Agustus

Minimum wage laws when instituted were racist. To this day it still detrimentally affects individuals trying to enter a work force by creating an artificial barrier.

Currently, there is a push to increase the minimum wage to $15. If I oppose this on my concept of what it is, a vestige of systematic racism that contributes further to that system, then what do I make of proponents of the increase who argue that voting against it is racist.

The entire endeavor is a waste of time, the politicos will do what they want and then tell you why we should hate Eurasia.

Google tv on the outside of the cardboard box shows the old version without the latest version.

When you update the system to the latest version, it installs a forced ad rotation on the top. You have no control over that content, and there is no way to get rid of it. Pass.

Look at Mann’s email trove of behind the scenes discussion.

The mineral based sunscreen is a big step in fixing this. Look for those that are environmentally friendly.

Metrics: It is easy for them to keep track of metrics, including the following:

* did someone pause on a post, mark it * time on page, * whatever other crazy metric you can show to advertisers * in-line advertisements

Also, the walled garden makes it so you get the endorphin hit of clicking the button and it can algorithmically entice you back with notifications and other engagements.

Green new deal is absent of nuclear energy and does not include anything about base load mitigation. Instead there will be magical battery storage.

The affordable care act included chiropractor and acupuncture.

California is under a strict lockdown that has been admitted in their documents that it will never return to green and the WHO is returning to their previously held statement that lockdowns hurt the poor disproportionately and do not provide ultimate success.

Masks do not work, then work, then only special types of cloth (two layer gaiters no, two layer cloths, yes).

HCQ with zinc does work in early treatments until endorsed by a party leader, opposition locks out doctors (trained medical professionals) from using the drug in certain states with no scientific backing.

Science in the political realm is non existent if it interferes with the scoring of political points.

It is not Republicans / Democrats are anti science, it is the political positions each side is beholden to that drives these narratives and then are used to make the opposing side look dumb.

The three fifths compromise was reached to reduce the effect that you are bringing up. The northern and southern states saw the writing in the wall for slavery when the constitution was signed. Virginia’s part was already merged, Maryland should remerge.

This is a good use of twitter to apply engineering and figure out issues. The problem is that PG&E’s incentives are significantly misaligned to not be successful:

1. Crazy renewable edicts that do not have base power assumptions (see blackouts over summer).

2. Maintenance programs that are not overseen by a third part. This story. Please read just to see the sheering off of the c hook and the fact it might have been 100 years old!

At the onset of the Coronavirus, the media and medical advice was to NOT acquire masks for daily wear to prevent spreading. My knowledge from Asian nations encouraging masks wearing to spread the disease was counterfactual to what the government was saying.

The people at Star Slate Codex supposed that this was to limit a run on masks.

Dr. Faucci just last month admits, yeah we lied about it at the beginning to prevent a run on masks.

The conspiracy folks in this case were correct. I am not including myself in the echelons or intelligence the SSC provides, but smart people were able to suss our this was a conspiracy.

Enforcement is the state forcing its will on you eliminating the individual’s ability to evaluate risk. Eric Garner is dead because of government rule flexing you suggest.

The government should buy ads showing the efficacy of face masks and use the ad council to pretty it up.

If you have politically connected individuals flouting the rules, people will salami tactics their way to not wearing the masks.

*edit: thanks for the word correction suggestion.

1. Community oversight through a board

2. Limit the use of force

3. Independently investigate and prosecute

4. Community representation

5. Body cams / film the police

6. Training in de-escalation

7. End for profit policing

8. Demilitarization of the police force

9. Fair police union contracts that remove provisions within police bill of rights that impose barriers to accountability

Look here:

Https://bit.ly/3cosVXM

By whom? Every side can argue either way to truth or lie.

Looking at the arguments in the multiple posts of this topic / concept we have people saying President Trump’s statement is false and true. It depends on the perspective, a significant amount of which is tribal based. You can get a great example of how a person’s thoughts change depending on who says it if you watch any of the YouTube videos of people asking opinions on a quote; when it was revealed to be someone from their tribe, BOOM!, perspective change.

Fact checking could be accomplished by a three person team that has items presented to them without context. But, we would need them to be isolated from society to ensure their purity in a subject matter.

You can’t. The political machines of these areas need to have significant political issues (think bankruptcy and stewardship to a larger organization Detroit being taken over by the state for example) to cause a change.

Places like Illinois are financially insolvent and are cutting back on all sorts of things.

Short sellers have a place in the market. They put in place a mechanism, in real markets, to hold a stock to honesty.

Imagine if WeWork could be shorted, people would have been able to hold the stock price down. Instead of the last minute moment where everyone looked around and went: It’s a REIT!

Where I share your sentiment on short sellers and longs are the ones who fake information / overpromote it to make some money, which distorts the market for the commoners.

If you are technically-minded and want to make a difference, please show up and help. Whatever your political spectrum, you can make a huge difference in a campaign by personally selecting who you align with or believe in, then going and helping. Our capabilities can organize groups and maximize the time of volunteers who are not technically savvy.

I have worked on a few campaigns and my skill sets were invaluable to getting candidate voices heightened.

TLDR: volunteer and you can make a difference.

A great way to stifle innovation.

Apple has been trying out cables and transfer types over the years (thunderbolt, CD-ROM, USB, wireless) and they do it on the backs of the luxury users, not too far off from what the luxury car makers in testing what to propagate downstream.

Apple has set a standard to use their cable format, which works. If you go through the litany of USB-B there were power issues, transfer rates, and a whole host of other items that, while it met the standard, did not work. An example is my Barnes & Noble Nook needing a special cable to work with the PC; it was USB-B, but not using the right transfer and power source rendered cables useless for interface.

If anyone can say the roll out of USB-C has been better, even with the “standard” then there have been a number of articles on here that have pointed to fake cables, horrible QC and other items.

So, a government agency has taken the draconian step of forcing a standard, one which will be helpful for the European companies that produce phones and people wonder why there is so much money in politics.

Additionally, buses are certain sizes for political reasons. Constituents want a full sized bus driving through their neighborhood as a sign of respect given, passenger occupancy is not a concern in these situations.

An addendum to this is that the government forced the companies to do this because the feds passed the insane 1942 Stabilization Act putting limits on wage hike capabilities of firms.

The problem is that we have good economists who say: here are the facts and history of what your choices will do and bad economists who say: if you have x, y, z, and the planets of Saturn and Uranus in alignment, you may be able to affect the economy to the way you wish despite all of the historical evidence to the contrary. The bad economists are hired into administrations to justify politically expedient proposals.

The funny moment of all this is how Google is becoming the type of search browser that existed in 2000. Altavista, webcrawler, yahoo, and others were the default search engines, but then they started to let advertisers override the search results to be inserted in the search results. Initially, the results were clearly delineated, but over time, they fell in and the note of it being an “ad” fell away.

To be fair, the internet is being conflated into a platform to drive people into walled gardens, and google is trying to deal with helping people into them.

I wondered how long it would take for the site to descend into the dark patterns that caused google to ascend.

Context from the official statement is that PG&E does expect to require blackouts, but it will not be the same magnitude of black outs as seen a few weeks ago.

Nuclear is far safer than any other power generation method. Nuclear reactors, when not made like Cherynobl’s reactor are safe. There is no intrinsic danger at a nuclear power plant because it is engineered away through fail safes.

If we are going to get serious about the climate change, we need to think long term. Solar and wind is a red herring for base loads; they handle peak events very well when properly placed. Batteries are no where now or in the future production ready to smooth demand at the scale you are talking.

We have an interesting societal conundrum here. Student athletes are below college material for specific sports (college football being a great example). If we do not allow the footballers in, then they would not be at the college, however, by allowing these sub par students into the college based on a need from the college, they are effectively subsidizing their educational capabilities to maintain NCAA eligibility (athletes at colleges have a different support system than us “normies.” With dedicated staff for tutoring, transportation, food, and housing). There can be a case made for the NCAA paying out more than living wages to these athletes while they are there.

What will be fun is to figure out how California is going to implement this wild hared idea if the sport is not profitable: looking at you water polo. The athletes are playing and doing similar workout regimens as the football, yet no pay... what do you do with this. What about Title IX discrimination when the men’s football gets monies while the ladies do not.

If politicians could focus their efforts on actually solving problems instead of giving hand outs to their tort lawyer buddies, we might get a better system.

The lawsuits would include:

- autoplay of gifs vs web videos

- does Pinterest count as an auto scroll ad

- does an endless scroll populated with 50% real content count as non-ad?

The law will just create more headaches for the producers and less innovation thanks to having to fight lawsuits.

Example of the depths lawyers can class action: Godiva is being sued in court for putting “Godiva 1927” on the label; the lawyer is arguing that people believe that the chocolate was made in 1927.

*edited the content away from ideas.

Base load power. Solar and wind do not provide this. Storing the power from these solutions is not possible in our current scientific state.

We have people who claim there are storage solutions just around the corner, but the corner has been stated since the beginning of renewables. Nuclear can be used in conjunction with the renewables for no carbon solutions.

The United States of America already solved this issue with the perfect Mojave desert option. Unfortunately, politics caused mayhem to the program.

We need to first get serious about definitions and goals. The first step is to move away from calling it climate change to climate affectation. Climate change is a trap prone opening where people ask: do you believe in climate change? If answering in the negative, you are branded anti-science when your answer meant that you do not believe in significant anthropogenic climate change or some variant therein, which allows for healthy debates. If we can start from here we can start to have discussions.

Next, we need to lay out what we can and want to do: reduce CO2, capture CO2, or not care about CO2 and put a sun visor up in space. Then we need to identify what is politically feasible, not some Kyoto or Paris accords nonsense, we are talking people are going to do it; a good example is CO2 reduction enforcement in China, no matter what we say the other countries are doing, China does not care more than lip service, just like USSR and India, about the environment at their developmental stage. If you are not willing to go to war (economically or confrontationally) with China to make them follow the world rules, then everything everyone else does is worthless. If you want an example of the timidity you start at, look to Iran and its flouting of rules it agreed to abide to on nuclear weapon development and this is a country with a stated goal of destroying other countries.

Next, an honest discussion about energy sources. Solar and wind need to be dropped as energy sources, it is perfect for people on their houses, but solar kills natural landscapes and wind kills birds. The battery storage is not going anywhere and we are not providing an answer with these technologies to base generation. Nuclear energy may not be economically viable, but it is the one that is environmentally viable and should be given the subsidies we funnel to the companies; looking at you Solyndra.

Finally, as a thought experiment, what is the unaffected climate change that would have occurred and if we go below that rate with our actions, do we undo that?

Absolutely not. China is doubling down on becoming the unipolarity. No where do they go that they do not perform the same sausage tactics as the Soviets.

The question becomes, like in all non capitalistic environments, can they succeed before their debts get to them.

Politics and graft.

Look at California, the state claims to have climate change risks, yet when they apply for bonds, this is not listed. Politicians will bend over backwards for easy political points especially if it is for a golden goose political moment, looking at Solyndra and Tesla’s buffalo plant. And if a donor gets a ton of money then win win win, still Solyndra.

The point is that you have a very sensitive issue that has politics in it that cause money to be wasted. If we are going to be honest about climate affectation then we need to be honest about solutions in the engineering profession: nuclear until fusion arrives, because renewables are not going to work from a storage perspective.

Then finally, what do we do about developing nations, if you are going to tell China “no coal plants.” Explain the enforcement procedures to solve this issue, are we willing to go to war to stop a risk versus the risk of nuclear Armageddon or societal collapse?

We will sell a model 3 for $35,000. That was 2016.

This is a rational analysis of the game theory with both parties being rational actors, that is not always the case.

Imagine a situation where the employee hates the manager and just wants to screw them over for a past issue, being passed over for a promotion or whatever, and the employee is going through some life patches. The employee has a one on one with their employer privately to solve an issue and then following this meeting, turns around and sued the company and the manager with sexual harassment.

If you do not think there are vindictive employees, then your statement works, however, they exist. So, if you are innocent and accused, the risk FAR outweighs the mentor ship rewards; losing your job, being blackballed, loss of trust from your significant other, etc. vs. providing guidance.