102 karma · joined November 7, 2016
With hydroelectric accident you drown. The end.
Most effective teams are usually ones with least communication impedance. The less you have to judge your words and go through diplomacy/"re-examination" dance in routine conversations, the more time you have to do your job. That's the reason "team fit/culture fit" is such an important criteria when hiring people.
Just with the ones who are women (from a male perspective). This specific point is because of #MeToo - this movement normalized the fact that "friendliness" and "healthiness" of a relationship is judged post-factum, sometimes years and decades post-factum, and the male perspective is rarely taken into account.
Think about it this way, even if one follows OP advice, and builds what he considers very healthy and friendly relationship, he exposes himself to (based on recent news stories, very real) risk of the relationship being second-guessed by the female, at any point in time in future, with the severe penalties resulting from mere accusations, not convictions, even if not true.
Personally, as a male, you have absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to lose. The most rational thing is to not engage at all.
I prefer using the same language in interviews as we do in office. If the candidate gets offended, chances are, he would be offended on the first day on the job; better weed those out early.
Would any of those traits invalidate his point or give more credit to his point of view?
Bicycles are environmentally friendly (BTW, so are electric cars), but they are ultimately a statement of "edge cases are someone else's problem".
Kid sick and needs to be picked up from school couple hills away in 1/2 hour? Depend on someone else with a car. Three toddlers to deliver to childcare and be on time at work? Depend on someone else with a car. Need to get to an older parent that is not feeling well half a city away in the middle of the night? Depend on, yes, someone else with a car (mass transit basically does not work at night even in large cities). Need to have enough groceries for a weekend getaway for a family of five - good luck with your bicycle (or depend on delivery company, or on someone else with a car).
I have to disagree with OP. Cities of the future are cities with abundant personal transportation set over non-planar infrastructure (i.e. many grades, not 2-3 max today) with grade separations for all intersections - or flying cars, powered by non-polluting energy sources.
Until we all get there, let's be mindful that preaching niche transportation options needs to consider real life scenarios, with all their ugly cases, and not only the best case fantasy of their author.
And it'd still be cheaper than building accessibility over existing subway infrastructure.
You make a very good point that disability is not binary; there is an entire spectrum from Michael Phelps to Steven Hawking. In some ways, having three kids on your back can be considered a [temporary] disability ;) My main point is that going down the percentage of affected population drastically changes the ROI of changing the infrastructure as a whole versus addressing the people involved individually. And wheelchairs specifically is fairly far down that scale.
Any complications I am missing?
Better yet, take the money that government would otherwise spend on building all the wheelchair accomodations, and just distribute that between wheelchair users. I am sure many of them would prefer that over subway improvements which they might never use.
"Disabled people cannot reach their [work, school, childcare, w/e]", if true, is a valid problem. There are multiple ways to solve that problem. "NYC subway does not have wheelchair accomodations" is a useless outrage over circumstantial symptoms.
"We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research," Bob Walker, a senior Trump adviser, told the Guardian newspaper. "Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission."
...much more then I liked the previous administrator (Charles Bolden) mission:
"When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things," Bolden said in the interview which aired last week. "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."
Why were Muslim national relationships a NASA mission? Thought we had State Department for that.
Silicon Valley happened before the tax madness, and there is now net wealth outflow to lower-tax locations.
You can argue that behind NAT there is still IPv4 connectivity with public internet, but it is actually closer to proxying (i.e. having some device talk to internet on your behalf) than to routing (i.e. have some device pass your packets on).
Long story short, there is (for a long time already), no IPv4 public internet. There is IPv4 public interconnect between millions of isolated IPv4 islands. And a lot of hacks and shady engineering to make packets traverse from interconnect to islands and back.