ashelmire

It's a term meant to slander professionals and imply that we should constantly rotate in the current political favorites into positions for which they are not qualified.

As I understand it, taxi companies have done just that - they now have apps as well.

They probably figure the average person is going to 1) order a whole meal when they come to Wendy's and 2) not likely to go to Wendy's 32 times.

Of course, college students are the ones that have the time and metabolic rates to handle this...

Yep. The primary way I get to/from drinking events is Uber/Lyft. The other use case is when going somewhere without parking. Taxis were always very unreliable for trips like this; they'd show up late or not at all, especially for leaving events late at night.

Surely there's a place that sells burritos near you?

The only politics is when you look at dozens of studies on NIH and say "it's all politics" and counter with your anecdotal experience. This is like denial of climate science. Stop doing it. I'm not part of any tribe but the science tribe. Eating meat is unambiguously worse for the environment and worse for your health than non-meat diets. The scientific theory and studies on the subject are clear.

And I eat meat. Chowing on a burrito al pastor as we speak.

> Vegan diets are being proved by lots of studies at being pretty shitty for you.

As far as I can tell, this is completely false. Vegan diets do a lot of things well: reduce salt, saturated fat, and cholesterol intake, for example. Vegetarian / vegan diets improve cholesterol, blood sugar levels, and other things.

Here's some citations of studies and papers that demonstrate vegan diets are better for you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

Several more listed at https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vegan-diet-studies#sect...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26508743 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25684089 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23695207 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16164885

The consensus of scientific evidence seems pretty clearly in favor of plant-based diets. The evidence is as clear as the world being round or climate change being real.

> I have mixed feelings about Beyond Meat: my wife and I love the hot Italian sausage and burgers, but it is really not that healthy.

Regular veggie burgers and other products (not trying to imitate meat) are usually really good. They should embrace the fact that they can include a vast array of vegetables and spices. Example: Morningstar farms has a chickpea burger I really like. Also it's much cheaper than Beyond products. I share your concern about the Beyond products (and other vegetarian products); if I want a ton of saturated fat, I'd just eat meat. Chicken and fish are healthier than Beyond.

A society that eats less meat (or none) is inevitable given time, for both moral and practical reasons of health, scarcity and environmental impact. We should teach people to cook healthy vegan food that they enjoy. Just providing food options people enjoy without meat will reduce meat consumption without pushing a moral agenda that often receives hysterical responses.

Disclaimer: I eat meat, though I've been eating less for the above reasons.

I think it might be useful to note for other readers here that jq is very powerful for parsing json - you can programatically search, select, map, and mutate parts of any json. If you work with a lot of json, it's worth checking out.

...why wouldn't it be? Why is a world with effectively arbitrary borders (and a huge amount of money and human effort wasted defending them) preferable to a world without borders?

What if you continuously invested over that time?

You don't. You can wait for obvious signs (government interventions), but if you wait for that, it won't be the bottom anymore. Better to just wait until the bleeding stops. Don't try to time the market exactly.

> We really need mandatory ethics courses in CS.

You think the CS grads / devs are the ones deciding to do this? We're not really given true autonomy. We're grunts. Someone above us decides to do the spying and we either do it or hit the job market.

You can also do this in Ruby, though the scope is different.

I agree that we've been given clear signals that losing consumer data won't result in any negative repercussions for your business from government. Unfortunately none of us are customers of equifax - the companies we share our data with are. And those companies don't care, and include every bank.

For Capital One, or other companies with which we directly do business, I think there's likely to be more direct ramifications - namely people refusing to do business with them. Letting anyone access your customers' data is a good way to lose those customers.

I use https://downdetector.com/

I've often experienced issues with sites that say "everything's sunshine and rainbows" on their status pages, only to find that many other customers are experiencing the same problem.

Have you seen the US lately? We're en route to undoing Roe v Wade, the Civil Rights Act, years of progress on other matters, etc, and we've already basically given up on functional democracy by allowing corporations to spend as much as they want on candidates. What do they say about those in glass houses...?

For places like this, we need to enforce trespassing laws. Use it as revenue to pay for more enforcement of those laws. For public spaces ruined by the photographers, pass laws requiring licenses to photograph and distribute it (where possible). Make other rules for public spaces to keep them useful to the public for things other than photography (no mounting a camera within 50 feet of the water, for example).

You've moved the goal posts a bit, but regardless:

> The US has a federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr. This isn't a comparison with the 3rd world, this is a comparison with civilised, livable and comfortable lifestyles in other US cities.

There is no where in this country where $7.25 is a liveable, comfortable wage. It is the lowest amount legally allowed. And very few work for that wage - and very few of them are independent adults. See [1]. Nowhere in the United States can a minimum wage worker (or even close to it) affording the average 2 br apartment (say, if they had kids); and there are only a few places in the country where someone working 40 hrs / week on minimum wage can afford a 1 br apartment [2].

> It is obvious that the cost of living is a relevant factor. The question is why are the costs of living higher in California than elsewhere? It isn't because rich people exist. It is because California doesn't have enough houses for the marginal house-hunter.

I hope the above mentioned points make it clear that this is not a problem just in California, but nationwide. Which means wages are insufficient nationwide and cost of living is too high nationwide.

> Paying the marginal buyer more isn't going to create more houses. If there wasn't a place for them to rent before, there still won't be when you pay them more. If it were possible to create more houses, the current prices would already be making it happen.

I'm going to assume you're arguing in good faith here and respectfully disagree. The problem isn't that there aren't homes for them to buy or rent; the problem is that those homes and rentals are at too high a price. At $20/hr maybe they can afford to live in .5% of available rental units; and at $30/hr maybe they could afford 5%. That's a tenfold increase in potential living spaces, without those living spaces becoming more affordable.

Yes, the other issues in the bay area exist, with the NIMBYism and such. But these problems still exist nationwide. There are a few potential ways for government to help solve this issue. The main ways (hopefully I didn't miss any obvious ones) are: increase minimum wage or average wages via law or other influence; increase taxes on home ownership, especially for non-residents; introduce rent control laws; provide incentives for and remove obstruction from building new construction, especially high density construction.

1. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2017/home.htm 2. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/06/affordable-housing-mi...

The reason these paid services are successful in the US is because we have a fully functional and very threatening legal and corporate system that will find and punish people that steal their content and distribute it. This makes it inconvenient or risky to use free services (about ~13 years ago it was more convenient to pirate, with p2p sharing apps being very popular at US colleges and any music or film a click away, before enforcement ramped up).

Does India have the same level of legal enforcement? Why pay for a streaming service if they can pirate content?

> If it works for other cities, the problem clearly isn't the rate of pay.

Ok. So if they earned 5 dollars a day, it would be ok because it works for cities in third world countries? I think it's obvious that the local cost of living is always a relevant factor in pay.

These results aren't filtered in some way? I find it suspicious that almost all of the top ~100 results are tech related.

Which do you think is more potentially damaging?

1) Using a website which has had its server code compromised (slack).

2) Installing and using an application which has had its code compromised (maybe also slack).

The installed application is going to have more access and potential to damage your system and to compromise your data. There's not really anything more to it. One's in a browser sandbox and limited by browser capability, the other can do literally anything it wants.

You know what's better than installing slack? Not installing it and using it in the browser.

If there's a website option for any tool, I recommend using that over native. It's usually more performant and is less of a security risk. And it's always up to date.

We have laws about truth in advertising so that people don't get shafted by these big companies. Sure, they could say it was a mistake, but then they might have to fight it... and it really is a drop in the bucket for them. Amazon still made billions in revenue each of those days.

The whole point of MTurk is to get data you will use to train your models. Using some artificial means to make money on MTurk would be circular, and probably easily spotted - if not, your model has effectively solved the problem domain anyway!

We do language related things on MTurk (crowdsourced translation, for example). It's very easy to spot those who have used something like google translate or other artificial means - it's quite rare for a sentence to be translated exactly the same way twice, for starters.

I know that we use MTurk at the Linguistic Data Consortium (and that others in NLP use it as well). I know that those involved with it put in a lot of work to make sure we get good, useful data - there are many papers and strategies on the subject of crowdsourcing.

> The bird (or lime or Voi or...) can be picked up where I need it

It sounds like the problem is that it's never where you need it. Unless you had 10x as many scooters as people and they were littered literally everywhere.

If only scooters could drive themselves to your doorstep... Hey wait a second, that could be it! I'll start my self-driving scooter company today.

If you can think of every possible failure and create monitoring and reporting for it before it happens, then you're the best dev on the planet.