given the resources available, counting time as a resource of course.
So what they've been doing, while technically impressive, is just bad engineering: spending resources on an approach which won't achieve the objective within the given constraints, based on the wishful thinking that people will suddenly want to spend lots more money on the project in the future.
Sometimes when you can't achieve an objective, the smart thing is to find an alternative objective that's worth doing in itself and also leaves you better positioned to work on the original objective.
This may be true, but the evidence for coffee's statistical association with liver health and plausible mechanisms of action have been well-established for years now. You can even measure the dose-related effects of coffee consumption on markers of liver function in small-scale experiments. What's unclear is the clinical significance of those effects; but any attempt to determine that is bound to run afoul of some counfounding factors, but in context those factors aren't all that likely to be significant.
Evidence has to be interpreted in the context of other evidence; evidence forms a kind of network -- specifically a Bayesian network. A priori probabilities always inform the interpretation of any study.
I agree that making employees feel good isn't an end in itself -- particularly making them feel good all the time. There are times when you,as boss, have to make certain employees feel bad. "Leadership" is just another word for "emotional manipulation".
That said, working under competent and effective leadership tends to lead to success and that tends to be rewarding for people. If everyone around you is worthless, the problem is almost certainly you.
After decades in business, I am heartily sick of put-upon managers. It's almost like bragging: despite my good-for-nothing employees, look at how I'm muddling through! And I always think, "why not hire better employees?" It's not that hard: pay a little more, choose a little more carefully, treat the good performers with respect and regularly clear out the deadwood. And yet, while I've met countless put-upon managers in my career, I can count on one hand the ones who made any kind of concerted, systematic effort to hire and retain the best people, and all of them were very successful.
The only conclusion I can make is that those armies of put-upon managers are actually more comfortable with dysfunction and mediocrity. Most bosses are their own worst enemies; which means as a group they're exactly like most other people, just in a better position to force their personal emotional drama on others.
Slashdot Mirror
The numbers really don't support the idea that illegal immigration is a significant driver here. While it's always *possible* for someone to bring in measles, measles has an incubation period of about 10-12 days, so you only have to worry about the number of people who crossed the border illegally in the last week or so.
The total number of undocumented in the US is estimated to be around 11 million (useful fact to keep in mind in the immigration debate), two thirds of whom have lived here for a decade or more. By DHS's internal estimates, about 170,000 - 200,000 people annually cross the border illegally who are not caught.
Compare that to the number of Americans who travel abroad. Last year, that hit a record sixty-six million, twenty five million to Mexico alone. Since the vaccine has about a 2% failure rate, that means about 1.3 million non-immune Americans cross the US border legally every year, almost 10x the number of illegal immigrants. What's more Americans overwhelmingly fly in, which is significant given the incubation time of the virus. About 40% of illegal immigrants arrive by air, and these are overwhelmingly "overstays", people who enter the US illegally but overstay their visa. They are not "illegals" during the period they would be contagious.
It involves you even if you got your kids vaccinated.
No medication is 100% effective. About 2% of recipients fail to develop resistance -- more for patients using "alternative" vaccination schedules. Also for a significant number (about 5%) of patients immunity wanes after about ten years.
What this means is that everybody depends on herd immunity. Unless you've had wild measles, that includes you as an adult who received the vaccination decades ago.
You are operating under the assumption that people (or even a subset of people) are rational. Here's a simple test: does "gut" instinct play any part at all in your decision making processes? If so, you are at least to some degree irrational. Don't feel bad, you have lots of company: the rest of the human race.
If you look at the historical efforts of venture capitalists, you have to conclude that they're as irrational as anyone else. What injects realism into the process is failure. The thing is, having a bias against female team members doesn't necessarily result in failure. It results in narrowed opportunity for success, but if the rational aspects of the VCs decision processes bias those decisions enough to success, he'll still make money, and he'll feel completely vindicated in his mistaken belief in his rationality.
It's a case of the dog that didn't bark -- in this case the investment that you didn't take that would have made you a ton of money. However, now that this is out, it's possible that some smart VCs will start looking for undervalued opportunities. It will only be a matter of time before we have our first female rock star tech entrepreneur, and that will change things.
The medically accepted definition of schizophrenia implies specific things that would interfere with performing certain job duties. If you extend the definition of schizophrenia to include stuff outside those criteria like gender identification, then the use of the label to determine fitness for some particular job logically would have to change from "schizophrenics should not perform this job" to "some kinds of schizophrenics should not perform this job." Because you're no longer talking about the same thing.
There is an ongoing effort in psychology to improve definitions, and it constantly wrestles with the conflicting needs of having to assign a label to every patetient's condition, and knowing what to do when that label applies to someone. Having broad labels makes applying the label easier but it also makes knowing what to do harder. That's why the APA is constantly introducing new conditions nobody has ever heard of, like "dysthymia". Formerly that condition would have been considered "depression", but it turned out the conditions people had that used to be labelled "depression", while in a certain sense analogous, had different implications and had to be approached differently.
Transgender people used to be given a diagnostic label "schizophrenia", but if you are familiar with abnormal psychology you'll know that that label was hopelessly vague; it threw in people who "felt" an affinity for a different gender with people who heard voices telling them to do things. These are entirely different things, which is why we now have "Gender Dysphoria".
At one time homosexuality was commonly lumped in with hearing voices as "schizophrenia"; this largely predates DSM-1, which thoughtfully (for the time) gave homosexuality its own disease category. Now that a lot more gay people are out, they seem self-evidently normal, except for their sexual preference.
While this is true, 87 of 91 is an astonishingly high proportion.
Under the "no effect/sampling bias" hypothesis, the brains donated for NFL players would be reflective of the general population of people who suffer from dementia. That would mean that Alzheimer's and vascular dementia would account for the vast majority of cases. The chances of a random sampling of 91 dementia brains turning up 87 cases of traumatic injury is vanishingly small, meaning that it is quite reasonable to conclude that playing football professionally had something to do with the rate of CTE in this sample. So given that these results hold up, the next logical question is whether the difference in this sample are due to the obvious hypothesis -- that they resulted from playing football -- or some confounding factor as yet unidentified.
Real-life data is never perfect, which is why we do laboratory experiments -- where such experiments are feasible and ethical. But "imperfect" is far from useless, and if this study holds up, then I'd say the burden of proof is on the hypothesis that there was some kind of confounding factor.
That really is the essence of science; it's not about establishing truth, it's about establishing burden of proof.
Well, things are somewhat different for developer tools than they would be for end-user tools. As a developer you can always pull the code for the latest release and comment out annoying bit. Unless the annoying bits are part of some extensive rearchitecting, it should be straightforward.
Contrary to being "contrary to the open source spirit", this is exactly the open source spirit. I do what the hell I want with my code, and if you don't like it you can change it. For ordinary users the freedom mantra can sometimes ring hollow, but it shouldn't for a developer.
Before routers were appliances, they were computers with multiple network cards. If you google "router distro" you'll find plenty of feature-ful choices. You'll have to learn a bunch of stuff like iptables; that doesn't make sense for most people. But if you're the kind of person who's worried about having complete control of your router's operation, it makes sense for you.
Well, I doubt they know the position of Al-Baghdadi with enough precision to use either cruise missiles or even precision-guided bombs. You'd have to take a shotgun approach, which has never worked very well. It certainly wasn't how we got Saddam. The political cost/benefit of trying doesn't work out.
But there's lots of uses for a weapon that could take out any person or group of persons at a known location, deep inside well-defended or remote territory, without the need of bringing in naval assets, although those will still be useful.
The reason they didn't use a cruise missile on Bin Laden wasn't civilian casualties. They've never been excessively concerned about collateral damage when going after lower level Al Qaeda officials, why start worrying then? Because they wanted the body -- hard physical evidence that the job was done. It could have been called either way.
Which in a sense isn't such a big deal. Yes, it may go at hypersonic speeds, but the fact that it's deployed to ships means it's not really the same thing at all.
What where talking about is something that could be fired from the US mainland and hit any place on the Earth in under an hour. Such a weapon has profound political implications; it removes the single biggest political risk involved with the use of force: putting the men and women who wield that force in harm's way.
Basically the US president will be able to say, "I want so and so dead," and if the military knows where that person will be in an hour that person is as good as dead, unless that place is some kind of bunker.
I'm not sure where I stand on this question, but I know exactly how hard it would be to change where I'm headed on it.
For an internet provider they are pretty unclear of how IP protocols work.
a) there is no such thing as instantaneous.
Oh, don't be pedantic. Clearly they intend to say that the transmission event and receipt event should be separated by a spacelike interval.
It's not just cheap; it's about when the costs come due relative to your pay day.
For lobbyists and CEOs, problems three years out might as well be three hundred years out.
I grew up in the city and moved out to the suburbs. While local activists in my current town have marked a lot of bike lanes, I don't see them getting much use; if you go out on any particular day you might see one or two cyclists using them. But I took a detour through the old neighborhood recently, and was astonished the degree to which bicycling has caught on there. Driving over the course of about a mile I must have seen at least fifty cyclists using the sharrow lanes.
The point is, to get people in my current neighborhood using bikes instead of cars, you'd have to invest serious money; the pavement and traffic impact alone in my old urban neighborhood probably pays for the lane markings. But where would the money be spent? Probably where there are already a lot of cyclists. It needs to be spent, ironically, where people find cycling inconvenient or dangerous.
Not far from my house is eight miles of bike path that link five communities with about 200,000 population. But the path is fractured into four fragments; getting from one to the other is a tricky and dangerous; the gaps amount to maybe 150 yards in total. At the end of the bike path there's another bike path that leads to the town where I grew up, an industrial suburb where 80,000 people live and quite a few people from the five communities work. It's only 700 feet away as the crow flies, but getting there by bike takes three miles of riding along a major traffic artery. That city has an extensive bike trail network, and you can get anywhere easily on a combination of quiet side streets and rail-converted trails.
If every cyclist in these five communities paid $12, perhaps we could close that roughly 1000 feet of gap, creating a single trail network linking over a quarter million people. Thousands would potentially be able to bike to work across a path where there are currently no good direct mass transit connections. City dwellers would have easy bike access (granted after a ten mile ride) to the beach, and to a 2200 acre forest.
30,000 pounds is on the high side for a modern bus. My local transit authority's buses weigh in at 27500, but then you do have to factor in the weight of passengers.
In fact transportation planners are quite aware of the pavement impact issue; it's one of several factors they have to balance. Increasing the number of passengers on the bus increases the pavement impact but decreases the air pollution impact; reducing the passenger load (e.g., with more frequent service) reduces the pavement impact and improves service, but increases air pollution.
Probably trackless trolleys are the champ here, with no fuel tanks, transmission, and a modest battery to travel short distances.
The local transit authority is introducing electric buses that are articulated, tri-axle affairs, probably because of the mass of battery involved. But possibly smaller, more frequent electric buses would be a better choice, at least from the pavement standpoint. Possibly when autonomous buses become practical.
I'm happy to pay my $30 annual fishing license, which pays for conservation and access programs, as well as a fish stocking program I'm not particularly partial to but serves a purpose for young anglers. It costs less than the sport fishing conservation organizations I belong to, and probably does more.
I'd be happy to pony up $12 on a bike, but I do see some difficulties. Money spent on access or conservation anywhere in the state benefits me as a fisherman, but bicycle infrastructure spending largely benefits local cyclists. So it's quite possible that some people will be paying the tax and seeing no benefit out of it.
One thing that might be useful is driver education. Sharrows are appearing all over the place, but I don't think most drivers understand what they mean. There's also widespread misunderstanding about some basic things like how a motorist is supposed to make a right turn after a stop across a bike lane (you're supposed to move into the bike lane in most jurisdictions; that eliminates the possibility of cutting of the cyclist).
However, new products are not an indicator for success. Sales is!
Not exactly; and sales does not necessarily equal good cash flow, although it contributes to it. You can nearly always generate more sales by spending more money on promotions -- more sales, more cash going in, but often even more cash going out.
What's more, sales and profit aren't necessarily the same thing; you can easily go bankrupt while profitable; you can also run a company that loses money for years on end if it has a cash cow.
What businesses need to keep going, day to day, is to meet current obligations (bills they have to pay right away). That's the significance of cash flow. Vendors will always accept cash for debt; getting them to accept a share of *Stranger Things* wouldn't work, although you can get bond holders, investors and banks to in effect do that, all at a price of course.
Having positive cash flow is always good; but burning cash, while always risky, is normal in certain circumstances (e.g. startups or companies acting like startups). So the big question isn't whether Netflix was cash negative, but whether cash flows are proceeding as planned.
If this is the cash flow situation Netflix expected, the CEO is right to point to things like the products they're developing. That shows that things are indeed proceeding as planned: they were always planning to burn cash over a number quarters to do stuff like that. However if cash inflows that were expected didn't materialize, or if cash outlays occurred that were unexpected, that's just bad. It's not necessarily fatal, however. As long as Netflix can keep paying the bills and is generating *value*, it's possible to engineer some kind of soft landing.
Retailers, so far, have been extremely reluctant to share what's actually sold and more importantly, for what price, whether it's with the CC company or vendors.
If they become totally dependent upon Visa, Visa may gain leverage that outweighs that reluctance.
If you do carry a wad of cash, here's a tip from an old-timer: keep the small denominations on the outside. If you have a fat wad of cash with a $20 on the outside, if someone sees you handling it they'll think it's a wad of $20s.
Also, keeping a sacrificial wad is a good idea: all ones with a $20 on the outside. If you're mugged you throw it and run the other way.
It happens all the time that the role you play with respect to someone changes what you can do with or to them. For example by default you can have sex with anyone who is willing, but if you're their psychotherapist that's grounds for malpractice and having your licensed revoked.
You can by default gossip about people; any information that came into your hands legally is fair game for passing on. Unless you are that person's lawyer.
Saying that as an employer or prospective employer you're restricted in the ways you can poke around in an employee's private life isn't problematic in principle. The problem it presents is practical: you can only catch people if they're stupid and blab about it. In general as a hiring manager you should never discuss the reason you didn't hire a candidate with that candidate, if you don't want your justification challenged in a court of law (or even public opinions). If asked, you give the candidate a vague, non-negatable justification, e.g., "We felt there were other candidates who were a better fit."
So what a law like this does is enables foolish employers to hire foolish employees.
The failure in this case isn't science. There is no scientific question about getting to Mars with SLS and Orion. The failure here is engineering.
Cost is an integral part of engineering. Many, many unfeasible engineering projects are physically possible. The art of engineering is finding approaches to achieve goals given the resources available, counting time as a resource of course.
So what they've been doing, while technically impressive, is just bad engineering: spending resources on an approach which won't achieve the objective within the given constraints, based on the wishful thinking that people will suddenly want to spend lots more money on the project in the future.
Sometimes when you can't achieve an objective, the smart thing is to find an alternative objective that's worth doing in itself and also leaves you better positioned to work on the original objective.
This may be true, but the evidence for coffee's statistical association with liver health and plausible mechanisms of action have been well-established for years now. You can even measure the dose-related effects of coffee consumption on markers of liver function in small-scale experiments. What's unclear is the clinical significance of those effects; but any attempt to determine that is bound to run afoul of some counfounding factors, but in context those factors aren't all that likely to be significant.
Evidence has to be interpreted in the context of other evidence; evidence forms a kind of network -- specifically a Bayesian network. A priori probabilities always inform the interpretation of any study.
It has nothing to do with authority. It has everything to do with how the president uses that channel of communications.
Strangely, I have found many people who continue working for a boss that makes them unhappy.
I agree that making employees feel good isn't an end in itself -- particularly making them feel good all the time. There are times when you,as boss, have to make certain employees feel bad. "Leadership" is just another word for "emotional manipulation".
That said, working under competent and effective leadership tends to lead to success and that tends to be rewarding for people. If everyone around you is worthless, the problem is almost certainly you.
After decades in business, I am heartily sick of put-upon managers. It's almost like bragging: despite my good-for-nothing employees, look at how I'm muddling through! And I always think, "why not hire better employees?" It's not that hard: pay a little more, choose a little more carefully, treat the good performers with respect and regularly clear out the deadwood. And yet, while I've met countless put-upon managers in my career, I can count on one hand the ones who made any kind of concerted, systematic effort to hire and retain the best people, and all of them were very successful.
The only conclusion I can make is that those armies of put-upon managers are actually more comfortable with dysfunction and mediocrity. Most bosses are their own worst enemies; which means as a group they're exactly like most other people, just in a better position to force their personal emotional drama on others.