code_beers

Fast forward a few months, criminals are just wearing ski masks when they steal cars, and you’ve given up a significant amount of your privacy for absolutely zero benefit. Not a good plan, in my opinion.

What about a computer or tablet with a cellular modem on a cash-paid plan and a Skype account or similar service?

Hmm. You first, let’s see how it goes.

I’ve never fallen out of love with coding, and I can’t imagine that happening. At its core, it’s logical problem solving, and that’s what I was born to do. I’ve DEFINITELY fallen out of love with companies, languages, platforms, etc. though. Perhaps it’s time for a change of some kind?

It’s unsurprising job-hopping is so common these days. Sometimes it’s the most practical way to get a long (granted, unpaid) vacation and come back to a raise and a new environment.

Who’s to say it’s a “glitch” and not a feature? What if this “glitch” provides greater resilience to climate change, and we edit out the very thing we need to keep eating despite our past mistakes? I would like to see a greater understanding of biology before stuff like this makes it out of the laboratory. Our species is a child playing with a box of matches.

Not at all, and I did not intend to give that impression. But that “list of hard problems” contains things which are MORE LIKELY THAN NOT to kill us all. Climate change, in particular.

I don’t advise inaction. But I’d be a hypocrite if I said I’m personally doing anything to change it. I’m just trying to live my life and get by. Problem is, that’s EVERYONE.

So if we’re headed off a cliff, and nobody is grabbing the wheel... Where’s the hope? Why would humanity have a sudden change of heart, come together, solve our shared problems, and move forward with a plan that could actually prevent climate change? How would we get everyone to do that simultaneously?

Because if anyone can answer that question, they’ve just saved the world. And if nobody can...

The article could have definitely been more specific. Good thing there are citations with all the specifics you could ask for...

No citations from you either. How about some peer-reviewed studies proving their long-term safety rather than ad hominem attacks on an author pointing out scientific studies proving actual harms? I’ll say it to you, too: Read the damn citations and get back to me with your own.

And now having written a book about a subject which you are knowledgeable about and writing about that subject online together form a “conflict of interest”? Sure, but trusting studies funded by the food industry stating food industry products are safe for consumption by the entire population with absolutely zero long-term safety studies is completely sensible.

In isolation, sure. How many of these little doses of toxins from hundreds of food additives does it take before the diet as a whole is toxic enough to have an adverse effect? Is anyone even watching the combinations found in typical diets?

That talking point has already been attempted by others. Using one term, genetic modification, for several completely different processes doesn’t hide the truth, it just confuses people.

And no, grafting entire sections of bacterial DNA into plant genomes absolutely does not happen in nature.

Please read the link, then get back to me with any actual scientifically founded refutations you may have. Citations are throughout the link, but I don’t see any from you!

...What future of humanity? Call me cynical, but we seem absolutely bound on wiping ourselves out one way or another. Our focus on money above all else is killing us all. We’re playing useless games, winning useless tokens, and spending them on useless prizes, all inside an arcade that’s on fire. Climate change, GMO foods, overpopulation, water pollution, nuclear war, ecosystem destruction, we’ll find a way eventually. Just a matter of time.

The DNA doesn’t, no. But what does DNA do? For one thing, it contains instructions for constructing proteins. Proteins which you ingest with the DNA as part of the food. GMO foods have been shown to produce malformed proteins, and some of them appear to have harmful effects when eaten. And that just scratches the surface. https://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education/health-risks...

Yeah, I would have expected this to go the other way around. “Parallels bought Corel? Corel still exists? Why would Parallels even want them?”

I don’t remember what I drink right now, but it’s about $16 for a tiny tin at Sprouts, which is very expensive (Edit: it’s Aiya Ceremonial Grade). I’m planning on ordering some from a supplier who ships directly from Japan soon - likely O-Cha. I’ve had their sencha and it’s fantastic, looking forward to trying their matcha.

As for dose, I measure 1tsp (measuring, not table) per cup. I have one or two cups per day. But I drink it more western style than most would.

I’m trying to wean off my one and only cup of coffee first thing in the morning. Coffee makes me jittery and gives me reflux. Tea makes me alert but calm in the most pleasant and bizarre way, and doesn’t cause me reflux.

The article says they are 95% less harmful than cigarettes. Yet you say you still think they are “worse for you”. Regardless of accessibility, I just can’t see that being a sensible statement. You can’t say whatever psychological harms may be occurring are worse than death - that’s insane. Fewer people are dying, they’re less harmful, period. Not ideal, sure, but we’re moving in the right direction.

What on Earth does that even mean?

I agree. I am very dependent upon matcha green tea. If I don’t have at least two cups per day, I feel terrible. But when I do take it daily, it provides an incredible amount of clarity and energy. I’ve come to accept the downsides - and there are always downsides - because overall, it’s a net positive in my life. I don’t doubt there are people in similarly positive but dependent relationships with far harder substances.

I’ve entirely given up when I encounter a Google captcha. It thinks I’m a robot 90+% of the time and takes so long it’s just not worth it.

I’m thinking about the content creators, they have a warm spot in my heart, but it’s not my job to figure out their business model for them. They sent me their web page, and I get to choose how it’s presented - otherwise, I have no control over my own computer. So I choose to enjoy it without ads - ads which often track you, install malware, or act in bad faith in other ways.

If that ruins their business model, they need to figure out how to collect payment before sending me the web page. Don’t freely send OTA TV signals into my house then get offended when I decide to skip the ads. Same thing.

I think a lot of sites have already figured this out. They sell t-shirts. Mugs. Premium podcast episodes, and Patreon sponsorships. The Web is working around this as we speak. But the Googles of the world will make it sound like we’re “stealing web pages”. This will be “the new piracy”. All to defend a business model that relies on my equipment assaulting me with your malicious ads on your behalf. No thank you.

It’s actually worse than you think. Amazon often stores their “sold directly by Amazon” inventory with “fulfilled by Amazon” product sold by third party sellers. This would make getting a knockoff just a matter of bad luck, even if you order from Amazon themselves.

I haven’t ordered from Amazon since I learned this months ago, with two exceptions for birthday presents.

https://sellercentral.amazon.com/forums/t/be-careful-amazon-...

I don't understand the point of buying an eBook with DRM. I'm going to run into an issue trying to get it to work on one of my devices at one point or another. The lack of a DRM-free option is what would tempt me to piracy.

And can you point to a single piece of media which has never been pirated, DRM or no?

I had suspected this, just from the juvenile tone of the conversation. Those who raised legitimate questions about GMOs were dismissed as "afraid of science" from all sides pretty much immediately.

I find largely unregulated scientific experiments carried out on an entire population with literally zero long-term studies to support their safety a bad idea, but many (most?) on the Web appear easily misled by these trolls.

I wish I shared your optimism.

Not really. https://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-...

Why exactly would I choose a company which will professionally handicap me for the rest of my career, locking 60% of my income potential at what it is now and leaving me to sort through how to have a career without getting sued? Ain’t gonna happen. Not going to sign the agreement. Like I said, it may sound mathematically right, but it’s absolutely absurd.

So what, I’m only expected to bring 40% of my abilities to my next job? That makes mathematical sense, but it’s impossible in practice. It would be like trying to use 40% of your arms.

If an honest engineer sees a problem which is exactly the same as one she solved at a previous company, and it is still the best solution, she will solve it in the same way. This has nothing to do with company secrets, it’s basic tradecraft. But it’s covered in many of these agreements. They’ve got to go, plain and simple.

Interesting, thank you for the details.

That’s such a red herring argument, and based solely on current headlines about Google. And Project Dragonfly is generating PLENTY of protest of its own.

Tech protestors: “Wartime service is currently voluntary, get your own damn engineers.”