Bugs deliberately created, no. Bugs accidentally created, identified, and knowingly not fixed, as a result of time and/or budget pressure, with the idea that "we'll fix it later if we have time"? All the time. I've done it myself. I hate it, and I do feel it my duty to warn management of possible/probable consequences. But they rarely listen. Management in my experience tends to not understand the impact of technical debt, or why spending a little on quality up front pays tremendous dividends over the entire lifetime of the project.
I'll second that. As a vegan I find that most "meat substitutes" tend to gross me out not by being too little like my now-decades-old recollection of what rotting animal carcasses used to taste like, but too much. My preference is for foods that fill the role of meat (high protein, chewy texture, umami, etc.) but for me it is an advantage if they do *not* resemble dead animals any more than they must.
Natural law does not countenance the idea of imprisoning people for the mere possession, use, or sale of anything, so long as no one is harmed thereby without his or her informed consent. But neither does it condone the practice of knowingly, negligently, or avoidably causing harm to another without said consent. So under law, these substances would probably remain available, but there would be no incentive to maximize the concentration or potency of any of them (this is an artifact of their "illegal" status), whereas there would be a huge incentive to avoid harming one's customers, not only for fear of losing a customer, but because there would be penalties, with teeth, for doing so. Just as right now you can't sell "beer" with 99% alcohol content, or cigarettes laced with PCP, you would not be able to sell fentanyl mislabeled as cocaine, nor for that matter 99% cocaine marketed as 5% cocaine. Hence, you could go after anyone making or selling adulterated and/or excessively potent substances. But you could not go after users and imprison them for any other reason than their being a clear and present danger to themselves or others, and even then only temporarily and probably in an environment conducive to their rehabilitation, rather than one that deliberately, and for the crassest of political reasons, promotes recidivism instead.
Anywhere the buses and trains go with sufficient frequency and reliability. Regrettably - and I'm in the Cleveland area also - that's a small and shrinking subset of the region. Efforts are underway to address this, but will likely fall far short of what is genuinely needed.
Envy is an ugly and wicked thing, and if it were up to me would be among the very few mandatory death penalty offenses. You absolutely do set prices and wages, roughly as much as any other human being on earth, by deciding what you will and will not buy, and what you will and will not produce. Quit crying, start producing, and stop complaining.
There is a lot of truth to this. Living paycheck to paycheck, whether voluntarily or not, precludes being able to reduce overall spending by spending on quality rather than crap.
But there is another factor that people who didn't grow up in the 'hood rarely stop to consider.
The $50 boots are way more likely to get stolen, and when they do, they cost the person who saved up for them many months, perhaps even years, of savings. In the U.S., safety and income are strongly correlated. People who can afford to live in safer communities do, leaving behind, in the crappier and more dangerous ones, only those who cannot.
That's one reason why security is very high on my antipoverty wish list. Without security and safety, escape from poverty is vastly more difficult than it otherwise would be. No one will invest in better, and hence cheaper long-term, stuff, if the long term savings can never materialize because most things get ripped off in short order.
It's also a reason why rational families (including my own) tend to defer all other capital investments until they can afford to live in a community safe enough that some of those investments might last long enough to recoup what was spend on them.
Depends a lot on a lot of things. But the only ones I'm aware of, given reasonably good soil and access to modern first-world supermarkets, would be D (comes mainly from sun, not food), and B12 (which becomes more difficult to absorb as a person ages). Where I live, iodide is required by most people also, as is vitamin C since fresh fruits are much more expensive and most people don't eat enough of. Am I missing any others?
Sucrose, HFCS, and most artificial sweeteners are ALL unhealthy. You want to avoid all of them insofar as possible. Stevia may (or may not) be an exception. The jury is still out. It increases insulin resistance according to a few studies, and decreases it according to many others. I suspect there are mechanisms by which it does both, and that the very fact of its sweetness may be part of the mechanism behind the former. I'd prefer it over the others, but the best thing is to try to phase out sweet drinks in general.
There's a lot that remains unknown and/or disputed, but there seems to be a growing consensus regarding the following, including both alternative and mainstream schools of nutritional medicine:
* Aim for more nutrients (vitamins/minerals) and less calories, especially empty ones.
* Avoid sugars and high-glycemic carbs (white, refined starches). At most they should be consumed as rare treats, not part of one's regular, daily diet.
* Eat healthier things first; this will reduce one's appetites/cravings for less healthy things.
* At least 30 minutes of moderate exercise, at least 4-5 times per week. Brisk walking seems sufficient for most people, though strength training has proven benefits as well.
* Most people need more vitamins C and D than can be provided via diet and sunlight exposure alone, and should consider supplementing (but NOT all vitamins and minerals can be supplemented adequately or safely; most can and should be derived from food). B12 deficiency also is very common, and can be treated by occasional (at most monthly) injections since the body can store a lot, but can't always process dietary B12 properly.
* While there is still debate around high vs. low carb, high vs. low fat, high vs. low protein in general . . . and individual health circumstances that could either require or proscribe any of these . . . most people need a diet that is neither excessively high in, nor devoid of, any of these.
Conservatively speaking? Get a beer or two (no more) per day anytime you want. But also make sure you have 30 minutes of moderate activity (brisk walking or better) at least 4 times a week. More is better, but this much is known to have significant benefits.
Started doing something similar recently. I don't feel particularly better yet, partly because of an unrelated painful back injury. But there are other benefits. For instance, it's had a dramatic effect on my blood sugar. Turns out that if one isn't eating much sugar or high-glycemic carbs, it's a lot harder to be hyperglycemic, no matter one bad one's insulin or leptin tolerance may be. And eating bunches of healthy greens, nuts, seeds, etc. makes it a lot less likely that one will try to satisfy hunger through massive overconsumption of carbs. I'm not sure type-2 diabetes can survive a low-carb diet. And if mine improves, it's likely that my hypertension will improve as well. Some long-term damage has already been done, but hopefully this will arrest any further damage, and perhaps even reverse some of it. (NOTE: There is some evidence that high-fat diets . . as distinct from low-carb diets . . . may harm the liver and increase, rather than reduce, insulin tolerance. So I do include a fair amount of protein and lower-glycemic carbs such as beans as well.)
Depends on location. Not unheard of in northeast Ohio, US, where I live, but somewhat rare. Two possible reasons I can think of. (1) Handling cash takes time and thus costs more in personnel costs. (2) A "Cash-Only Price" is like a huge "Rob Me" sign. It signals that you are more likely to handle larger amounts of cash than your nearby competitors, all else being equal, and thus makes you a more attractive target for the opportunistic criminals of whom there is no shortage here.
And not a single comment pointing out the most likely mechanism by which glyphosate poisons us: that it attacks the shikimate pathway which they claim that humans don't have. That claim is deceptive at best, because humans are symbiotic with our microbiome, and while human cells don't have that pathway, many of the cells in our microbiome do, and, generally, what hurts them ends up hurting us in various ways.
Detroit maybe. You'd be taking a chance. Cleveland, where I am, probably not. Just not a sufficiently sized and skilled workforce. Transit is awful in both places, but Detroit at least has plenty of excess road capacity.
In Cleveland as well, but starting from a very low base, and the increase is confined to a small handful of rapidly gentrifying areas. In general, housing here is still a bargain. (Example: my 4 bed, 1800 square foot single family house, with a driveway and yard, in the safe-ish suburb of Lakewood six miles from downtown Cleveland, and arguably the best bus service in the western suburbs, is now worth about $200k. Comparable price in, say, Astoria or Jersey City would be easily 6 to 10 times that.)
I get where you're coming from. I'm in Cleveland. It's WAY underrated as a place to live and to do business. However, I understand why our proposal for Amazon's HQ2 was not taken seriously. It wasn't a good fit at all. We don't have 25,000 available, highly skilled workers in or near our city of fewer than 400,000, of whom only 16% have a bachelors' degree or better (and most of these are doctors, lawyers, or bankers, not technologists). Granted, the suburbs increase that number a lot. But not to one even comparable to NYC, Chicago, or SFO. Then we also have the problem that our transit system is rapidly dying from lack of funding, and is primarily a hub and spoke system with only a single hub downtown. And it's at capacity, in spite of rapidly diminishing ridership. We can't get parts for our dwindling supply of rail cars, which are way past the end of their expected life, other than by continuing to cannibalize the few that remain. We also don't have the money to operate the buses, much less properly maintain and replace them. Don't get me wrong. These are not necessarily impediments for 90% or more of the businesses looking for a place to grow and thrive. But most of those are much smaller than what Amazon was proposing to build. They needed a HQ in a large city with at least acceptably decent transit. This just isn't what they were looking for.
A lot of these people live in public, rent-stabilized, or rent-controlled housing. My understanding is that those aren't available to new residents, except by lotteries and other mechanisms that can't be relied upon. Go to Craigslist and look at the rents you can find there for semi-ok neighborhoods, which most of them are, but not quite all - you have to be a local, which I'm not, to know for sure. But avoid eastern Brooklyn, immediately adjacent sections of Queens, the South Bronx, and Harlem, unless you know exactly what you're getting into. Then consider NYC's insane tax rates. Then consider how you can make $50k gross, maybe $35k net, and still be able to pay $2500 a month in rent. You can't, and that isn't what's happening. The people who make that little live in either subsidized housing or very bad neighborhoods, which are vanishing in much of the city due to gentrification.
A single person should be able to pull it off, though just barely (and probably not in Manhattan or any safe part of Brooklyn). A family though? Not likely. Your best bet then would be a single family house in someplace like Astoria or Staten Island. The latter would mean a terrible commute, and either one would be well upward of a million bucks. You would not get a loan for that much money on a $50k salary.
I do sometimes, but no guarantee either will be available in my target environment, or the right versions, classpaths, Python versions, environment variables, and such. At a minimum I'd have to install/configure whatever is missing, without damaging anything else on the target system. But anything from the tiniest compute stick to old Windows XP boxes up to Crays and mainframes and Beowulf clusters of unusual size will probably have a Web browser readily available. The Web has become the default front end for apps that need maximum portability. I don't necessarily like it either, but that's where we are right now. At least, with accelerated Javascript engines, WebAssembly, HTML5, PWAs and the like, it has become an acceptable platform for most front end applications.
Not a terrible strategy. Mine (for a personal system with around 500GB of important data) is to rotate four backup devices - external HDDs, not tapes - daily (kept on my person), weekly (to office), monthly and yearly (both to safe deposit box near me). I also have copies of the most important files (kids' pics and videos mainly) with my in-laws in Europe. The backups are encrypted before being put on the external drives. I'm aware of a few flaws that I am working to address. (a) I'd have limited defenses against an attack that would change or delete small numbers of files . . will eventually store with the backups a manifest with a MD5 or similar hash, and compare them on every backup such that changed or deleted files in folders that shouldn't happen would trigger a warning. (b) Rubber-hose decryption would work just fine, although I don't think there's much of anything that people would go to that length to get (I'm not nearly interesting enough for that to be the case). (c) Some of my data would be lost in the event of an attack that simultaneously wiped out (a) home, (b) office, and (c) safe deposit box, all of which are within 6 miles of one another. A nuke or EMP detonated directly above Cleveland would probably do that. But as noted above, if all those things happened, I think my family and I would be facing much bigger problems, presuming we were even still around.
One has already been pointed out. Pasta straws. I'm sure they have downsides such as cost, shelf life, etc., but they do serve them at one of the very few restaurants I frequent, Cleveland Vegan near Cleveland, Ohio, and they seem eminently practical to me.
Yes, but the great majority of the population lives on O'ahu, which isn't huge, and the majority of people AFAIK live in the urban parts of Honolulu and elsewhere on the South Shore.
In a cross-platform world where you need to write software to run on Windows, Mac, iOS, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and whatever comes along next, you need hardware and device abstraction. Coding right to the metal is great if that meets the business need at hand, but, increasingly, and for more and more use cases, it does not.
They can't. 5th and 14th Amendments, preserving the pre-existing right, also protected by Common Law, against self-incrimination. I don't doubt that they will try, but, if and when they do, they mark themselves as traitors, and even if they do not face justice in this life, they will in the next.
Slashdot Mirror
Bugs deliberately created, no. Bugs accidentally created, identified, and knowingly not fixed, as a result of time and/or budget pressure, with the idea that "we'll fix it later if we have time"? All the time. I've done it myself. I hate it, and I do feel it my duty to warn management of possible/probable consequences. But they rarely listen. Management in my experience tends to not understand the impact of technical debt, or why spending a little on quality up front pays tremendous dividends over the entire lifetime of the project.
For me it is mostly soy, seitan, and beans.
I'll second that. As a vegan I find that most "meat substitutes" tend to gross me out not by being too little like my now-decades-old recollection of what rotting animal carcasses used to taste like, but too much. My preference is for foods that fill the role of meat (high protein, chewy texture, umami, etc.) but for me it is an advantage if they do *not* resemble dead animals any more than they must.
Natural law does not countenance the idea of imprisoning people for the mere possession, use, or sale of anything, so long as no one is harmed thereby without his or her informed consent. But neither does it condone the practice of knowingly, negligently, or avoidably causing harm to another without said consent. So under law, these substances would probably remain available, but there would be no incentive to maximize the concentration or potency of any of them (this is an artifact of their "illegal" status), whereas there would be a huge incentive to avoid harming one's customers, not only for fear of losing a customer, but because there would be penalties, with teeth, for doing so. Just as right now you can't sell "beer" with 99% alcohol content, or cigarettes laced with PCP, you would not be able to sell fentanyl mislabeled as cocaine, nor for that matter 99% cocaine marketed as 5% cocaine. Hence, you could go after anyone making or selling adulterated and/or excessively potent substances. But you could not go after users and imprison them for any other reason than their being a clear and present danger to themselves or others, and even then only temporarily and probably in an environment conducive to their rehabilitation, rather than one that deliberately, and for the crassest of political reasons, promotes recidivism instead.
Anywhere the buses and trains go with sufficient frequency and reliability. Regrettably - and I'm in the Cleveland area also - that's a small and shrinking subset of the region. Efforts are underway to address this, but will likely fall far short of what is genuinely needed.
Envy is an ugly and wicked thing, and if it were up to me would be among the very few mandatory death penalty offenses. You absolutely do set prices and wages, roughly as much as any other human being on earth, by deciding what you will and will not buy, and what you will and will not produce. Quit crying, start producing, and stop complaining.
There is a lot of truth to this. Living paycheck to paycheck, whether voluntarily or not, precludes being able to reduce overall spending by spending on quality rather than crap.
But there is another factor that people who didn't grow up in the 'hood rarely stop to consider.
The $50 boots are way more likely to get stolen, and when they do, they cost the person who saved up for them many months, perhaps even years, of savings. In the U.S., safety and income are strongly correlated. People who can afford to live in safer communities do, leaving behind, in the crappier and more dangerous ones, only those who cannot.
That's one reason why security is very high on my antipoverty wish list. Without security and safety, escape from poverty is vastly more difficult than it otherwise would be. No one will invest in better, and hence cheaper long-term, stuff, if the long term savings can never materialize because most things get ripped off in short order.
It's also a reason why rational families (including my own) tend to defer all other capital investments until they can afford to live in a community safe enough that some of those investments might last long enough to recoup what was spend on them.
Depends a lot on a lot of things. But the only ones I'm aware of, given reasonably good soil and access to modern first-world supermarkets, would be D (comes mainly from sun, not food), and B12 (which becomes more difficult to absorb as a person ages). Where I live, iodide is required by most people also, as is vitamin C since fresh fruits are much more expensive and most people don't eat enough of. Am I missing any others?
Sucrose, HFCS, and most artificial sweeteners are ALL unhealthy. You want to avoid all of them insofar as possible. Stevia may (or may not) be an exception. The jury is still out. It increases insulin resistance according to a few studies, and decreases it according to many others. I suspect there are mechanisms by which it does both, and that the very fact of its sweetness may be part of the mechanism behind the former. I'd prefer it over the others, but the best thing is to try to phase out sweet drinks in general.
Good advice IMO.
There's a lot that remains unknown and/or disputed, but there seems to be a growing consensus regarding the following, including both alternative and mainstream schools of nutritional medicine:
* Aim for more nutrients (vitamins/minerals) and less calories, especially empty ones.
* Avoid sugars and high-glycemic carbs (white, refined starches). At most they should be consumed as rare treats, not part of one's regular, daily diet.
* Eat healthier things first; this will reduce one's appetites/cravings for less healthy things.
* At least 30 minutes of moderate exercise, at least 4-5 times per week. Brisk walking seems sufficient for most people, though strength training has proven benefits as well.
* Most people need more vitamins C and D than can be provided via diet and sunlight exposure alone, and should consider supplementing (but NOT all vitamins and minerals can be supplemented adequately or safely; most can and should be derived from food). B12 deficiency also is very common, and can be treated by occasional (at most monthly) injections since the body can store a lot, but can't always process dietary B12 properly.
* While there is still debate around high vs. low carb, high vs. low fat, high vs. low protein in general . . . and individual health circumstances that could either require or proscribe any of these . . . most people need a diet that is neither excessively high in, nor devoid of, any of these.
Conservatively speaking? Get a beer or two (no more) per day anytime you want. But also make sure you have 30 minutes of moderate activity (brisk walking or better) at least 4 times a week. More is better, but this much is known to have significant benefits.
Started doing something similar recently. I don't feel particularly better yet, partly because of an unrelated painful back injury. But there are other benefits. For instance, it's had a dramatic effect on my blood sugar. Turns out that if one isn't eating much sugar or high-glycemic carbs, it's a lot harder to be hyperglycemic, no matter one bad one's insulin or leptin tolerance may be. And eating bunches of healthy greens, nuts, seeds, etc. makes it a lot less likely that one will try to satisfy hunger through massive overconsumption of carbs. I'm not sure type-2 diabetes can survive a low-carb diet. And if mine improves, it's likely that my hypertension will improve as well. Some long-term damage has already been done, but hopefully this will arrest any further damage, and perhaps even reverse some of it. (NOTE: There is some evidence that high-fat diets . . as distinct from low-carb diets . . . may harm the liver and increase, rather than reduce, insulin tolerance. So I do include a fair amount of protein and lower-glycemic carbs such as beans as well.)
Depends on location. Not unheard of in northeast Ohio, US, where I live, but somewhat rare. Two possible reasons I can think of. (1) Handling cash takes time and thus costs more in personnel costs. (2) A "Cash-Only Price" is like a huge "Rob Me" sign. It signals that you are more likely to handle larger amounts of cash than your nearby competitors, all else being equal, and thus makes you a more attractive target for the opportunistic criminals of whom there is no shortage here.
And not a single comment pointing out the most likely mechanism by which glyphosate poisons us: that it attacks the shikimate pathway which they claim that humans don't have. That claim is deceptive at best, because humans are symbiotic with our microbiome, and while human cells don't have that pathway, many of the cells in our microbiome do, and, generally, what hurts them ends up hurting us in various ways.
Detroit maybe. You'd be taking a chance. Cleveland, where I am, probably not. Just not a sufficiently sized and skilled workforce. Transit is awful in both places, but Detroit at least has plenty of excess road capacity.
In Cleveland as well, but starting from a very low base, and the increase is confined to a small handful of rapidly gentrifying areas. In general, housing here is still a bargain. (Example: my 4 bed, 1800 square foot single family house, with a driveway and yard, in the safe-ish suburb of Lakewood six miles from downtown Cleveland, and arguably the best bus service in the western suburbs, is now worth about $200k. Comparable price in, say, Astoria or Jersey City would be easily 6 to 10 times that.)
I get where you're coming from. I'm in Cleveland. It's WAY underrated as a place to live and to do business. However, I understand why our proposal for Amazon's HQ2 was not taken seriously. It wasn't a good fit at all. We don't have 25,000 available, highly skilled workers in or near our city of fewer than 400,000, of whom only 16% have a bachelors' degree or better (and most of these are doctors, lawyers, or bankers, not technologists). Granted, the suburbs increase that number a lot. But not to one even comparable to NYC, Chicago, or SFO. Then we also have the problem that our transit system is rapidly dying from lack of funding, and is primarily a hub and spoke system with only a single hub downtown. And it's at capacity, in spite of rapidly diminishing ridership. We can't get parts for our dwindling supply of rail cars, which are way past the end of their expected life, other than by continuing to cannibalize the few that remain. We also don't have the money to operate the buses, much less properly maintain and replace them. Don't get me wrong. These are not necessarily impediments for 90% or more of the businesses looking for a place to grow and thrive. But most of those are much smaller than what Amazon was proposing to build. They needed a HQ in a large city with at least acceptably decent transit. This just isn't what they were looking for.
A lot of these people live in public, rent-stabilized, or rent-controlled housing. My understanding is that those aren't available to new residents, except by lotteries and other mechanisms that can't be relied upon. Go to Craigslist and look at the rents you can find there for semi-ok neighborhoods, which most of them are, but not quite all - you have to be a local, which I'm not, to know for sure. But avoid eastern Brooklyn, immediately adjacent sections of Queens, the South Bronx, and Harlem, unless you know exactly what you're getting into. Then consider NYC's insane tax rates. Then consider how you can make $50k gross, maybe $35k net, and still be able to pay $2500 a month in rent. You can't, and that isn't what's happening. The people who make that little live in either subsidized housing or very bad neighborhoods, which are vanishing in much of the city due to gentrification.
A single person should be able to pull it off, though just barely (and probably not in Manhattan or any safe part of Brooklyn). A family though? Not likely. Your best bet then would be a single family house in someplace like Astoria or Staten Island. The latter would mean a terrible commute, and either one would be well upward of a million bucks. You would not get a loan for that much money on a $50k salary.
I do sometimes, but no guarantee either will be available in my target environment, or the right versions, classpaths, Python versions, environment variables, and such. At a minimum I'd have to install/configure whatever is missing, without damaging anything else on the target system. But anything from the tiniest compute stick to old Windows XP boxes up to Crays and mainframes and Beowulf clusters of unusual size will probably have a Web browser readily available. The Web has become the default front end for apps that need maximum portability. I don't necessarily like it either, but that's where we are right now. At least, with accelerated Javascript engines, WebAssembly, HTML5, PWAs and the like, it has become an acceptable platform for most front end applications.
Not a terrible strategy. Mine (for a personal system with around 500GB of important data) is to rotate four backup devices - external HDDs, not tapes - daily (kept on my person), weekly (to office), monthly and yearly (both to safe deposit box near me). I also have copies of the most important files (kids' pics and videos mainly) with my in-laws in Europe. The backups are encrypted before being put on the external drives. I'm aware of a few flaws that I am working to address. (a) I'd have limited defenses against an attack that would change or delete small numbers of files . . will eventually store with the backups a manifest with a MD5 or similar hash, and compare them on every backup such that changed or deleted files in folders that shouldn't happen would trigger a warning. (b) Rubber-hose decryption would work just fine, although I don't think there's much of anything that people would go to that length to get (I'm not nearly interesting enough for that to be the case). (c) Some of my data would be lost in the event of an attack that simultaneously wiped out (a) home, (b) office, and (c) safe deposit box, all of which are within 6 miles of one another. A nuke or EMP detonated directly above Cleveland would probably do that. But as noted above, if all those things happened, I think my family and I would be facing much bigger problems, presuming we were even still around.
One has already been pointed out. Pasta straws. I'm sure they have downsides such as cost, shelf life, etc., but they do serve them at one of the very few restaurants I frequent, Cleveland Vegan near Cleveland, Ohio, and they seem eminently practical to me.
Yes, but the great majority of the population lives on O'ahu, which isn't huge, and the majority of people AFAIK live in the urban parts of Honolulu and elsewhere on the South Shore.
In a cross-platform world where you need to write software to run on Windows, Mac, iOS, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and whatever comes along next, you need hardware and device abstraction. Coding right to the metal is great if that meets the business need at hand, but, increasingly, and for more and more use cases, it does not.
They can't. 5th and 14th Amendments, preserving the pre-existing right, also protected by Common Law, against self-incrimination. I don't doubt that they will try, but, if and when they do, they mark themselves as traitors, and even if they do not face justice in this life, they will in the next.