Statements like this should be disregarded. Do it or walk away, don't hamster your way out of it.
There are many times an employer has asked me to do something difficult, that I didn't want to do for other reasons (usually involving training my overseas buddies) and I happily said it couldn't be done, when I knew full well it could. My reasons for saying things might not relate to the efficacy of the thing, I just knew my bosses were too stupid to know the difference.
Things have either been done, or they have yet to be done. Unless its over unity energy/perpetual motion, or tax evasion, no one should rule them out.
She's fairly young, and not an advocate of the food pyramid, that's a discussion I already had. I get the meat should be "2 decks of cards" and half a plate of vegetables lecture. But the cited reasons are that my triglycerides are already high, but my glucose and A1C are just fine. I guess she'd rather I fixed the former than the latter. I would not say she's advocating more carbs at all, just less meat and more veg.
So perhaps she actually agrees with you, I'm simply eating too MUCH meat;) But she was quite adamant about not adopting a high fat diet.
They'd probably call it 24-oz t-bone (680g technically). Definitely something you can buy, and something I've even eaten, but yeah...nobody would use metric.
WTF? I thought America is the land of the big steak? Go to a restaurant and get yourself a 600g T-bone and skip on the fries and you won't need to worry about carbs.
1) Just about anyone can make a good steak at home for less than the steak restaurant. There are three methods for cooking steak at home, each one better than the last, that produce best results. The only time steak restaurants are worth it, are the very expensive ones that can slow roast over longer periods of time, and they are really damned good, but very expensive and in my case located inside urban areas that are inconvenient to reach. Given that, most steak restaurants try to get you on the non-meat dishes, sides and of course, alcohol. Everyone knows the price of the meat they're serving, but they also have labor/rent to pay.
2) Yes, I can run down to the store right now and get a 24oz ribeye that's almost 2" thick and drop about $30 on it. I can prepare it per #1 above and it will taste very good. I can afford it. But I really shouldn't except maybe a few times a year, it's not a healthy and sustainable lifestyle. The recommendation I get from dietitians is 6 oz of meat max, most of it not red meat.
3) There's confusion out there about what it means to be healthy. Vegetarians and vegans are not necessarily any more healthy than me. I have a few friends from India who will gladly point out "hey, we're all vegetarians here, but look at how fat we are!". It turns out lots of milk, butter, sugar and starchy foods also will put the weight on, and isn't any better for you. Restaurants do the same sort of things, they want you to enjoy what you eat, but of course most of us enjoy what is bad for us.
4) The ignorable sides are probably the ones you should be eating. At least for me, those are: broccoli, asparagus, green beans, cauliflower, etc.
My take away from the dietitian I'm compelled to see at work is 4-6oz of meat, half a plate of vegetable matter of some variety or another, and like 1/4 cup of grains (way, way less than the usda recommendation). Not very many restaurants prepare meals like this, I'm not sure if many people would buy it right now. I personally would if it was fast and convenient on my way home, I don't have a lot of free time but recognize a need to eat better. To me this is the big problem right now with restaurants: they are either once in a while things you go to, or they're places that serve meals to go on a more frequent basis, and the latter is just not cutting it.
Not sure what restaurant you eat at, but I was looking over the menu at one chain and not a single thing there was less than 1000 calories, when as a middle aged man my budget there is around 500-800.
I find they serve too much food, because food is cheaper than their rent and labor. Alcohol is the only thing i've noticed seems to come in smaller packages for the same price.
Trying to equate your time with money is often folly, given that whether you are salaried or paid by the hour, generally you are expected to work about X hours and you cannot easily give up some time at work (and the associated money).
Baking is pretty time consuming, although without any question produces the very best tasting results even if you lack skill.
Cooking dinner on the other hand has a minimum entry of 1 hour to cook, eat and clean even the simplest of meals (and the same doctors who tell you to eat healthy, will also tell you to eat slowly, which most of us don't do). 1 hour is a lot of time for this task, and some things if you want them to taste good, take well over that in prep alone. This says nothing about the taste of the food in question, which does depend quite heavily on the skill of the cook, his access to appropriate and fresh ingredients, and what shortcuts he took to get it done fast (microwaving a potato, in my opinion, is sinful, but it brings a 2 hour process to a few minutes). Eating out makes a lot of sense.
Unfortunately you can't eat out for less than like 1000 Calories a meal, and the meals aren't very healthy. So people are doing some pretty uncomfortable things to try to make it all happen. Restaurants are still caught in various dilemmas, one of which is that their costs are labor+rent driven, food is fairly cheap, but if they don't give a lot of it, people think they're being cheap. Another of course is that the only notion of healthy food they have are salads, and nobody really wants to spend $10 on a salad.
If they can get around their confusion about what it means to be healthy, and start focusing on delivering healthy meals that don't require a lot of time from their customers I think what was formerly the "fast food" industry could transform into a more successful "pick up food" industry.
On my first child, we did the new parent thing, went to the training sessions the Ob recommended, learned various facts and warning signs. One of which is "if the fever is above , come to the ER immediately, it's the law." So a couple years go by, and as it happens the kid gets a fever, it's shooting up over 105, we rush him to the ER. Anyway, doctor sees the kid, the kid throws up, temp comes down. Doctor diagnoses him with a stomach bug, and chastises me for an unnecessary ER visit in the most condescending way possible. And I sit there thinking "yeah I knew this, but I did what your own staff said to do. Asshole."
So I read the paragraph and it simultaneously says yeah if you have atrial fib and don't know it, it's helpful. But also, they fear all the people rushing to their doctor unnecessarily. So which is it? I'll tell you which, if it says you may have a problem, go to the goddamn doctor and let him tell you it's not. Then when you get the condescending lecture, think real loudly what an asshole he is.
I could do this all day. The major takeaway is you can change the words, but the relationship is still there. I say do away with master/slave if only because it is somewhat outdated. In the spirit of hacktivism, let's choose a relationship that's more near and dear to problems we have today!
Cars seem like they have it figured out. You have model year, make and mfg. The rest of the options matter only on resale, insurance or maintenance.
I may buy a 2019 Honda Soulless Touring Elite, and I'm paying a bit because I'm buying the very latest model with the latest features, but after I buy it, it's just my Soulless. The same for my iPhone, the most important part is that it's an iPhone, that says a lot about what it is and can or can't do. The rest is just speaking to features and profile, which for devices like this are either bundled (Xs versus Xr) or are options (Big [Max] or Small, storage size). That's important on the website, but not otherwise. So why not just call it the 2018 iPhone and let the rest be between the purchaser and Apple through a website interface...which is what it actually is anyway, just with more verbiage.
All of these things seem to have some meaningless numbers after their names "iPhone X" or "Galaxy Note 9", the numbers have no actual meaning and, for reasons, don't necessarily monotonically increase. Or even remain in arabic numerals. Who can keep track, and who cares. All I want to remember is I bought my last phone in 2016, that's the model year I'm working with. The rest is maybe just some stuff in the settings tab I can look up if needed, or break out a ruler and measure.
The dopamine is a very important factor. It's what creates the addiction. Your body doesn't always reward you for things that turn out to be positive in the long run. Eating a crapload of candy every day is a good example I think. Our bodies crave sugar & fats because they used to be very hard to get and are a good source of short term / long term energy. But, we have unlimited access to both today. Our mental reward for chomping down on a Snickers bar is causing some people a lot of problem.
This is not relevant. As you point out, our bodies often reward us for things in ways which are, by standards of modern technology and society, arbitrary. The fact that we are being rewarded for electronic socialization is neither here nor there. It is a problem when it is a problem.
These addictions to social media and smart phones are causing morons to walk around with their faces glued to their phones. Seems like every few weeks you hear about someone getting run over because they walked out into traffic while looking at their phone. From the studies I've seen, our brains give us that reward when we post something that is "liked" by our friends.. I'm no expert, and I'm not sure on the exact mechanics... But i have the power of observation, and I see LOTS of kids who are absolutely glued to their phones.
When I was a kid they said the same about walkmans. There was some truth and some exaggeration in there too. We made it through, walkmans are now a legend. I've also heard of kids being run over while trying to read the actual dead tree books of legend, and one or two being smacked by a subway or abused by the local jocks etc. This isn't a new phenomenon, just a new object. It's also not an example of addiction, this is about being focused on some thing versus watching your surroundings, and is a general safety concern. When we're out on the street, we need to watch our surroundings. Some of us are more inclined to laser focus at a moments notice than others, regardless of the object we're focusing on. My son and I are both dangerous this way. Neither of us even need a physical tool either, we're both capable of being completely lost in our thoughts to the point of putting our bodies at risk. I have nearly been hit by the proverbial bus at least twice.
Right now, from what I can see, there is almost no oversight (by a lot of parents) on how kids are using these devices. Young teens are the most vulnerable to forming life long addictions (in my experience). eg. In my group of friends, the ones who didn't start drinking early never turned into alcoholics. Most of the people I know who are problem drinkers started in their mid-teens. Nearly 100% of my friends who did end up as current, or recovering, alcoholics started drinking around 14-16.
Some children are raised poorly, that has always been true. Mine know they get 30 minutes a day during weekdays, and mostly unlimited use on the weekends. This isn't because I'm worried about the evils of the devices, I just want them to get used to using their weekdays for work, school, extra-curricular, chores or otherwise. I don't want them to feel like their obligations are keeping them from their fun, at least for now. There won't be fun, there are only obligations or boredom. When they are older I will of course relax this rule, at some point they need to practice the discipline on their own, but building the habit first I think is a good start.
I don't know about your anecdote about drinking, there are complicating factors on that unrelated subject. For example, many kids who start drinking young come from families who drink heavily. There are genetic links to alcoholism. I'm not sure we can apply the knowledge gained from that topic to this topic. I am also not sure that gadget abuse necessarily has the same life impact as alcoholism, except in the limited case of using the gadgets while driving... which had been a problem long before the gadgets even had internet access.
Yes, the difference being that many people go buy them from ATT/Verizon/whatever stores, and end up with locked phones. Totally unrelated to all of this, and not exclusive to Apple. As long as people continue to buy phones this way, the practice will continue. Rarely though will you see a premium smart phone, from any vendor, ACTUALLY discounted for the contract duration, unless there are huge problems with the phone, or it's nearing the normal upgrade cycle from that phone vendor.
Mostly he's full of shit I think. I personally don't want to deal with sim cards, I don't understand why they still exist. I'd rather just load all that into my phone and forget about it. I suspect the real issue might be cloning sims, this might be harder to do when the actual sim is taken out of your hands, but it's not something I've had a desire to do.
This has nothing to do with how society evolves. This isn't socialization, this is turning kids into hermits. Studies have shown that smart phones and social media are addictive. The instant gratification of both boosts dopamine levels.. Pretty soon you get used to those elevated dopamine levels.. That's addiction.
Or maybe this represents a solution to a problem, which is that face to face meetings, particularly with children, but also adults have some problems. Amongst them:
1) Difficulty arranging transportation 2) Difficulty agreeing on venue (particularly when parents refuse certain venues 3) Inefficient use of time when in face to face scenario. I don't know about you, but when I meet with friends I already want it to be over before I walk in, I've got shit to do. 4) Text communication provides all the actual value of interacting with another human, without messy realities and alpha-pack issues. Online anyone can be alpha, even if in a wheelchair, on a ventillator. 5) Conversations are slow and painful, you can do other things while they go on, most don't really require tremendous intellect. But it's rude. 6) You can respond when it is good for you, rather than immediately
I'm sure I've missed a bunch. While I'm not clear on the dopamine correlation, I'm also not sure that's relevant. If your body is rewarding you for efficiency or satisfying some internal pressure (that may have been artificial to begin with, built in by parents/teachers because THEY thought it was important), that doesn't seem like a problem. Addiction is a problem when it interferes with your obligations or is putting your physical health in significant immediate threat. That's not happening here. If meeting someone face to face is required to keep your job, for example, and you don't do it, then you have a problem. But if it's so you calk talk to Susie about who Sally blew last night...fuck that shit, use text.
That's the sort of example I was referring to. I don't necessarily believe statements like that, but they certainly appear more and more true when he can't maintain discipline amongst his own hand-picked staff.
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets. So much so I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.
No, this is not the Deep State. The Deep State is the part of government that lives on independently of elected officials. Various employees in the TLAs who have been there since Jesus, or who hire and groom new people who will also be there forever. I can believe that, as in any large organization, public or private, there is an in-built culture that may be contrary to the whims of any new leader. Like any such organization, the efficacy of that leader to control his organization in spite of that is also his measure. I have had employers who have ousted CEOs after just a year, because they were unable to control the internal culture of their organization, so they hired someone else who would...viciously. Trump can blame the "deep state" for his first year, after that it's his fault.
Regardless, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about senior staffers that Trump either appointed himself, or someone he did directly appoint hired for the sole purpose of supporting the President's agenda. If Trump cannot see a problem that close to him, he's not being a very effective leader. It is possible (but I think unlikely) it was someone like Pence, who Trump was perhaps saddled with by his party and cannot be fired. Either way, this is a person Trump is responsible for, or who is responsible to the American people directly. It's not "deep state" at all.
It might be treason, I'm not sure. On one hand the argument will be that these people are actually, genuinely acting in the best interests of the US in spite of an erratic and probably insane leader. On the other hand, the leader is the person the nation elected, and whether we like his agenda or not, we have to somehow cope with his actions and anyone deliberately undermining him is at best, a bad employee, at worst a criminal. I don't know what the law says on this, but I do know that Trump ought to be able to see, measure and act on this. He should know what policies he is trying to drive forward, and he should be able to see that they got done, or if not, where the problem was. That's just middle management 101. That he cannot implies he's not paying attention, and he himself is responsible for what this "resistance" is doing.
If I say "give Putin a handy" and Putin isn't given a handy within a few days, I'm going to ask questions about why that was not done and who was responsible. If I don't like the reasons, I'm going to take disciplinary action. If there is a pattern, I'm going to rid myself of the problem. Why isn't Trump doing this? Does he have any idea what he's saying and keep any kind of records? If this is important to him, doesn't he come back an appropriate interval later and ask how such and such is going? This is his own organization.
Or the NY Times is lying about the credentials of anon. Also a possibility, however remote. The real issue I have with this piece is that it's very destructive both to the intent of this resistance, as well as to the republican party. I'm not sure who wrote it, but I question their agenda.
I like Bernie's politics in general, but this is not the solution. This is just being a political wingnut 101. Yes, Amazon has a market cap of over $1T, but it is not, by a long fucking shot, the only company out there underpaying workers. It's not even that profitable. Underpaying workers is an institution, it's built into literally everything about corporate hygiene. You don't leave money on the table, you don't pay your labor more than you have to. An extra $1k a year to 563k people is a lot of damn money, particularly on an actual net income of 2.53B (i.e. about 22%). They CAN afford to do this, but they're not going to, shareholders will pitch a fit.
You can't penalize one company and ignore all the others. You can't force shareholders to be less greedy. We don't even want this, while we extol the benefits of capitalism, we rely on this competitiveness and greed to create a more efficient economy. Companies need to play to win, government needs to mitigate the cost of winning. We play to our strengths. Instead we figure out what services can be provided to the underpaid masses, and deliver them, using taxes we collect, particularly from the very rich to fund it. This is where socialism fits in. Free the companies from having to deal with this problem, which they're ill equipped to solve, and instead let them do what they do best.
That's the beauty of conference calls, they're ideal for organizations where everyone is allergic to personal responsibility, and "shares" the responsibility, so no one person can be blamed. I'd rather just take the responsibility (and blame) and not be held hostage to the committee. Unfortunately not all employers tolerate this.
My advice for those that don't like this: quit. Conference calls like this are a sign something is very, very wrong with your employer. Either coast until it eventaully explodes, or get out while you still can, and while the job market is still decent. You don't want to be there when wall st. finally collapses again (and it will, it always does).
I think the financial crisis highlighted to a lot of people that maybe they are not in the right financial class to be pursuing degrees with little to no market value. I wouldn't call the liberal arts "useless" in a greater metaphysical sense, I like art, I like a good story, I appreciate skillful use of language, and good poetry speaks to the soul. But except for a very small number of people who possess great talent, it is difficult to monetize the degree; it remains primarily a way of expanding your knowledge, it is primarily a luxury. That and a dime won't buy you coffee.
So for the largest portion of population they are seeing college degrees in the liberal arts in the same way that most of us look at athletics: something to pursue if you are born with the right genes and you spend your entire life maximizing that potential. If you do not, you won't make it.
Once upon a time universities were primarily for the very rich, with a few of the less wealthy brought in because their tremendous talent was recognized. The idle wealthy were basically paying the way for a few very gifted people. In the past 50 years, that has changed and most people can find a way to attend a university if they want to, but they need the degree they earn to pay for it, and to acquire a career that justifies the time. They basically cannot afford a luxury, they need to make an investment in their future. No sane person would argue that a humanities degree is a good investment in the future.
I'm not sure this story is really all that exciting, except to a marketing dweeb to see where cultural changes are redirecting money.
How does this work if both machines aren't turned on at the same time? Or if both are behind a NAT operated by the ISP?
I'm not sure if my linux machine has a power button, or why I'd want to use it.
I don't have experience with this other problem, either of the two ISPs available at my location do not do that thing. I use my own modems and I haven't noticed any more centralized filtering. That said, having worked in some oppressive corporations, I have not yet encountered corporate IT sophisticated enough to keep me in, or keep me out, and in this case both would be required. There are plenty of solutions for tunnelling over just about anything.
I am sure someone out there deals iwth this torment, and there are other ways of working with DropBox from linux that would bypass this that definitely would work.
While I personally believe there is room in my life for various levels of compute and limited function devices, I do not know that the hardware makers and the consumers that support them will see things that way.
There's not a lot of profit in the PC market, whereas the ipad/wearable/consumer toy market is fairly high margin. It wouldn't surprise me if general purpose computers suffered at their hands. And honestly most consumers really don't need or want it, so it probably won't go down with a lot of fight.
of course engineers, scientists and anyone who truly uses a computer absolutely do need all of that, and more. But they may just end up relegated to "very expensive workstations" down the road.
Linux is primarily used as a web server, as heavy corporate back-end infrastructure, or by hobbyists/enthusiasts. Dropbox's primary market are consumers on Windows, which only has the features you buy from someone, or the mobile market which needs, I guess, a place to store and share their dick-pics.
Nothing about a web server should want to have anything to do with drop-box. It's already public, and drop-box has their own web server.
The corporate world is highly allergic to drop-box as an enterprise storage medium. They all have other ways or other deals in place for any cloud storage they need, and it's not going to be public, nor part of their back-end infrastructure. Even for their end windows users, dropbox is usually forbidden under pain of termination.
Hobbyists/enthusiasts realize their linux already has scp (all the distributions at this point), and so does any machine they may use. So they have DIY dropbox. Add in that this particular market is somewhat more distrustful of cloud-anything, and often has a more privacy and "my data is mine" and "my personal information is mine" bent and the pool of good customers here gets pretty small.
So you have an OS that isn't going to ever be a big player on your product, and you're hurting for cash. So you can fire some devs and drop support for Linux. That's what I think this means.
One of the reasons someone like Donald Trump resonates with America, is that the globalist mindset of embracing china and changing from the inside usually backfires when it encounters corporate America. The market is large and the money spigot can be effectively turned on or off by any capricious act of their government. As a result, corporations will adopt the lowest common denominator approach: do nothing that may possibly offend, and bend over to the whim of anyone in power over there. This includes of course the great firewall and what passes through it, how you do business in that country, but also to what is acceptable for employees in your company (who may not be located in China) and to a degree, what you do in other markets.
It is far easier for Google to play internet censor than to say no, so they will play internet censor. Unfortunately a few countries in Europe have made it easier for them to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Statements like this should be disregarded. Do it or walk away, don't hamster your way out of it.
There are many times an employer has asked me to do something difficult, that I didn't want to do for other reasons (usually involving training my overseas buddies) and I happily said it couldn't be done, when I knew full well it could. My reasons for saying things might not relate to the efficacy of the thing, I just knew my bosses were too stupid to know the difference.
Things have either been done, or they have yet to be done. Unless its over unity energy/perpetual motion, or tax evasion, no one should rule them out.
She's fairly young, and not an advocate of the food pyramid, that's a discussion I already had. I get the meat should be "2 decks of cards" and half a plate of vegetables lecture. But the cited reasons are that my triglycerides are already high, but my glucose and A1C are just fine. I guess she'd rather I fixed the former than the latter. I would not say she's advocating more carbs at all, just less meat and more veg.
So perhaps she actually agrees with you, I'm simply eating too MUCH meat ;) But she was quite adamant about not adopting a high fat diet.
At restaurants it comes in cups, and the cups seem to shrink.
Maybe at a bar a pint of beer is a pint of beer and a shot glass is a shot glass. But restaurants do their own thing, particularly in mixed drinks.
Personally the doctor talked me out of this.
They'd probably call it 24-oz t-bone (680g technically). Definitely something you can buy, and something I've even eaten, but yeah...nobody would use metric.
WTF? I thought America is the land of the big steak? Go to a restaurant and get yourself a 600g T-bone and skip on the fries and you won't need to worry about carbs.
1) Just about anyone can make a good steak at home for less than the steak restaurant. There are three methods for cooking steak at home, each one better than the last, that produce best results. The only time steak restaurants are worth it, are the very expensive ones that can slow roast over longer periods of time, and they are really damned good, but very expensive and in my case located inside urban areas that are inconvenient to reach. Given that, most steak restaurants try to get you on the non-meat dishes, sides and of course, alcohol. Everyone knows the price of the meat they're serving, but they also have labor/rent to pay.
2) Yes, I can run down to the store right now and get a 24oz ribeye that's almost 2" thick and drop about $30 on it. I can prepare it per #1 above and it will taste very good. I can afford it. But I really shouldn't except maybe a few times a year, it's not a healthy and sustainable lifestyle. The recommendation I get from dietitians is 6 oz of meat max, most of it not red meat.
3) There's confusion out there about what it means to be healthy. Vegetarians and vegans are not necessarily any more healthy than me. I have a few friends from India who will gladly point out "hey, we're all vegetarians here, but look at how fat we are!". It turns out lots of milk, butter, sugar and starchy foods also will put the weight on, and isn't any better for you. Restaurants do the same sort of things, they want you to enjoy what you eat, but of course most of us enjoy what is bad for us.
4) The ignorable sides are probably the ones you should be eating. At least for me, those are: broccoli, asparagus, green beans, cauliflower, etc.
My take away from the dietitian I'm compelled to see at work is 4-6oz of meat, half a plate of vegetable matter of some variety or another, and like 1/4 cup of grains (way, way less than the usda recommendation). Not very many restaurants prepare meals like this, I'm not sure if many people would buy it right now. I personally would if it was fast and convenient on my way home, I don't have a lot of free time but recognize a need to eat better. To me this is the big problem right now with restaurants: they are either once in a while things you go to, or they're places that serve meals to go on a more frequent basis, and the latter is just not cutting it.
Not sure what restaurant you eat at, but I was looking over the menu at one chain and not a single thing there was less than 1000 calories, when as a middle aged man my budget there is around 500-800.
I find they serve too much food, because food is cheaper than their rent and labor. Alcohol is the only thing i've noticed seems to come in smaller packages for the same price.
Trying to equate your time with money is often folly, given that whether you are salaried or paid by the hour, generally you are expected to work about X hours and you cannot easily give up some time at work (and the associated money).
Baking is pretty time consuming, although without any question produces the very best tasting results even if you lack skill.
Cooking dinner on the other hand has a minimum entry of 1 hour to cook, eat and clean even the simplest of meals (and the same doctors who tell you to eat healthy, will also tell you to eat slowly, which most of us don't do). 1 hour is a lot of time for this task, and some things if you want them to taste good, take well over that in prep alone. This says nothing about the taste of the food in question, which does depend quite heavily on the skill of the cook, his access to appropriate and fresh ingredients, and what shortcuts he took to get it done fast (microwaving a potato, in my opinion, is sinful, but it brings a 2 hour process to a few minutes). Eating out makes a lot of sense.
Unfortunately you can't eat out for less than like 1000 Calories a meal, and the meals aren't very healthy. So people are doing some pretty uncomfortable things to try to make it all happen. Restaurants are still caught in various dilemmas, one of which is that their costs are labor+rent driven, food is fairly cheap, but if they don't give a lot of it, people think they're being cheap. Another of course is that the only notion of healthy food they have are salads, and nobody really wants to spend $10 on a salad.
If they can get around their confusion about what it means to be healthy, and start focusing on delivering healthy meals that don't require a lot of time from their customers I think what was formerly the "fast food" industry could transform into a more successful "pick up food" industry.
Or I could buy a loaf of supermarket's cheapest bread for $1 (Australia - so I assume less in the US?)
$1.28 for the cheapest store brand, $2.18 for what I consider best of breed for the mass mfg variety, around $5 for fresh baked.
On my first child, we did the new parent thing, went to the training sessions the Ob recommended, learned various facts and warning signs. One of which is "if the fever is above , come to the ER immediately, it's the law." So a couple years go by, and as it happens the kid gets a fever, it's shooting up over 105, we rush him to the ER. Anyway, doctor sees the kid, the kid throws up, temp comes down. Doctor diagnoses him with a stomach bug, and chastises me for an unnecessary ER visit in the most condescending way possible. And I sit there thinking "yeah I knew this, but I did what your own staff said to do. Asshole."
So I read the paragraph and it simultaneously says yeah if you have atrial fib and don't know it, it's helpful. But also, they fear all the people rushing to their doctor unnecessarily. So which is it? I'll tell you which, if it says you may have a problem, go to the goddamn doctor and let him tell you it's not. Then when you get the condescending lecture, think real loudly what an asshole he is.
I think this is my new favorite.
Where you see doom and gloom I see opportunity.
master -> general
slave -> private
master -> professor
slave -> grad student
master -> manager
slave -> Individual Contributor (IC)
master -> landlord
slave -> tenant
master -> bourgeoisie
slave -> proletariat
master -> oenophillic
slave -> hophead
master -> overlord
slave -> feckless heathens
master -> Hard Working American
slave -> Parasite
master -> owner
slave -> laborer
master -> manager
slave -> H1B
I could do this all day. The major takeaway is you can change the words, but the relationship is still there. I say do away with master/slave if only because it is somewhat outdated. In the spirit of hacktivism, let's choose a relationship that's more near and dear to problems we have today!
Cars seem like they have it figured out. You have model year, make and mfg. The rest of the options matter only on resale, insurance or maintenance.
I may buy a 2019 Honda Soulless Touring Elite, and I'm paying a bit because I'm buying the very latest model with the latest features, but after I buy it, it's just my Soulless. The same for my iPhone, the most important part is that it's an iPhone, that says a lot about what it is and can or can't do. The rest is just speaking to features and profile, which for devices like this are either bundled (Xs versus Xr) or are options (Big [Max] or Small, storage size). That's important on the website, but not otherwise. So why not just call it the 2018 iPhone and let the rest be between the purchaser and Apple through a website interface...which is what it actually is anyway, just with more verbiage.
All of these things seem to have some meaningless numbers after their names "iPhone X" or "Galaxy Note 9", the numbers have no actual meaning and, for reasons, don't necessarily monotonically increase. Or even remain in arabic numerals. Who can keep track, and who cares. All I want to remember is I bought my last phone in 2016, that's the model year I'm working with. The rest is maybe just some stuff in the settings tab I can look up if needed, or break out a ruler and measure.
The dopamine is a very important factor. It's what creates the addiction. Your body doesn't always reward you for things that turn out to be positive in the long run. Eating a crapload of candy every day is a good example I think. Our bodies crave sugar & fats because they used to be very hard to get and are a good source of short term / long term energy. But, we have unlimited access to both today. Our mental reward for chomping down on a Snickers bar is causing some people a lot of problem.
This is not relevant. As you point out, our bodies often reward us for things in ways which are, by standards of modern technology and society, arbitrary. The fact that we are being rewarded for electronic socialization is neither here nor there. It is a problem when it is a problem.
These addictions to social media and smart phones are causing morons to walk around with their faces glued to their phones. Seems like every few weeks you hear about someone getting run over because they walked out into traffic while looking at their phone. From the studies I've seen, our brains give us that reward when we post something that is "liked" by our friends.. I'm no expert, and I'm not sure on the exact mechanics... But i have the power of observation, and I see LOTS of kids who are absolutely glued to their phones.
When I was a kid they said the same about walkmans. There was some truth and some exaggeration in there too. We made it through, walkmans are now a legend. I've also heard of kids being run over while trying to read the actual dead tree books of legend, and one or two being smacked by a subway or abused by the local jocks etc. This isn't a new phenomenon, just a new object. It's also not an example of addiction, this is about being focused on some thing versus watching your surroundings, and is a general safety concern. When we're out on the street, we need to watch our surroundings. Some of us are more inclined to laser focus at a moments notice than others, regardless of the object we're focusing on. My son and I are both dangerous this way. Neither of us even need a physical tool either, we're both capable of being completely lost in our thoughts to the point of putting our bodies at risk. I have nearly been hit by the proverbial bus at least twice.
Right now, from what I can see, there is almost no oversight (by a lot of parents) on how kids are using these devices. Young teens are the most vulnerable to forming life long addictions (in my experience). eg. In my group of friends, the ones who didn't start drinking early never turned into alcoholics. Most of the people I know who are problem drinkers started in their mid-teens. Nearly 100% of my friends who did end up as current, or recovering, alcoholics started drinking around 14-16.
Some children are raised poorly, that has always been true. Mine know they get 30 minutes a day during weekdays, and mostly unlimited use on the weekends. This isn't because I'm worried about the evils of the devices, I just want them to get used to using their weekdays for work, school, extra-curricular, chores or otherwise. I don't want them to feel like their obligations are keeping them from their fun, at least for now. There won't be fun, there are only obligations or boredom. When they are older I will of course relax this rule, at some point they need to practice the discipline on their own, but building the habit first I think is a good start.
I don't know about your anecdote about drinking, there are complicating factors on that unrelated subject. For example, many kids who start drinking young come from families who drink heavily. There are genetic links to alcoholism. I'm not sure we can apply the knowledge gained from that topic to this topic. I am also not sure that gadget abuse necessarily has the same life impact as alcoholism, except in the limited case of using the gadgets while driving... which had been a problem long before the gadgets even had internet access.
If these kids today don't develop, or
Yes, the difference being that many people go buy them from ATT/Verizon/whatever stores, and end up with locked phones. Totally unrelated to all of this, and not exclusive to Apple. As long as people continue to buy phones this way, the practice will continue. Rarely though will you see a premium smart phone, from any vendor, ACTUALLY discounted for the contract duration, unless there are huge problems with the phone, or it's nearing the normal upgrade cycle from that phone vendor.
Mostly he's full of shit I think. I personally don't want to deal with sim cards, I don't understand why they still exist. I'd rather just load all that into my phone and forget about it. I suspect the real issue might be cloning sims, this might be harder to do when the actual sim is taken out of your hands, but it's not something I've had a desire to do.
This has nothing to do with how society evolves. This isn't socialization, this is turning kids into hermits. Studies have shown that smart phones and social media are addictive. The instant gratification of both boosts dopamine levels.. Pretty soon you get used to those elevated dopamine levels.. That's addiction.
Or maybe this represents a solution to a problem, which is that face to face meetings, particularly with children, but also adults have some problems. Amongst them:
1) Difficulty arranging transportation
2) Difficulty agreeing on venue (particularly when parents refuse certain venues
3) Inefficient use of time when in face to face scenario. I don't know about you, but when I meet with friends I already want it to be over before I walk in, I've got shit to do.
4) Text communication provides all the actual value of interacting with another human, without messy realities and alpha-pack issues. Online anyone can be alpha, even if in a wheelchair, on a ventillator.
5) Conversations are slow and painful, you can do other things while they go on, most don't really require tremendous intellect. But it's rude.
6) You can respond when it is good for you, rather than immediately
I'm sure I've missed a bunch. While I'm not clear on the dopamine correlation, I'm also not sure that's relevant. If your body is rewarding you for efficiency or satisfying some internal pressure (that may have been artificial to begin with, built in by parents/teachers because THEY thought it was important), that doesn't seem like a problem. Addiction is a problem when it interferes with your obligations or is putting your physical health in significant immediate threat. That's not happening here. If meeting someone face to face is required to keep your job, for example, and you don't do it, then you have a problem. But if it's so you calk talk to Susie about who Sally blew last night...fuck that shit, use text.
That's the sort of example I was referring to. I don't necessarily believe statements like that, but they certainly appear more and more true when he can't maintain discipline amongst his own hand-picked staff.
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets. So much so I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.
No, this is not the Deep State. The Deep State is the part of government that lives on independently of elected officials. Various employees in the TLAs who have been there since Jesus, or who hire and groom new people who will also be there forever. I can believe that, as in any large organization, public or private, there is an in-built culture that may be contrary to the whims of any new leader. Like any such organization, the efficacy of that leader to control his organization in spite of that is also his measure. I have had employers who have ousted CEOs after just a year, because they were unable to control the internal culture of their organization, so they hired someone else who would...viciously. Trump can blame the "deep state" for his first year, after that it's his fault.
Regardless, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about senior staffers that Trump either appointed himself, or someone he did directly appoint hired for the sole purpose of supporting the President's agenda. If Trump cannot see a problem that close to him, he's not being a very effective leader. It is possible (but I think unlikely) it was someone like Pence, who Trump was perhaps saddled with by his party and cannot be fired. Either way, this is a person Trump is responsible for, or who is responsible to the American people directly. It's not "deep state" at all.
It might be treason, I'm not sure. On one hand the argument will be that these people are actually, genuinely acting in the best interests of the US in spite of an erratic and probably insane leader. On the other hand, the leader is the person the nation elected, and whether we like his agenda or not, we have to somehow cope with his actions and anyone deliberately undermining him is at best, a bad employee, at worst a criminal. I don't know what the law says on this, but I do know that Trump ought to be able to see, measure and act on this. He should know what policies he is trying to drive forward, and he should be able to see that they got done, or if not, where the problem was. That's just middle management 101. That he cannot implies he's not paying attention, and he himself is responsible for what this "resistance" is doing.
If I say "give Putin a handy" and Putin isn't given a handy within a few days, I'm going to ask questions about why that was not done and who was responsible. If I don't like the reasons, I'm going to take disciplinary action. If there is a pattern, I'm going to rid myself of the problem. Why isn't Trump doing this? Does he have any idea what he's saying and keep any kind of records? If this is important to him, doesn't he come back an appropriate interval later and ask how such and such is going? This is his own organization.
Or the NY Times is lying about the credentials of anon. Also a possibility, however remote. The real issue I have with this piece is that it's very destructive both to the intent of this resistance, as well as to the republican party. I'm not sure who wrote it, but I question their agenda.
I like Bernie's politics in general, but this is not the solution. This is just being a political wingnut 101. Yes, Amazon has a market cap of over $1T, but it is not, by a long fucking shot, the only company out there underpaying workers. It's not even that profitable. Underpaying workers is an institution, it's built into literally everything about corporate hygiene. You don't leave money on the table, you don't pay your labor more than you have to. An extra $1k a year to 563k people is a lot of damn money, particularly on an actual net income of 2.53B (i.e. about 22%). They CAN afford to do this, but they're not going to, shareholders will pitch a fit.
You can't penalize one company and ignore all the others. You can't force shareholders to be less greedy. We don't even want this, while we extol the benefits of capitalism, we rely on this competitiveness and greed to create a more efficient economy. Companies need to play to win, government needs to mitigate the cost of winning. We play to our strengths. Instead we figure out what services can be provided to the underpaid masses, and deliver them, using taxes we collect, particularly from the very rich to fund it. This is where socialism fits in. Free the companies from having to deal with this problem, which they're ill equipped to solve, and instead let them do what they do best.
That's the beauty of conference calls, they're ideal for organizations where everyone is allergic to personal responsibility, and "shares" the responsibility, so no one person can be blamed. I'd rather just take the responsibility (and blame) and not be held hostage to the committee. Unfortunately not all employers tolerate this.
My advice for those that don't like this: quit. Conference calls like this are a sign something is very, very wrong with your employer. Either coast until it eventaully explodes, or get out while you still can, and while the job market is still decent. You don't want to be there when wall st. finally collapses again (and it will, it always does).
I think the financial crisis highlighted to a lot of people that maybe they are not in the right financial class to be pursuing degrees with little to no market value. I wouldn't call the liberal arts "useless" in a greater metaphysical sense, I like art, I like a good story, I appreciate skillful use of language, and good poetry speaks to the soul. But except for a very small number of people who possess great talent, it is difficult to monetize the degree; it remains primarily a way of expanding your knowledge, it is primarily a luxury. That and a dime won't buy you coffee.
So for the largest portion of population they are seeing college degrees in the liberal arts in the same way that most of us look at athletics: something to pursue if you are born with the right genes and you spend your entire life maximizing that potential. If you do not, you won't make it.
Once upon a time universities were primarily for the very rich, with a few of the less wealthy brought in because their tremendous talent was recognized. The idle wealthy were basically paying the way for a few very gifted people. In the past 50 years, that has changed and most people can find a way to attend a university if they want to, but they need the degree they earn to pay for it, and to acquire a career that justifies the time. They basically cannot afford a luxury, they need to make an investment in their future. No sane person would argue that a humanities degree is a good investment in the future.
I'm not sure this story is really all that exciting, except to a marketing dweeb to see where cultural changes are redirecting money.
How does this work if both machines aren't turned on at the same time? Or if both are behind a NAT operated by the ISP?
I'm not sure if my linux machine has a power button, or why I'd want to use it.
I don't have experience with this other problem, either of the two ISPs available at my location do not do that thing. I use my own modems and I haven't noticed any more centralized filtering. That said, having worked in some oppressive corporations, I have not yet encountered corporate IT sophisticated enough to keep me in, or keep me out, and in this case both would be required. There are plenty of solutions for tunnelling over just about anything.
I am sure someone out there deals iwth this torment, and there are other ways of working with DropBox from linux that would bypass this that definitely would work.
While I personally believe there is room in my life for various levels of compute and limited function devices, I do not know that the hardware makers and the consumers that support them will see things that way.
There's not a lot of profit in the PC market, whereas the ipad/wearable/consumer toy market is fairly high margin. It wouldn't surprise me if general purpose computers suffered at their hands. And honestly most consumers really don't need or want it, so it probably won't go down with a lot of fight.
of course engineers, scientists and anyone who truly uses a computer absolutely do need all of that, and more. But they may just end up relegated to "very expensive workstations" down the road.
Linux is primarily used as a web server, as heavy corporate back-end infrastructure, or by hobbyists/enthusiasts. Dropbox's primary market are consumers on Windows, which only has the features you buy from someone, or the mobile market which needs, I guess, a place to store and share their dick-pics.
Nothing about a web server should want to have anything to do with drop-box. It's already public, and drop-box has their own web server.
The corporate world is highly allergic to drop-box as an enterprise storage medium. They all have other ways or other deals in place for any cloud storage they need, and it's not going to be public, nor part of their back-end infrastructure. Even for their end windows users, dropbox is usually forbidden under pain of termination.
Hobbyists/enthusiasts realize their linux already has scp (all the distributions at this point), and so does any machine they may use. So they have DIY dropbox. Add in that this particular market is somewhat more distrustful of cloud-anything, and often has a more privacy and "my data is mine" and "my personal information is mine" bent and the pool of good customers here gets pretty small.
So you have an OS that isn't going to ever be a big player on your product, and you're hurting for cash. So you can fire some devs and drop support for Linux. That's what I think this means.
One of the reasons someone like Donald Trump resonates with America, is that the globalist mindset of embracing china and changing from the inside usually backfires when it encounters corporate America. The market is large and the money spigot can be effectively turned on or off by any capricious act of their government. As a result, corporations will adopt the lowest common denominator approach: do nothing that may possibly offend, and bend over to the whim of anyone in power over there. This includes of course the great firewall and what passes through it, how you do business in that country, but also to what is acceptable for employees in your company (who may not be located in China) and to a degree, what you do in other markets.
It is far easier for Google to play internet censor than to say no, so they will play internet censor. Unfortunately a few countries in Europe have made it easier for them to do so.