Alextigtig

Seems interesting

I miss these kinds of websites. Remarkably, this website ranked #1 in the google search of "geology of the central valley of california."

This is crazy! The hash of this comment once again begins 182a7c9!!! Well done indeed!

I love it!! Thanks for making!

I run a small business and we use WhenIWork to schedule our shifts. We couldn't be happier with the software, functionality, and customer support, although it's a tad pricey.

What's funny about how SB is going about this is as another flavor syrup to add to lattés. That way, the flavor is about as masked as any hazlenut cream they dump into a frappuchino. It's too bad, because cafes that sell exclusively cascara-based drinks can actually churn out some really decent stuff, but SB's "cascara foam" is more like a fancy way to brand some flavored sugar.

IMO, where the debate really gets interesting is how cascara might shift the balance of direct trade relationships: because so many farmers rely heavily on cooperatives to purchase high-volume dry milling equipment, farmers almost always act cooperatively with their coop. However, because cascara is something that individual farmers can make without expensive machinery, it might start to fracture the thousands of coffee coops that make up lots of the source-level industry.

I was also convinced that this was a reasonable way of looking at things because often the "climate change debate" is portrayed as two-sided; one arguing that climate change isn't a big deal and one arguing that it is. This leads to the false supposition that the true answer lies somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately it does not.

For me, one of the most eye-opening experiences was reading an article from the New Yorker the worst of what may happen due to climate change.[0] Because the "climate change is happening" side often tries to ground their claims in research and climate-models, they are rarely apocalyptic or even the slightest bit exaggeratory, while the other side often argues at the opposite extreme of "nothing will happen." I found this article to be helpful in orienting the debate, as it helped me realize that the expected value of doing nothing is really far worse than what I imagined.

[0] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-...

It seems a bit odd to me that this company grew out of X, as I was under the impression that projects in the "Moonshot Factory" were more ambitious. From what I gather, this sounds mostly like an analytics org for enterprise, not something that might change the world (e.g. Waymo, Loon, Project Ara).

Perhaps X is taking on less radical projects than I imagined. Would love to hear others' viewpoints on this as well, though.

I'm a current undergraduate majoring in physics at a major US university, and I strongly disagree with the assumptions and the conclusions that comprise this article.

Firstly, the article lists two anecdotes as definitive proof that everyone hates their gen-ed classes. This is almost invariably wrong: because students have enormous flexibility in choosing their gen-ed classes (these literally be any number of classes out of thousands at a liberal arts college) they are much more inclined to pursue a legitimate area of interest outside their major. In fact, many of my friends actually change their major _because_ of a gen-ed class they were required to take.

This leads to my next point about not having a set major: upwards of 50% of undergraduates at my university change the major that they applied to the school for, and over 90% of graduating students conclude that they ended up in the correct major. To reduce all flexibility whatsoever in majoring, I think, is a fatal flaw that does much more harm than good. In fact, the little "good" the 3-year-major approach has – i.e. less money/time spent at college, end up more advanced in respective field – is far less valuable than the tangential skills one may pick up from gen-ed requirements.

That point about scheduling being so complicated "that at least one company, Hobson’s, makes money selling software" to navigate the process is just ridiculous: companies make money delivering burritos; does the burrito selling process need to be rethought? My high school had software that they paid for to schedule classes, and so do many.

Finally, the author's conclusions are not only contradictory but paint a worrisome future for undergraduates. We should "give students more freedom to pursue their interests," but also create "less choice" for classes? In addition, his last point about teaching students "communication, facility with widely used software, and teamwork" is literally the purpose of gen-ed requirements.

Undergraduates should be treated as adults: many (if not all) colleges have time-honored "honor code" traditions, wherein students are expected to act honorably and maturely in examination requirements. If we are to instead prescribe each course each student should take, remove all flexibility to study unrelated subject areas, and create a uniform assembly line through which every undergraduate passes without deviation, not only would students lose the most valuable parts of a university education, but they would also be woefully unprepared for the variety of challenges that life faces.