This new product called "Memex" does not appear to be related in any way to the previous ones mentioned on Wikipedia. It's just a good sounding invented name.
586 karma · joined March 8, 2022
Overall, it feels like Aella, justifiably, wants to feel like she has passed a bunch of filters for a guy to consider her a high-qualified mate. This is both because she wants the ego boost of knowing she passed all those hurdles, and also because she's more likely to have relationship success with a guy who knows what he wants, has an established filter system, and decides she passes all of them.
The problem is, as you say, Aella is hot, intelligent, and driven as a partner. This means that basically a guy is going to find all of the boxes he's looking at for a first date checked. This is especially true if he's not an idiot and knows who Aella is and did even a casual Google about her first. This all kind of means that honestly, a first date is more about a guy auditioning for her to see if he's her type. Once he finds out that she's interested, that will be when he starts to get into the nitty gritty of "is this a woman who will work for me as a partner?"
Further bonus question, how do you even date someone with a strong online presence? Are you supposed to read their blog posts? Will they consider that creepy, or disrespectful of their time if you don't?
Let's do a technical interviewing analogy. It kinda feels like Aella is an experienced engineer who has written a well-known library. Basically the "interview" is an employer who already knows her qualifications trying to convince her to work for them. She feels offended that they aren't trying to see if she's a good fit for the position...but its immediately obvious she was at least a 90% fit and nobody needs to poke around for dealbreakers, any problems are the kind that are going to be teased out over time.
1. Source biomass that would have burned or decayed to atmosphere in a relatively short time without intervention, such as forestry or farming residues. This lets you say that any Carbon you don't release to the atmosphere is Carbon removal, but these materials tend to be difficult to consistently source and are energy-intensive to transport due to low density.
2. Use gasification to turn the hydrocarbon content into syngas, Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide. Gasification is nice because you don't release pollutants like heavy metals as readily as regular combustion, and you can easily clean the gas of any pollutants that were released before burning it.
3. Combust the syngas with pure Oxygen in something that sounds like a rocket engine. Burning pure fuel and Oxygen creates much higher temperatures and efficiencies than when the Oxygen is diluted with "inert" gases, and you don't have to worry about NOx production.
4. Separate the water and CO2, leaving a pure supercritical CO2 exhaust stream. This is the part they seem most vague about, maybe centrifugal separation based on density?
5. Use a high-efficiency turbine to extract energy from the post-combustion supercritical CO2. They say this can power all of the other steps including the pure Oxygen production and still be energy-positive.
6. After extracting all possible energy, inject the resulting CO2 underground in rock formations of minerals rich in oxides that can both contain the CO2 and react with it to form carbonates, permanently storing it.
The biggest question marks for me are the process to burn the syngas and remove the water, whether the CO2 turbine will actually be energy-positive given all the energy costs, the energy costs of sourcing and transporting the biomass, and how well geological CO2 sequestration actually works (does the CO2 react with rock before leaking out into the air?).
My favorite CO2 removal concept is pyrolysis, which bakes material to release hydrocarbon gases and vapors which can be refined to replace petroleum or burned for energy, leaving behind Carbon-rich charcoal which doesn't easily break down. When sourced from biomass this charcoal can be a useful soil amendment for farms, or when sourced from waste that may have heavy metals or other toxic ingredients it can be landfilled with much higher density than the source material. It seems like the carbon sequestration of charcoal is much more proven than burying CO2 underground, and its a lot easier to site a waste-to-energy plant near a landfill than an appropriate rock deposit.
>As a quick aside - I absolutely hate how most people treat incentives. So many leaders act like incentives are the only thing you can expect people to follow. >Hey, my top sales guy sold a $1M deal but did it at -90% margin, but there was no rule against it, so what do you expect? >There is one main incentive that all employees have - act with high integrity or get fired. Stop excusing people for bad behavior because your little point systems don’t cover every case of common sense.
This is completely unacceptable. The idea that someone could ever feel so insulated from accountability for the business priorities they set that they could even imagine getting away with saying something like this disgusts me. "Oh don't do what I told you and paid you to do, ~do the right thing!~"
Second, to try to directly address the problem: this article shows a complete lack of systems thinking. Systems thinking requires more intellectual investment from managers, but is ultimately the only way to get consistently good results. This is something we established by the 1980s so it's really frustrating that I'm seeing people having to re-prove this in modern times. Yes, it's easier to just blame people for their mistakes, but we stopped doing that decades ago because it doesn't lead to better results.
Finally, the reality is that I have never in my career seen a situation that could be made better by applying more blame. The reason for this is because there is no such situation, and anyone who suggests there is so fundamentally misunderstands what we are trying to do that they simply can't contribute to this kind of discussion. When you blame a person you are specifically choosing not to fix the system that actually caused the problem.
The first thing is probably cool and good, and if that was all that was in there nobody would complain. The second thing is essentially the end of free speech on the Internet. At the very least anybody will be able to take anything down with a single report, and at worst it will simply become legally too risky to ever allow user-generated content to be posted.
The problem is that it turns out there's a lot of 4G/5G phones that fall back to 2G/3G for emergency calls, or calls in general. Owners of these phones thought they were new enough to not be affected by the 3G shutdown, but are being required to get new phones. There are also some phones that don't support emergency calling out of the box, but can be modified to work by owners by manually modifying SIM settings to force enable volte for example. Since the device block list is by model, someone who modified their phone to work is still locked out.
The main premise of the video seems to be that erucic acid is not as toxic to humans as has been reported, so current safety standards are excessive and it should be safe to consume mustard oil. Their main argument is that mustard oil is a popular cooking oil in India and is not known to cause erucic acid disease there. A possible counter-argument could be that perhaps the ways it is used there limit total exposure levels. Maybe if it was easily available in the US people would use it in ways that do expose them to toxic levels, such as trying to deep fry with it. Perhaps this is only a risk to pregnant women or young children, which is why the original safety factor was set so high.
For people who want the flavor of mustard oil without exposure to erucic acid, it's possible to mix some mustard essential oil into any neutrally flavored oil such as canola.
Overall, I think it is good to have tools that enable higher-precision strikes with lower collateral damage. It is also good to have diligent accountability for the use of any military force so it is only happening when absolutely necessary, and in the most responsible way possible.
Overall, if it was a brand new cloth or had previously been used to clean toxic chemicals like motor oil, you should discard all of the remaining food. If the cloth had only been used food spills and previously washed...I still wouldn't eat it, but I could see why someone who is more chancey with their food might.
It might have been that book that talked about untapped potential for better flavors by making certain sauces in a microwave oven. The basic theory (as I recall) was that the microwaves would selectively heat oil droplets suspended in a watery sauce, and this would better extract flavor compounds into the oil while not heating the overall sauce enough to damage flavors.