It seems like they may have chosen 10-ppm simply as a dramatic comparison. Such a low concentration corresponds to 3 mL bleach in a gallon of water if I calculated correctly. Nobody uses such a low concentration except to sanitize water itself.
And to add a bit more, a 1% solution of bleach is still considered pretty strong. I use a 0.15% solution for to sanitize for homebrewing. So if you have trouble with "standard strength", you still have a few orders of magnitude available. (And these percents represent the percent commercial bleach in water, not percent of hypochlorite in water. So a bottle of bleach is 100%.)
You may have misunderstood what they said about bleach concentration. Bleach is almost never used full strength. Rather, it is diluted to something in the neighborhood of 500-5000 ppm available chlorine. This corresponds to a 1-10% solution of household bleach. You can bump it up by adding more bleach, or acidifying the solution to reach a neutral pH.
Straight bleach is not used in a typical disinfection scenario. It is too strong. Is causes corrosion. It has fumes. (I did read that undiluted bleach is recommended for cleaning syringes, however.)
So if you need to deal with bugs that aren't affected by a standard strength of bleach, that's because standard strength is diluted by 99%.
If you give a better review because of sales or discounts, please write the price in the review so future shoppers have proper context. If the price doubles at some later point, they'll know your review isn't entirely applicable anymore.
If a 5-star product is one that does what's expected, how do you rate a product that exceeds expectations? How about a product that's so well engineered you're surprised anew every time you use it?
If you clamp ratings such that no product is better than "nominal", ratings lose some of their utility.
The main reason to use one of those proprietary programs is if it gives all the features you need and other programs don't. Some of the ones that are important to me:
- can send code without it being parsed to smileys - can attach files to a message (and can paste an image from the clipboard) and have an attachment preview visible in the chat client - being able to edit sent messages for a few minutes - notifications must be compatible not only with everyone's OS, but with everyone's personal attention/focus traits - system should receive and hold messages while a user is offline - tagging a user by name should get their attention somehow - program should be able to search through message history - markdown formatting is a plus
For work, even a single missing feature is a problem.
the application life cycle is actually documented in Android's API documentation. Yes, really. Huawei does not control which apps are killed or not. Android does.
I don't think you checked the facts. Huawei's application background persistence logic so aggressive that I'm tempted to say the OS isn't even Android, strictly speaking. However, I checked the docs and it appears that although the OS shall kill apps when memory is needed, there is nothing that says the OS can't also kill an app for fun. But does any other Android variant kill background processes that are still in use when there's no memory shortage and no battery stress? None that I've tried.
There is no on device solution to the problem, though. When I had a Huawei, you could start by setting the device to use max power all the time, but that would only solve problems related to background services like reminders and other notifications. There was no way to prevent backgrounded apps from being killed.
I had a Huawei and I experienced endless problems with background apps. I also develop mobile games.
If a device doesn't have enough RAM to run your program, you must block installation. If a device doesn't have the needed processing power to give a decent user experience, you should either rewrite the app to use different resources and lighter logic on low-end devices, or block those devices.
If the OS causes your users to have a bad experience, you should work around it or stop development and distribution for that OS. All the better of the app is open source, so someone else could pick up development targeting that platform without directly hurting your brand if their users have a bad experience.
I think your "idle 99% of the time" statement is accurate, but not looking at the big picture. For most people, waiting for the computer causes a disproportionate amount of distraction. Most people are not good at "pausing" themselves while they wait for the computer. Having two monitors can limit the distraction caused by such a delay, but most thin laptops won't be hooked up that way.
If you mean to suggest that the mere position that sexism exists in the world is a âoepolitical disagreementâ
No, it's more the idea that male power structures are almost certainly a cause of her career failings. I'm not quoting you directly--I'm stitching your words together with the words of the OP, so I know this isn't what you said, and my disagreement is misplaced. Does sexism affect every person? Obviously. Is it the cause for all women's career failings? Is it responsible for a significant portion of the career failings of most women (who have troubled careers)? That sounds too much like the apparent 30% pay gap, which is reduced to 3% or less when you control for obvious things like experience, hours, vacations, and overtime.
If the blame is appropriate, why should therapy avoid it? There are real external forces in everyoneâ(TM)s life causing problems, as well as internal forces. Identifying obstacles, regardless of their source, is vital to overcoming those obstacles. Not helping someone see enemies that are actively opposing them would make for some pretty bad therapy.
You're right, but there's a difference between acknowledging blame and the types of blaming that leaves an impression on everyone around you (i.e., either ranting and raving or trying to convince people you're not responsible). There's too much about this story I don't know, but I consider the latter types of blame to be a yellow flag. Perhaps similar to the way it's a yellow flag when someone rants about their spouse's therapist.
That's not the reaction of a supportive husband. That's the reaction of an abuser.
Sounds like you have some philosophical/political disagreements, then you took a giant leap from there. Based on the hubby's telling of it, it reminds me of a person on the internet that told me I was treating him/her differently because of his/her gender. The funny thing was that I didn't know that person's gender.
Plus, therapy shouldn't ever be about blaming people, is it? Helping someone see more enemies seems profoundly unhelpful, from the perspective of wanting emotional contentment. I suspect there's something being lost in translation, but based on what the husband wrote, it's understandable to think the (unlicensed) therapist is doing damage rather than helping.
Thank you for that properly informed perspective. Although on the web site of said organization, it clearly says that they self-certify, and there are no external requirements for one of their two certified roles. Also, the other poster was pretty specific about his claim of "untrained", and either that is utterly false, or we should accept that without knowing more, it's a toss up whether the guy is providing a proper standard of care.
First, he mocks "Rogerian" therapy. It's also known as "person-centered" therapy. It's essentially the foundation for all serious helping professionals now
Really? I thought more and more evidence was piling up in favor of CBT, and that other one which is also based on mindfulness or Buddhist principles. (And psychedelic therapy seems to be hitting it out of the park in medical trials, but that won't be popular for another 20 years.)
That said, we often have good reason to be skeptical of people that are express such bitterness, but having lived through a few embittering experiences of my own, I have some sympathy.
I read: 1) there was a divorce, 2) the guy dislikes a certain quack and a certain self help organization (and who doesn't hate quacks and self help), and 3) he took his daughter's phone away, though we don't know whether she was 3 or 13.
Can you elaborate on why you strongly suspect he is abusive?
Dynamic range is great for music, where you don't need (or want) to glean all the information from the work for the optimal experience. Plus, in music, a short loud burst isn't that hard on the ears.
For speech, you need a lot more of the information, so dynamic range is your enemy. It's as in photography, where a scene with a lot of dynamic range is beyond what cameras can capture. And if you turn up a movie volume enough to hear the whispered scenes, the rest of the audio will be painfully loud, and it will probably hurt more than a short cymbal crash of the same volume.
In that case, would you say it means roughly "explaining, and you're talking down to me because I'm a [woman]"? If so, that doesn't alter the situation too much. Talking down to an expert is rude, and makes you look stupid regardless of the genders involved. The accusation of mansplaining is the accusation with talking down, with the attached accusation of bigotry.
As you said, it's hard to classify an individual situation, even for oneself. You may know you talked down to someone, but what exactly caused you to do so? So if you tack on an accusation of bigotry, you poison the well. The conversation ends or becomes combative, especially on the internet where it's actually quite likely that people don't know each other's genders.
And I'm not entirely convinced what you said contradicts my original claim: to [correctly] accuse someone of rudeness is not enhanced by modifying the definition of that rudeness to be an exclusively male action. Even if it's true: we generally call it bigotry or discrimination when an individual is held responsible for the actions of a group.
First, let's get the obvious out of the way: women also try to explain and argue things they have no clue about.
So if I say "you're cluelessly explaining", versus "you're cluelessly explaining in a MAN way", does the second add any information besides the implication that men are bad? If "mansplaining" is a pejorative term, this situation becomes simple: in the US, if someone is a bigot in public and gets caught, their company typically fires them.
On the other hand, I think that response is a problem in US culture. Everyone has ugly aspects in their personality. Firing should not be a standard response whenever a bit of ugliness rises to the surface. This seems like a bit of Puritan legacy which our European friends don't share.
Google creates tool that can only be used to blow a user's foot off, and we put 100% of the blame on the user? Sure, the user is far from blameless, but you think it isn't "gross incompetence" on Google's part to think they can create a vetting process and rely upon a privacy agreement by a 3rd party to somehow mediate this?
An API to access a private service is hardly a "tool that can only be used to blow a user's foot off". Certainly there are companies that vet every access to their APIs, but is that really appropriate for a user who is letting an app access their inbox? Does an IMAP admin vet and approve every e-mail client a user can use?
If Google vetted and approved or rejected each API usage, I suspect we would be complaining that GMail is locking up our data.
What makes you think the deal wasn't simply underpriced? Hell, this could be the whole reason AT&T bought Time Warner! Imagine they saw Time Warner was leaving a ton of money on the table with this deal, and was consequently the whole company was undervalued. AT&T buys the company, fixes the problem, and they've increased the value of their new investment. (Of course, the whole story must be more complicated than that.)
So how should we feel? I don't like it. A big grocery chain bought a mom and pop shop near my home, then immediately reduced their inventory of the products I liked. I did not thank that grocery chain for that. But shouldn't anyone, even a megacorporation, be able to buy an asset then make it more valuable? It's a similar story with gentrification.
If they have your password, it is your password regardless of where they got it. Certainly if the password was part of a valid username/password pair, it's more problematic, but if the password is in this list, it will be relatively easy to crack. Being in this list is like being in a dictionary—it is likely that a cracker will try it if he makes a serious attempt to break in to your account.
Surely you're just as indignant about the existence of KeyWiki, where my name is on a list and where some of my friends have full pages dedicated to profiling them.
The short answer is yes, it is bad for society to publish "shit lists". The longer answer is that this doesn't totally apply to public figures (and in fact our laws place public figures in a different category than regular Joes). And while publishing photos and addresses is chilling or downright dangerous, we must have places to discuss public figures for the benefit of democracy. Moreover, I hadn't heard of that site, so I can't form a firm opinion yet.
By (few) you mean every Antifa supporter, all the trolls harassing prop 8 donors including Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich, and all the college students who threaten violence if a speaker they disagree with comes to their college. Yeah, just a "few" progressives.
Indeed there are a lot of bad apples. But aren't there even more people who stand for progressive ideals but don't make accusations, don't call for people to get fired, and don't encourage violence? These people don't make the news, and denouncing the whole group is nearly the same sin I'm criticizing. Some, not all.
I find it helpful to remember that as much as internet companies use data to spy on and exploit their users, we can at times reverse the story, and leverage those very same online platforms as a means to investigate or even undermine entrenched power structures.
This is some serious confusion, or just a severe "us against the world" mindset. Yes, internet companies sometimes spy on their customers. No, the people in his stalker notebook do not spy on ISP customers. No, the spying ISPs engage in is not the same as encouraging stalking.
I've seen a certain (few) progressives justify bad behavior as "sticking it to the man", "speaking truth to power", or "punching up". Invariably, this was an excuse to be rude or make accusations about a person who wasn't in a position to defend themselves. This data dump goes beyond rudeness.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like they may have chosen 10-ppm simply as a dramatic comparison. Such a low concentration corresponds to 3 mL bleach in a gallon of water if I calculated correctly. Nobody uses such a low concentration except to sanitize water itself.
And to add a bit more, a 1% solution of bleach is still considered pretty strong. I use a 0.15% solution for to sanitize for homebrewing. So if you have trouble with "standard strength", you still have a few orders of magnitude available. (And these percents represent the percent commercial bleach in water, not percent of hypochlorite in water. So a bottle of bleach is 100%.)
You may have misunderstood what they said about bleach concentration. Bleach is almost never used full strength. Rather, it is diluted to something in the neighborhood of 500-5000 ppm available chlorine. This corresponds to a 1-10% solution of household bleach. You can bump it up by adding more bleach, or acidifying the solution to reach a neutral pH.
Straight bleach is not used in a typical disinfection scenario. It is too strong. Is causes corrosion. It has fumes. (I did read that undiluted bleach is recommended for cleaning syringes, however.)
So if you need to deal with bugs that aren't affected by a standard strength of bleach, that's because standard strength is diluted by 99%.
If you give a better review because of sales or discounts, please write the price in the review so future shoppers have proper context. If the price doubles at some later point, they'll know your review isn't entirely applicable anymore.
If a 5-star product is one that does what's expected, how do you rate a product that exceeds expectations? How about a product that's so well engineered you're surprised anew every time you use it?
If you clamp ratings such that no product is better than "nominal", ratings lose some of their utility.
The main reason to use one of those proprietary programs is if it gives all the features you need and other programs don't. Some of the ones that are important to me:
- can send code without it being parsed to smileys
- can attach files to a message (and can paste an image from the clipboard) and have an attachment preview visible in the chat client
- being able to edit sent messages for a few minutes
- notifications must be compatible not only with everyone's OS, but with everyone's personal attention/focus traits
- system should receive and hold messages while a user is offline
- tagging a user by name should get their attention somehow
- program should be able to search through message history
- markdown formatting is a plus
For work, even a single missing feature is a problem.
the application life cycle is actually documented in Android's API documentation. Yes, really. Huawei does not control which apps are killed or not. Android does.
I don't think you checked the facts. Huawei's application background persistence logic so aggressive that I'm tempted to say the OS isn't even Android, strictly speaking. However, I checked the docs and it appears that although the OS shall kill apps when memory is needed, there is nothing that says the OS can't also kill an app for fun. But does any other Android variant kill background processes that are still in use when there's no memory shortage and no battery stress? None that I've tried.
There is no on device solution to the problem, though. When I had a Huawei, you could start by setting the device to use max power all the time, but that would only solve problems related to background services like reminders and other notifications. There was no way to prevent backgrounded apps from being killed.
I had a Huawei and I experienced endless problems with background apps. I also develop mobile games.
If a device doesn't have enough RAM to run your program, you must block installation. If a device doesn't have the needed processing power to give a decent user experience, you should either rewrite the app to use different resources and lighter logic on low-end devices, or block those devices.
If the OS causes your users to have a bad experience, you should work around it or stop development and distribution for that OS. All the better of the app is open source, so someone else could pick up development targeting that platform without directly hurting your brand if their users have a bad experience.
I think your "idle 99% of the time" statement is accurate, but not looking at the big picture. For most people, waiting for the computer causes a disproportionate amount of distraction. Most people are not good at "pausing" themselves while they wait for the computer. Having two monitors can limit the distraction caused by such a delay, but most thin laptops won't be hooked up that way.
If you mean to suggest that the mere position that sexism exists in the world is a âoepolitical disagreementâ
No, it's more the idea that male power structures are almost certainly a cause of her career failings. I'm not quoting you directly--I'm stitching your words together with the words of the OP, so I know this isn't what you said, and my disagreement is misplaced. Does sexism affect every person? Obviously. Is it the cause for all women's career failings? Is it responsible for a significant portion of the career failings of most women (who have troubled careers)? That sounds too much like the apparent 30% pay gap, which is reduced to 3% or less when you control for obvious things like experience, hours, vacations, and overtime.
If the blame is appropriate, why should therapy avoid it? There are real external forces in everyoneâ(TM)s life causing problems, as well as internal forces. Identifying obstacles, regardless of their source, is vital to overcoming those obstacles. Not helping someone see enemies that are actively opposing them would make for some pretty bad therapy.
You're right, but there's a difference between acknowledging blame and the types of blaming that leaves an impression on everyone around you (i.e., either ranting and raving or trying to convince people you're not responsible). There's too much about this story I don't know, but I consider the latter types of blame to be a yellow flag. Perhaps similar to the way it's a yellow flag when someone rants about their spouse's therapist.
That's not the reaction of a supportive husband. That's the reaction of an abuser.
Sounds like you have some philosophical/political disagreements, then you took a giant leap from there. Based on the hubby's telling of it, it reminds me of a person on the internet that told me I was treating him/her differently because of his/her gender. The funny thing was that I didn't know that person's gender.
Plus, therapy shouldn't ever be about blaming people, is it? Helping someone see more enemies seems profoundly unhelpful, from the perspective of wanting emotional contentment. I suspect there's something being lost in translation, but based on what the husband wrote, it's understandable to think the (unlicensed) therapist is doing damage rather than helping.
Thank you for that properly informed perspective. Although on the web site of said organization, it clearly says that they self-certify, and there are no external requirements for one of their two certified roles. Also, the other poster was pretty specific about his claim of "untrained", and either that is utterly false, or we should accept that without knowing more, it's a toss up whether the guy is providing a proper standard of care.
First, he mocks "Rogerian" therapy. It's also known as "person-centered" therapy. It's essentially the foundation for all serious helping professionals now
Really? I thought more and more evidence was piling up in favor of CBT, and that other one which is also based on mindfulness or Buddhist principles. (And psychedelic therapy seems to be hitting it out of the park in medical trials, but that won't be popular for another 20 years.)
That said, we often have good reason to be skeptical of people that are express such bitterness, but having lived through a few embittering experiences of my own, I have some sympathy.
I read: 1) there was a divorce, 2) the guy dislikes a certain quack and a certain self help organization (and who doesn't hate quacks and self help), and 3) he took his daughter's phone away, though we don't know whether she was 3 or 13.
Can you elaborate on why you strongly suspect he is abusive?
Dynamic range is great for music, where you don't need (or want) to glean all the information from the work for the optimal experience. Plus, in music, a short loud burst isn't that hard on the ears.
For speech, you need a lot more of the information, so dynamic range is your enemy. It's as in photography, where a scene with a lot of dynamic range is beyond what cameras can capture. And if you turn up a movie volume enough to hear the whispered scenes, the rest of the audio will be painfully loud, and it will probably hurt more than a short cymbal crash of the same volume.
When the mentioned her company by name, she immediately became a PR person.
In that case, would you say it means roughly "explaining, and you're talking down to me because I'm a [woman]"? If so, that doesn't alter the situation too much. Talking down to an expert is rude, and makes you look stupid regardless of the genders involved. The accusation of mansplaining is the accusation with talking down, with the attached accusation of bigotry.
As you said, it's hard to classify an individual situation, even for oneself. You may know you talked down to someone, but what exactly caused you to do so? So if you tack on an accusation of bigotry, you poison the well. The conversation ends or becomes combative, especially on the internet where it's actually quite likely that people don't know each other's genders.
And I'm not entirely convinced what you said contradicts my original claim: to [correctly] accuse someone of rudeness is not enhanced by modifying the definition of that rudeness to be an exclusively male action. Even if it's true: we generally call it bigotry or discrimination when an individual is held responsible for the actions of a group.
First, let's get the obvious out of the way: women also try to explain and argue things they have no clue about.
So if I say "you're cluelessly explaining", versus "you're cluelessly explaining in a MAN way", does the second add any information besides the implication that men are bad? If "mansplaining" is a pejorative term, this situation becomes simple: in the US, if someone is a bigot in public and gets caught, their company typically fires them.
On the other hand, I think that response is a problem in US culture. Everyone has ugly aspects in their personality. Firing should not be a standard response whenever a bit of ugliness rises to the surface. This seems like a bit of Puritan legacy which our European friends don't share.
Google creates tool that can only be used to blow a user's foot off, and we put 100% of the blame on the user? Sure, the user is far from blameless, but you think it isn't "gross incompetence" on Google's part to think they can create a vetting process and rely upon a privacy agreement by a 3rd party to somehow mediate this?
An API to access a private service is hardly a "tool that can only be used to blow a user's foot off". Certainly there are companies that vet every access to their APIs, but is that really appropriate for a user who is letting an app access their inbox? Does an IMAP admin vet and approve every e-mail client a user can use?
If Google vetted and approved or rejected each API usage, I suspect we would be complaining that GMail is locking up our data.
What makes you think the deal wasn't simply underpriced? Hell, this could be the whole reason AT&T bought Time Warner! Imagine they saw Time Warner was leaving a ton of money on the table with this deal, and was consequently the whole company was undervalued. AT&T buys the company, fixes the problem, and they've increased the value of their new investment. (Of course, the whole story must be more complicated than that.)
So how should we feel? I don't like it. A big grocery chain bought a mom and pop shop near my home, then immediately reduced their inventory of the products I liked. I did not thank that grocery chain for that. But shouldn't anyone, even a megacorporation, be able to buy an asset then make it more valuable? It's a similar story with gentrification.
If they have your password, it is your password regardless of where they got it. Certainly if the password was part of a valid username/password pair, it's more problematic, but if the password is in this list, it will be relatively easy to crack. Being in this list is like being in a dictionary—it is likely that a cracker will try it if he makes a serious attempt to break in to your account.
To check if your password has been pwned without submitting it to them, find the sha1sum of the password, then use their API to check it. For example:
sha1sum: 5baa61e4c9b93f3f0682250b6cf8331b7ee68fd8
first five characters: 5baa6
the remaining characters: 1e4c9b93f3f0682250b6cf8331b7ee68fd8
Use the prefix to visit their API:
https://api.pwnedpasswords.com...
Then search for the remaining characters in the page shown.
(I suspect even if you use the web form, it will only submit the sha1sum, but this is still safer.)
Surely you're just as indignant about the existence of KeyWiki, where my name is on a list and where some of my friends have full pages dedicated to profiling them.
The short answer is yes, it is bad for society to publish "shit lists". The longer answer is that this doesn't totally apply to public figures (and in fact our laws place public figures in a different category than regular Joes). And while publishing photos and addresses is chilling or downright dangerous, we must have places to discuss public figures for the benefit of democracy. Moreover, I hadn't heard of that site, so I can't form a firm opinion yet.
By (few) you mean every Antifa supporter, all the trolls harassing prop 8 donors including Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich, and all the college students who threaten violence if a speaker they disagree with comes to their college. Yeah, just a "few" progressives.
Indeed there are a lot of bad apples. But aren't there even more people who stand for progressive ideals but don't make accusations, don't call for people to get fired, and don't encourage violence? These people don't make the news, and denouncing the whole group is nearly the same sin I'm criticizing. Some, not all.
What a creep.
I find it helpful to remember that as much as internet companies use data to spy on and exploit their users, we can at times reverse the story, and leverage those very same online platforms as a means to investigate or even undermine entrenched power structures.
This is some serious confusion, or just a severe "us against the world" mindset. Yes, internet companies sometimes spy on their customers. No, the people in his stalker notebook do not spy on ISP customers. No, the spying ISPs engage in is not the same as encouraging stalking.
I've seen a certain (few) progressives justify bad behavior as "sticking it to the man", "speaking truth to power", or "punching up". Invariably, this was an excuse to be rude or make accusations about a person who wasn't in a position to defend themselves. This data dump goes beyond rudeness.