bootwoot

Aren't you describing a notary public? A person registered with the government who asserts with their stamp that documentation and IDs are verifiable in person?

You're ready to die to defend them? That seems like a pretty extreme escalation.

This is great. Until you need to roll back.

I think the conditional display of the fact box implies they are in fact asking whether there is a good (enough) answer. They are just getting it wrong here.

Muddled mental TODO lists.

In my apartment I can never quite switch over to work mode. I just think about cleaning my bathroom or going for a walk or doing the core workout I meant to do yesterday. At best I can inject "Implement feature x" into the same list, but I can't fully flush the home stuff. Which means I do much less work stuff.

I'm guessing the csh curriculum was just old. csh was developed as an improvement to sh (just like bash) that some circles coalesced around before everyone chose bash. I doubt it was that they saw everyone using today and said, fuck that, let's use csh.

My company still does intro lessons with ksh because it's set as the default shell on all of our servers.

The creator of C++ would disagree, as C++ was devised as a compile-to-c language.

They're indicating explicitly that it's parentheses here with the text "INCOME/(LOSS)"

There's some research suggesting that the highest dose you can hit without inducing undue anxiety will be the most effective. As one might expect, this is similar to a tolerable recreational dose that most people would give themselves.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-011-2358-5

Does it have a higher expected value?

If you land the job, you have a guaranteed, pre-specified income. Probably a high one, depending on the company.

The massive risk of failure with launching a product should dramatically lower the expected value. Especially since most products, even if successful, won't pay as well as the corporate job.

Fair point. But still a far cry from current drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition of the 20s. Not being allowed to smoke in a restaurant is an entirely different animal than mandatory minimum jail time for anyone who possesses a cigarette.

I have no evidence, just observation. With regard to obesity, it's a relatively newer problem compared to smoking and I haven't seen nearly as much public facing campaigning to fix it. For example, I don't think I've ever seen a PSA about eating less, whereas I've seen literally hundreds about cigarettes since I was a child.

Admittedly, most anti-obesity campaigns also seem to be neutered by lobbying. "Stop drinking soda" becomes politicized and turned into "move" by lobbyists. Taking a 30 minute walk is great advice for overall health, but will do absolutely 0 to address obesity.

I guess overall, there's no guarantee of success here, but I tend to view the shift in public sentiment about tobacco as a direct result of public health efforts. Which leads me to believe it's at least possible for other issues (obesity, alcohol). But certainly it is difficult and with unknown risk of failure.

I don't think anyone is arguing for prohibition. We've seen that fail with every substance we've tried it with.

Public health/education campaigns, however, can be wildly effective with enough funding. Smoking cessation in particular has been massively successful even with no change to legality and billions of dollars of tobacco industry money doing everything they can to reverse it. The public health campaign in the US managed to turn cigarettes from chic to trashy and have made prohibition unnecessary. I could imagine the same happening with alcohol (and other problematic substances) on a long enough timeline.

Is there a source for this? Seems way more likely to be monetarily pushed by either investors or advertisers (as other poster said) or at least pre-emptively done to appease those groups.

Oh ya! I didn't read closely enough.

https://www.wireshark.org/ can often save some time in the collection and packet identification parts of such ventures.