Speech is routinely used to convey and illicit emotion, - which is why you included "fuck off" and "bullshit" in your subject. Proper grammar aside, I think most people understand what is intended by the term "hate speech".
Of course if you're going to ban it, filter it, or even just label it, someone has got to decide what it is and certainly censorship is implied.
Personally I don't think you have to make a choice between being healthy and not being dull. You can lead a healthy and an enjoyable life now, and continue to do so as you age. I agree that you can't get around the fact that your body is going to degrade as you get older, but you have some control over how much and how fast.
And yes, it's certainly possible to spend so much time trying to improve your fitness that it crowds out other worthwhile ways to spend your time. A number of years ago, I started doing triathlons. Training for all 3 portions of the event is time consuming. So what I started doing was riding my bike to work. It's only 6 miles but I could easily extend it as I saw fit. Time I would otherwise be sitting on a bus or in traffic was used to improve my fitness instead.
I haven't done a triathlon in awhile but riding my bike to work is a habit I stuck with. I do it year round so I get an hour (30 minutes each way) of good exercise about 4 days a week and it basically takes no time. During rush hour it takes me as long or longer to drive.
And the beauty of exercising is that you consume more calories. So you can enjoy a burger plus beer now and then and you'll just burn it off. I do more than just cycling to work in terms of exercise but most of us have the time if you cut down on things that don't add much value to your life.
There's lots of ways you can get exercise that don't take a ton of time out of your day that wasn't already essentially wasted. Take the stairs instead of the elevator. Walk or ride your bike short distances instead of taking the car. For me, I ride my bike to work instead of driving or taking the bus. It's about 6 miles and takes less than 30 minutes. So it's 45 minutes to an hour both ways. Driving during rush hour takes the same amount of time if not more. I shower at work instead of at home in the morning so there's only extra shower in the evening which takes me maybe 10 minutes.
Laundry I'm going to do anyway. I suppose I have a few extra items each week but that adds an insignificant amount of time.
Plus I have more energy and am more alert when I exercise vs when I don't. I get sick less often and I recover quicker. This goes way back to college. When I was trying to study and found myself dosing off or not able to concentrate, I'd go for a short run and then would be awake.
My mother spent most of her life in good health but really didn't exercise. When she turned 70 she basically blew out vertebrae due to osteoporosis. She lived another 10 years but was practically an invalid for most of that time. I honestly believe she could have avoided that fate had she done some weight bearing exercise to help maintain her bone mass. Of course we're all going to die one way or another.
As others have said, exercise doesn't have to be drudgery and you don't have to travel. Plus most of us can find time a few days a week at least that we won't miss.
Well sure, if you're not fit now, you won't become more fit without exercising. But while exercising and fitness are inextricably linked, they aren't the same thing. Too much exercise can have negative impacts on your health AND your level of fitness. But what the study says is that improved fitness never detracts from your health.
Not sure how serious to take this post but as someone who was once young and now is not, I can say that even people in their 30's have a pretty distorted view of what people in their 50's or older are capable of physically.
Anyway, in the most recent Twin Cities marathon, there were 352 male finishers that were between the ages of 50 and 54. The best overall finish in this group was 44th. That was 44th out of nearly 7500. Those 352 didn't include women or the hundreds of finishers that were over the age of 54.
Did you really check the funding? I saw the study was done by the Cleveland Clinic which is pretty well respected but it wasn't apparent what the funding source was.
The fitter your body, the better it is able to handle strain on your system. That level of fitness is improved by exercise (straining your system), but in degrees. Equally important to improving fitness are adequate rest and recovery along with proper nutrition.
There is of course such a thing as over training which will decrease your fitness. The study didn't measure how much people exercised. It measured how fit they were. The fitter people were, the longer they lived and there did not seem to be a point at which improved fitness didn't improve their chances at a longer life.
The study didn't say that there was no upper limit on how fit a person could be. My guess is that there's a certain level of fitness a person can achieve beyond which it becomes very difficult to become any fitter.
The study measured outcomes based on level of fitness. The study showed that the fitter you are the better your chances are of living longer.
You're right in that it does not directly show that sedentary people would live longer if they start exercising but there are plenty of other studies that show that improved fitness comes with exercise. That's pretty well understood. It's about the only way to achieve better fitness unless you're already over-training.
You're also right about the fact that there may be underlying factors contributing to a sedentary lifestyle and I believe there's a number of people for whom exercise does not have the same impact on fitness that it does for the rest of us. However, that applies to a small minority of people.
I'm sure PlugShare would like to be "the app" but as long as it relies on self reporting to know whether a charger is in use or not, you're taking a chance.
The Charge Point app shows the status of its chargers and for those that it doesn't know the status of, it will list them as unknown so at least you have some idea.
The AI was picking more men than women because resumes were penalized if they stated things like the applicant was a champion of the women's chess team or went to an all women's school. So it didn't directly score based on sex but it penalized you for being female based on other criteria that was not relevant. In other words, it did something very much like penalizing people not named Dave because most of the people already holding the positioned were named Dave.
It's a bias if the fact that 80% of the available pool is named Dave but the name itself has nothing to do with suitability for the position. The AI would be ignoring 20% of potential candidates for no reason.
I wouldn't call it a moral failing if unintended, just bad design.
But there are well known peak consumption times (afternoons on hot days) and those times are not when most car charging is happening (overnight). Depending on where you live, you can pay lower rates for electricity during off peak hours and electric cars are set up to take advantage of that.
The Chevy Volt and I'm sure many other EVs can be configured to only charge during certain times of the day. So you plug it in at let's say 6:00 pm when you get home but it won't start charging until 8:00 or whenever the cheaper rate kicks in.
I don't know what the actual numbers would be. More telling would be to have them actually live each way for few months and decide which they preferred.
Really my point though was that having 35% of teens saying that texting is their favorite way to communicate with friends vs 32% of teens saying that talking in person is their favorite way doesn't tell the whole story. 33% of teens preferred some other means altogether. If you were to ask about close friends vs any friend or communicating with individuals rather than groups, you may get a different response.
If you'd asked whether they preferred spending an afternoon with a good friend vs spending an afternoon texting a good friend, I'd bet you'd get a very different response as well. "Talking" is a very specific activity and personally I like my social activities to include talking rather than being focused on talking.
To put it more simply, I'd be much more concerned if as a group teens preferred to sit in their room texting all day as opposed to hanging out with their friends. Personally, I haven't seen with my kids that texting their friends has diminished their desire to spend time with them.
Moderation in all things. Make sure your kids are involved in outside activities. Allow them to have phones but monitor their use and set limits if need be.
I have two teens and yes, they absolutely spend a lot of time interacting with their friends on social media. Just as previous generations might have spent hours on the phone in the evening. But they also love doing stuff with their friends. I've spent a lot of time shuffling my kids to/from other kids' houses and other places they meet people. They'll use their bikes too if where they're going is close enough. They go to and we've hosted many a sleepover.
Even when it comes to gaming, which they can easily do from their individual homes, my son often prefers to pack up his laptop, console, Switch or whatever and go to somebody's house with 2 or 3 other guys and spend the night.
As far as whether they prefer texting to an in person conversation, I think a lot depends on the person, the nature of the conversation, and the context.
An interesting question to ask would be which choice would they make:
A: You could never leave your house and you could never have friends over, but you could use social media to your hearts content
B: You could never use social media again short of getting and sending invites, but you're free to interact with people in person
There is no doubt that both would be crippling to a modern teen's social life, but I bet most would choose to interact exclusively in person vs never being able to interact in person.
Do you build your own roads? Refine your own gas or produce your own electricity?
How much of your income, space, and time is devoted to your vehicles? How free are you if your vehicle breaks down or you simply can't afford one?
We don't really think about it but we devote an absurd amount of our personal resources to our cars. Don't believe me? Look at the front of most modern suburban homes, and you'll see that one of the most prominent features is the garage. That's how important cars are to us.
Relying on cars has not made us more free. We are slaves to them.
Or they buy the same number of cars they always have, but opt to spend money on cheaper models with fewer or less expensive options.
Or maybe the car manufactures eat the costs and instead of making 2.6 billion of net profit in a quarter (https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2018/04/26/general-motors-first-quarter-earnings-2018/552606002/), they make 2.2 billion.
Something else to consider. The average price of a new vehicle sold in the US is about $36,000. Tesla's base Model 3 will supposedly sell for $35,000. Note that they currently aren't offering the base model and it's an open question whether Tesla can turn a profit selling those cars. However, the Chevy Bolt sells for $36,000 with a 238 mile range.
Workhorse will be selling a plugin electric pickup with an 80 mile electric range for about $50,000. Much more expensive than a Chevy Silverado, but with existing incentives the price of the Workhorse comes down to $42,500. If you add up the cost savings of fuel over the life of the vehicle I'm sure it still comes out to be more expensive, but not ridiculously so.
My point is that the technology does currently exist in production vehicles and will only get better. You could further incentivize the industry rather than relax standards to get us there faster but the White House is more interested in catering to the fossil fuel industry.
The argument they are try to make is that the added expense of designing and building more fuel efficient vehicles means that more people won't be able to afford them and will therefore buy less. That would lead to the mix of cars on the road being less safe since fewer of them would have modern safety features. Correct?
The argument I'm making is that the most popular vehicles sold today are at the higher end of the cost scale and sold at higher margins than those at the lower end. In other words, people are choosing to buy more expensive vehicles anyway. If prices go up, the buying public may purchase just as many vehicles but opt for less expensive models, fewer options, or, heaven forbid, automakers might have to eat some of the costs, - which is the real issue here. Let's not kid ourselves.
But lets look at history rather than just guessing. Have CAFE standards inhibited new cars sales? The number of cars per driver in the US has been climbing more or less steadily since 1960. https://www.schroders.com/ru/s...
Economic ups and downs have had an impact. Fuel economy standards, - not really. There is a feeling that millennial attitudes towards driving and car ownership may bring the number down. That's not completely unrelated to the cost of owning and operating a vehicle but the relative cost difference that higher efficiency standards make is not likely a factor. In fact, you could make the argument that millennials would prefer to buy more efficient vehicles.
The fact that utility vehicles are held to a much lower efficiently standard is definitely a problem. Just wait until the next spike in gas prices and the lack of foresight exhibited in this proposal from the white house will become readily apparent.
Within our organization our style guidelines dictate that we follow the existing style rather than mixing styles so you're stuck catering to someone else's OCD whether it's Python or something else. What Python does is tell you when you've failed to cater properly. The other thing that it does is force those who wouldn't be otherwise inclined to make sure that their indentation matches what the code actually does.
It's a shaky argument. The best selling vehicles right now are pickups and SUVs which people are already paying a premium for and are sold at high margins. If the cost of all vehicles goes up due to fuel economy regulations then some people might opt to buy less expensive vehicles rather than not getting a vehicle at all, or the automakers might have to sell them at lower margins.
And of course the argument ignores the health and safety risks associated with pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.
I can't comment on Germany but I suspect that things have gotten much better rather than worse. A decade ago in Minnesota nearly 70% of electricity was generated in coal fired power plants. Now it's less than 40%, and in the next decade it will drop substantially more. The rest is made up of renewables, nuclear, and natural gas.
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel of course but produces 50 to 60% less CO2 than an equivalent coal plant.
A lot of the coal plants in this country are old. Many have been taken off-line in recent years or are scheduled to come off line. They aren't being replaced with new coal plants, but with a combination of Gas and renewables. Both Wind and Natural Gas are cheaper sources of electricity than Coal in this state.
You can see that as a plus or a minus. With Python you'll have to adopt the style of the original code or change it all to match your new style. In another language you could have 3 different styles employed within the same file by the 3 different people who were responsible for maintaining it at one time or another.
If it's in the top 5 or 6 now and had been holding steady or climbing for the last couple of years it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't still be in the top 10 in a few years.
Most of the things in the top 10 list of 2018 have been around and popular for a decade at least. The exception would be Go which is only 9 years old.
Slashdot Mirror
Speech is routinely used to convey and illicit emotion, - which is why you included "fuck off" and "bullshit" in your subject. Proper grammar aside, I think most people understand what is intended by the term "hate speech". Of course if you're going to ban it, filter it, or even just label it, someone has got to decide what it is and certainly censorship is implied.
Personally I don't think you have to make a choice between being healthy and not being dull. You can lead a healthy and an enjoyable life now, and continue to do so as you age. I agree that you can't get around the fact that your body is going to degrade as you get older, but you have some control over how much and how fast.
And yes, it's certainly possible to spend so much time trying to improve your fitness that it crowds out other worthwhile ways to spend your time. A number of years ago, I started doing triathlons. Training for all 3 portions of the event is time consuming. So what I started doing was riding my bike to work. It's only 6 miles but I could easily extend it as I saw fit. Time I would otherwise be sitting on a bus or in traffic was used to improve my fitness instead.
I haven't done a triathlon in awhile but riding my bike to work is a habit I stuck with. I do it year round so I get an hour (30 minutes each way) of good exercise about 4 days a week and it basically takes no time. During rush hour it takes me as long or longer to drive.
And the beauty of exercising is that you consume more calories. So you can enjoy a burger plus beer now and then and you'll just burn it off. I do more than just cycling to work in terms of exercise but most of us have the time if you cut down on things that don't add much value to your life.
There's lots of ways you can get exercise that don't take a ton of time out of your day that wasn't already essentially wasted. Take the stairs instead of the elevator. Walk or ride your bike short distances instead of taking the car. For me, I ride my bike to work instead of driving or taking the bus. It's about 6 miles and takes less than 30 minutes. So it's 45 minutes to an hour both ways. Driving during rush hour takes the same amount of time if not more. I shower at work instead of at home in the morning so there's only extra shower in the evening which takes me maybe 10 minutes.
Laundry I'm going to do anyway. I suppose I have a few extra items each week but that adds an insignificant amount of time.
Plus I have more energy and am more alert when I exercise vs when I don't. I get sick less often and I recover quicker. This goes way back to college. When I was trying to study and found myself dosing off or not able to concentrate, I'd go for a short run and then would be awake.
My mother spent most of her life in good health but really didn't exercise. When she turned 70 she basically blew out vertebrae due to osteoporosis. She lived another 10 years but was practically an invalid for most of that time. I honestly believe she could have avoided that fate had she done some weight bearing exercise to help maintain her bone mass. Of course we're all going to die one way or another.
As others have said, exercise doesn't have to be drudgery and you don't have to travel. Plus most of us can find time a few days a week at least that we won't miss.
Well sure, if you're not fit now, you won't become more fit without exercising. But while exercising and fitness are inextricably linked, they aren't the same thing. Too much exercise can have negative impacts on your health AND your level of fitness. But what the study says is that improved fitness never detracts from your health.
Not sure how serious to take this post but as someone who was once young and now is not, I can say that even people in their 30's have a pretty distorted view of what people in their 50's or older are capable of physically.
Anyway, in the most recent Twin Cities marathon, there were 352 male finishers that were between the ages of 50 and 54. The best overall finish in this group was 44th. That was 44th out of nearly 7500. Those 352 didn't include women or the hundreds of finishers that were over the age of 54.
So you can absolutely run over the age 50. I do.
Did you really check the funding? I saw the study was done by the Cleveland Clinic which is pretty well respected but it wasn't apparent what the funding source was.
The fitter your body, the better it is able to handle strain on your system. That level of fitness is improved by exercise (straining your system), but in degrees. Equally important to improving fitness are adequate rest and recovery along with proper nutrition.
There is of course such a thing as over training which will decrease your fitness. The study didn't measure how much people exercised. It measured how fit they were. The fitter people were, the longer they lived and there did not seem to be a point at which improved fitness didn't improve their chances at a longer life.
The study didn't say that there was no upper limit on how fit a person could be. My guess is that there's a certain level of fitness a person can achieve beyond which it becomes very difficult to become any fitter.
The study measured outcomes based on level of fitness. The study showed that the fitter you are the better your chances are of living longer.
You're right in that it does not directly show that sedentary people would live longer if they start exercising but there are plenty of other studies that show that improved fitness comes with exercise. That's pretty well understood. It's about the only way to achieve better fitness unless you're already over-training.
You're also right about the fact that there may be underlying factors contributing to a sedentary lifestyle and I believe there's a number of people for whom exercise does not have the same impact on fitness that it does for the rest of us. However, that applies to a small minority of people.
And more importantly, PlugShare is not Google Maps. It's much nicer to have a single app provide directions AND show EV charges in the same vicinity,
I'm sure PlugShare would like to be "the app" but as long as it relies on self reporting to know whether a charger is in use or not, you're taking a chance.
The Charge Point app shows the status of its chargers and for those that it doesn't know the status of, it will list them as unknown so at least you have some idea.
The AI was picking more men than women because resumes were penalized if they stated things like the applicant was a champion of the women's chess team or went to an all women's school. So it didn't directly score based on sex but it penalized you for being female based on other criteria that was not relevant. In other words, it did something very much like penalizing people not named Dave because most of the people already holding the positioned were named Dave.
There are scholarships for nursing programs targeted at men already and I personally know of schools that are deliberately seeking male teachers.
It's a bias if the fact that 80% of the available pool is named Dave but the name itself has nothing to do with suitability for the position. The AI would be ignoring 20% of potential candidates for no reason.
I wouldn't call it a moral failing if unintended, just bad design.
Because paying a higher minimum wage means you can't pay a better performer more than that or give them a promotion?
But there are well known peak consumption times (afternoons on hot days) and those times are not when most car charging is happening (overnight). Depending on where you live, you can pay lower rates for electricity during off peak hours and electric cars are set up to take advantage of that.
The Chevy Volt and I'm sure many other EVs can be configured to only charge during certain times of the day. So you plug it in at let's say 6:00 pm when you get home but it won't start charging until 8:00 or whenever the cheaper rate kicks in.
I don't know what the actual numbers would be. More telling would be to have them actually live each way for few months and decide which they preferred.
Really my point though was that having 35% of teens saying that texting is their favorite way to communicate with friends vs 32% of teens saying that talking in person is their favorite way doesn't tell the whole story. 33% of teens preferred some other means altogether. If you were to ask about close friends vs any friend or communicating with individuals rather than groups, you may get a different response.
If you'd asked whether they preferred spending an afternoon with a good friend vs spending an afternoon texting a good friend, I'd bet you'd get a very different response as well. "Talking" is a very specific activity and personally I like my social activities to include talking rather than being focused on talking. To put it more simply, I'd be much more concerned if as a group teens preferred to sit in their room texting all day as opposed to hanging out with their friends. Personally, I haven't seen with my kids that texting their friends has diminished their desire to spend time with them.
Moderation in all things. Make sure your kids are involved in outside activities. Allow them to have phones but monitor their use and set limits if need be.
I have two teens and yes, they absolutely spend a lot of time interacting with their friends on social media. Just as previous generations might have spent hours on the phone in the evening. But they also love doing stuff with their friends. I've spent a lot of time shuffling my kids to/from other kids' houses and other places they meet people. They'll use their bikes too if where they're going is close enough. They go to and we've hosted many a sleepover.
Even when it comes to gaming, which they can easily do from their individual homes, my son often prefers to pack up his laptop, console, Switch or whatever and go to somebody's house with 2 or 3 other guys and spend the night.
As far as whether they prefer texting to an in person conversation, I think a lot depends on the person, the nature of the conversation, and the context.
An interesting question to ask would be which choice would they make:
A: You could never leave your house and you could never have friends over, but you could use social media to your hearts content
B: You could never use social media again short of getting and sending invites, but you're free to interact with people in person
There is no doubt that both would be crippling to a modern teen's social life, but I bet most would choose to interact exclusively in person vs never being able to interact in person.
Do you build your own roads? Refine your own gas or produce your own electricity?
How much of your income, space, and time is devoted to your vehicles? How free are you if your vehicle breaks down or you simply can't afford one?
We don't really think about it but we devote an absurd amount of our personal resources to our cars. Don't believe me? Look at the front of most modern suburban homes, and you'll see that one of the most prominent features is the garage. That's how important cars are to us.
Relying on cars has not made us more free. We are slaves to them.
Or they buy the same number of cars they always have, but opt to spend money on cheaper models with fewer or less expensive options.
Or maybe the car manufactures eat the costs and instead of making 2.6 billion of net profit in a quarter (https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2018/04/26/general-motors-first-quarter-earnings-2018/552606002/), they make 2.2 billion.
Something else to consider. The average price of a new vehicle sold in the US is about $36,000. Tesla's base Model 3 will supposedly sell for $35,000. Note that they currently aren't offering the base model and it's an open question whether Tesla can turn a profit selling those cars. However, the Chevy Bolt sells for $36,000 with a 238 mile range.
Workhorse will be selling a plugin electric pickup with an 80 mile electric range for about $50,000. Much more expensive than a Chevy Silverado, but with existing incentives the price of the Workhorse comes down to $42,500. If you add up the cost savings of fuel over the life of the vehicle I'm sure it still comes out to be more expensive, but not ridiculously so.
My point is that the technology does currently exist in production vehicles and will only get better. You could further incentivize the industry rather than relax standards to get us there faster but the White House is more interested in catering to the fossil fuel industry.
The argument they are try to make is that the added expense of designing and building more fuel efficient vehicles means that more people won't be able to afford them and will therefore buy less. That would lead to the mix of cars on the road being less safe since fewer of them would have modern safety features. Correct?
The argument I'm making is that the most popular vehicles sold today are at the higher end of the cost scale and sold at higher margins than those at the lower end. In other words, people are choosing to buy more expensive vehicles anyway. If prices go up, the buying public may purchase just as many vehicles but opt for less expensive models, fewer options, or, heaven forbid, automakers might have to eat some of the costs, - which is the real issue here. Let's not kid ourselves.
But lets look at history rather than just guessing. Have CAFE standards inhibited new cars sales? The number of cars per driver in the US has been climbing more or less steadily since 1960. https://www.schroders.com/ru/s...
Economic ups and downs have had an impact. Fuel economy standards, - not really. There is a feeling that millennial attitudes towards driving and car ownership may bring the number down. That's not completely unrelated to the cost of owning and operating a vehicle but the relative cost difference that higher efficiency standards make is not likely a factor. In fact, you could make the argument that millennials would prefer to buy more efficient vehicles.
The fact that utility vehicles are held to a much lower efficiently standard is definitely a problem. Just wait until the next spike in gas prices and the lack of foresight exhibited in this proposal from the white house will become readily apparent.
Within our organization our style guidelines dictate that we follow the existing style rather than mixing styles so you're stuck catering to someone else's OCD whether it's Python or something else. What Python does is tell you when you've failed to cater properly. The other thing that it does is force those who wouldn't be otherwise inclined to make sure that their indentation matches what the code actually does.
It's a shaky argument. The best selling vehicles right now are pickups and SUVs which people are already paying a premium for and are sold at high margins. If the cost of all vehicles goes up due to fuel economy regulations then some people might opt to buy less expensive vehicles rather than not getting a vehicle at all, or the automakers might have to sell them at lower margins.
And of course the argument ignores the health and safety risks associated with pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.
I can't comment on Germany but I suspect that things have gotten much better rather than worse. A decade ago in Minnesota nearly 70% of electricity was generated in coal fired power plants. Now it's less than 40%, and in the next decade it will drop substantially more. The rest is made up of renewables, nuclear, and natural gas.
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel of course but produces 50 to 60% less CO2 than an equivalent coal plant.
A lot of the coal plants in this country are old. Many have been taken off-line in recent years or are scheduled to come off line. They aren't being replaced with new coal plants, but with a combination of Gas and renewables. Both Wind and Natural Gas are cheaper sources of electricity than Coal in this state.
You can see that as a plus or a minus. With Python you'll have to adopt the style of the original code or change it all to match your new style. In another language you could have 3 different styles employed within the same file by the 3 different people who were responsible for maintaining it at one time or another.
Which is worse?
If it's in the top 5 or 6 now and had been holding steady or climbing for the last couple of years it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't still be in the top 10 in a few years.
Most of the things in the top 10 list of 2018 have been around and popular for a decade at least. The exception would be Go which is only 9 years old.