brooklyndavs

A USATF certified coach, probably focusing on distance running with one-on-one training for adults. There are apps with algorithms that create personalized training programs for things like marathons and 1/2s but they aren't there yet. Plus, nothing is like in person human interaction for on the fly adjustments to training and for motivation.

http://www.usatf.org/Resources-for---/Coaches/Coaching-Educa...

OR

Somehow get into climate science. I almost went to school for meteorology in the early 00s but on a tour of a college atmospheric sciences department when I was 17 an old professor told me it was a hard career to get into with very limited job prospects. :(

It is kind of, and unfortunately it doesn't give a lot of background. For the past few years there have been a few studies suggesting that distance running (say anything past a 1/2 marathon) might actually be harmful for ones heart. As I runner I'm personally glad to have more reporting on this issue.

So, the question of "is an alternative form of exercise, that has fewer damaging side effects, better?" is an important one to ask, and better would need to have a definition around it. However, answering that question wasn't the goal of this article.

Genetics has a huge role to play. Alberto Salazar had a heart attack at 48. Now, maybe running gave him a few years before his first incident as it sounds like he was already taking medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol.

The point being once you get into serious mileage like the 30+ miles per week, doing 15-20 mile training runs and racing 1/2 and full marathons its best to view them as personal performance goals vs health goals.

Also, as someone who has run long distance for about 10 years now, take it from me that rest is as important as the miles. Making sure you have rest build into your training plan and after your goal race. This will help you avoid burnout and injuries. Remember, all training really does is takes your body to a stressing point. Its the rest portion that allows your body to respond and adapt to the stress which in turn allows your body to perform at a higher level of performance.

There was a study a few years ago (posted below) that actually found running is fairly good for your joints as the stress encourages your body to build and repair cartilage.

If you are personally having joint issues and you want to continue to run I encourage you not to give up. Try different shoes, have your gait analyzed, even see a physical therapist who specializes in running. I obviously don't know if you are in this situation or if you have tried any of these things, but I know even a simple thing like changing the type of shoe you wear and a little rest can help resolve a lot of minor joint pain issues.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134861448/put-those-shoes-on-r...

I'm just a software developer with a side interest in climate science so please excuse any ignorance on this topic. What I find troubling is it seems, from what I have read, our climate models currently have a poor handle on co2 and methane feedbacks, both positive and negative. For example there seems to be a general scientific consensus that NOx from industrial sources (mostly coal power plants) is having some cooling effect. When these are removed, which will happen slowly but steadily as coal is retired, there will be a warming response but it is not clear how much this response will be. Similarly, you have positive feedbacks coming into place like the decline of sea ice in the arctic, less forests and more combustion of those forests, and co2/methane releases from permafrost. These are other feedbacks are known but nothing I have read has convinced me we have a full scientific understanding of the impact that these feedbacks will have.

Thats why like others in this thread I feel rather hopeless about humanity ever getting global warming under control. We of course have the problem of humanity to continue putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere via our economic activity. This of course is co2 but also methane and HFCs. The challenge of bringing these down to safe levels while keeping not only the standard of living we enjoy currently in the west but also bringing billions more people into the middle class world wide is impossible with existing technology and incredibly hard with emerging technology. To get to a carbon neutral prosperous, middle class society for everyone on the planet will take many decades. If we ever get to that point I'm afraid feedbacks and built in system inertia will be so strong that the planet will keep on warming for 1,000s of years despite our best efforts.

TL;DR I think we as humans really screwed this up and I don't have much hope of us collectively being able to fix it.

I was able rent my apartment off of craigslist from a old school Brooklyn family. I think they did go through a broker but they also paid for the broker fees I believe. I didn't have to pay anything to a broker.

Is there some legal requirement in New York that rentals must go through a broker? I don't know any other city in the country that you probably will pay a broker fee to rent an apartment. It just seems like the real estate industry dipping their hands into the NYC rental market as a completely unnecessary middle man. I wonder if this is because of New York's history of being majority rentals which, until recently, was fairly unique in the US.

It will be very interesting to see how the below does in November in Colorado. If this passes and is successful it could act as a catalyst for other states to try the same. Like many progressive issues before it (Same-sex marriage, weed legalization etc) single payer universal healthcare in the US might go through the states first. The insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital industries know this and are working hard to see it defeated.

http://www.coloradocare.org/

First, since America is awash with guns I would hope the law enforcement from the top down would be the number one supporters of sensible gun control. I'm sure its hard being a cop on the street not knowing who has a gun and who doesn't.

Second, it also comes down to a training issue. I would say that the response from law enforcement that Eric Garner and Tamir Rice met was no way appropriate to the threat that they posed to law enforcement or society, perceived or otherwise. I would hope we can at least all agree that these two citizens should be alive today.

The two videos linked below are an interesting and disturbing contrast. The top one is UK police responding to a man with a knife at a Tube station. The second one is American police responding to an unarmed bank robber in Miami.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2015/dec/06/police...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1K9yY3w-WY

Exactly. Police in other western countries are able to enforce minor infractions without killing or injuring the suspect. One can have the discussion (and should!) if these laws make sense or not, but if they are going to be enforced cops shouldn't be judge/jury/executioner. This seems to be a very American problem.

Beautiful. Whenever I see images like this of "big things" in space I'm reminded how meaningless our short existence on this little rock is from a universal perspective. My big takeaway is always to try to find personal meaning in ones life. Either in work, or family, hobbies, etc.

Ok robot, now the prey is a human. :)

Totally agree, the question was framed poorly. Most liberal economists would disagree with this because it strips the existing social safety net (Social Security and Medicare being the big ones) and replaces it with only 13k. Heck, try buying private health insurance for someone who is 70 on 13k a year. :) Most conservative economists disagree because you didn't "earn" that money (whatever that means) and it would raise taxes. I suspect it was framed in a way to generate the most amount of disagreement as possible.

"Raising taxes is costly and so redistribution should be targeted to those who need help most." - Oliver Hart

So what if most people are out of a job in 50 years due to automation? What if "targeted to those who need help most" is 90% of all adults. Yeah raising taxes is costly, but considering owners of capital will most likely see most of the benefits from productivity gains in the future I'm sure they can afford it.

More from Mr Hart "Bill Gates would get 13K, which is crazy."

Um yeah, Bill Gates also will get social security and medicare (and he should). That's the whole point of a benefit. I wonder if Mr Hart is an advocate for means testings of these programs? How lovely is it that "experts" like this have the ears of our policy makers.

I agree. If I'm unemployed I'm not part of society? What if I still get out of the house? Volunteer? Attend social gatherings? What if I'm retired? Am I not part of society? Who defines what is "work" in the future anyway?

> Lots of conflicting incentives that can discourage work in the existing rules.

Its sad to see this sentiment echoed. Especially considering how some jobs are just useless/white collar welfare (some middle management at large organizations I've been a part of in the past come to mind) or how some jobs will continue to be automated in the future. Work shouldn't be the most important thing that defines ones worth as an adult in our society!

Its hypocrisy and contempt coming from "elites" via the very institutions that are critical to a democracy, the media. When the 4th estate works in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way democracy can work. However, once you have major media bought and paid for by those "elites" to push some billionaire's agenda you sow distrust in media. Once the voters don't have a place to go for trusted information all bets are off...

Yeah I remember those. D-tags I think is what they were called (since they are suppose to form a D on your shoe I guess). The ones on the bibs are way better.

Either way, super interesting technology that I've really haven't appreciated until this post!

Agree, especially with all of the choices that employees have and the risks & fees associated with those choices. Mostly, it seems to be another way to funnel middle class money into the financial industry. The history of the 401k is interesting and was never intended to replace a work's pension.

"It was intended to allow taxpayers a break on taxes on deferred income. In 1980, a benefits consultant named Ted Benna took note of the previously obscure provision and figured out that it could be used to create a simple, tax-advantaged way to save for retirement. The client for whom he was working at the time chose not to create a 401(k) plan."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)

Also, keep in mind, because of pensions most government workers don't get social security when they retire. My mother, a public school teacher for 20 years, only lives on her pension.

Now, if we think government employees should pay into and get social security when they retired thats a debate that might be worthwhile to have. However, in the meantime the trade off has been lower salary and no social security in the public sector vs private sector but you do get a pension in the end.

"Opportunity clusters in cities where there is capital available, and those tend to be the big cities where the most rich people live."

Which, in 2016, is kinda crazy. One would think with the internet being geographically close to capital wouldn't matter as much. Now it matters more than ever before it seems.

It's sad that the young midwesterner (hey that was me once!) has to try to "get to NYC" for the best opportunities instead of modern communications making those opportunities available in places like Chicago, or Indy, or that person's small hometown. That person shouldn't have to choose between sharing a one bedroom apartment in Bushwick with 4 other people or remain jobless/stuck at one job in whatever middle of the country place that person resides in.

"But is it even possible to sustain this many people (at current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?"

In short no.

The reason being the current system requires endless growth (measured currently in GDP) in order sustain this many people with current standards of living. Of course current standards of living are not enough, especially for people in poverty around with world. If growth doesn't continue the entire economic system grinds to a halt. However, endless growth confined to a closed system (Earth) is not sustainable not only for the climate but also for resources like water, food, etc.

Geoengineering is just another foolish attempt of humans to try to bend the planet to our wishes. This line of thinking, that we are somehow better than the earth, somehow removed from all earth systems as a species, is what got us in this mess in the first place. Yes, I realize the irony of saying this on a forum with readers, like myself, who solve technical problems for a living.

Parts of the environmental movement are now starting to focus on economic system change for this very reason.

"Hey, I know I'm just in Queens and Brooklyn but can I get some love too?" - G Train

Not soon enough and at the scale that we need to address the problem. Keep in mind the ability to adopt electric cars and go home solar is still a very privileged position and will be for quite a while. Think about how many cars that are 10 or 20 years old on the road now. Or how many people live in apartments. And this is just in the developed world.

This is why most climate scientists advocate for at least a tax on all carbon. While the free market might be able to solve this world-wide on a long enough time scale we don't have the time for that to play out. We've been building our current energy and transportation infrastructure out for the past century globally based on fossil fuels.

To get a good idea on the scope of the problem I'd highly recommend start reading through some of the forum below. Some of the brightest (to me anyway :)) experts on the climate post regularly here.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php

While I have sympathy for homeowners in this case I have none for the local politicians that are complaining about it. As a Waze and Google Maps user if there is a faster route down a side street vs the interstate I'm of course going to take it. I'll follow all the laws of that side street naturally (25 mph zone for example) but I still have every right to drive down it if its a public street that is maintained by public taxes.

With that said, if these local politicians really cared about fixed the problem vs just complaining about traffic they would work within their region to fix the root problems of traffic. Provide alternate transportation options including bike lanes, trains, buses, etc. Stop building office parks out in the middle of nowhere. Start building dense, walk-able, AFFORDABLE neighborhoods close to jobs and services. Encourage local business to have people telecommute or work alternate hours.

"there will come a time when we are banging our heads against a problem and there is a deadline looming and we’re tired and people are pissed at us and money and jobs and reputations are all on the line."

Real response to this should be to ask how it got to the point where we are all stuck in a room with a deadline looming and our jobs are on the line if we don't come up with a whiteboard solution RIGHT NOW.

Sounds like this place has a management/expectations problem and I wouldn't want to work there in the first place.

How did NYC drive IRT and BMT into bankruptcy? It's my understanding mass transit isn't profitable in the modern era.

Strangely, and hypocritically, the same author of this post also wrote this:

"War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life"

WUT?

-> "The big difference between the NYC subway and all other US systems is that it's four-track. Not only is it four-track; there are lots of switches, crossovers, and interlocked signaling to support taking a section of track out of service without affecting traffic much. That's why the system can run 24/7. Almost all maintenance is done without stopping all traffic."

Totally. I'm always surprised at the amount of planning that went into the NYC subway as far as capacity and redundancy goes. Not only in the IRT and BMT lines, which were private companies at the time, but also the IND system which was built and owned by the City. For example, the first time I took the F train to Coney Island I was socked to see it's four-track all the way to the end.

It's a huge disappointment that the Second Ave subway is going to be two-tracked.

As a fellow runner as well, I keep searching for that "perfect" device to replace my phone for my runs. For races I just have a basic Garmin, but for training runs I love having my phone on me for music, podcasts, emergencies, and endomondo (training app).

I think the Core is a step in the right direction, depending on how extendible it is with 3rd party apps. I love that the GPS is in such a small device and that it doesn't seem to suck the battery too much (as advertised at least). Sucks it doesn't have LTE as music streaming over 3G is painful to say the least. 4GB isn't much space to store music or podcasts either. While I'd love to ditch my phone for runs this doesn't allow me to do that quite yet.

Yeah I know back in the day we would just run with our little Casio watch, but I'm spoiled now :)

> It's been shown that DNA is a pretty good predictor of being conservative or not. AFAIK, this hasn't yet been shown for being gay! Conservatives don't have a choice.

Um what? There have been PLENTY of studies over the last few years indicating homosexuality is expressed either at a DNA level or as the brain is developing in utero.

http://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html

>It's been shown that DNA is a pretty good predictor of being conservative or not.

First, show me where this has been studied. Peer reviewed please. Second, if your conservatism violates human rights, yeah thats a problem. Conservatism, in the US has been the excuse for slavery (the bible says we are better than them!), Jim Crow and segregation, interracial marriage, and now LGBT rights. Conservatives have been on the WRONG side of history on ALL of these issues.

>I could choose to indulge my fabulous side and cross dress

Well, personally, I would say you are born with a fabulous side so you are just being true to yourself. Congrats and have fun!

> Yes, choices do have consequences, but social exclusion based on those choices can still be critiqued.

The problem is you are making a choice not only to believe in something completely void of fact (you can be ignorant if you want to be I guess) but you are also making a choice that HARMS society as a whole. When a person's choice guides them to discriminate a whole group of people based on some stories written a few thousands of years ago thats a choice that deserves to be critiqued. If your choice guides the people you vote for to be anti-science yeah, that choice deserves to be ridiculed.