kevinpet

Well, you're only required to mark to market if there's some regulation applicable to you saying you need to mark to market. Otherwise you're being sloppy and foolish, but the only way they can really go after you is to show that you knew it was outright misleading.

Wow. I never noticed that before. Spiral wings.

You're missing the point of the conversation if you think this is about "reputable researchers".

We only need to talk about the carbon footprints of the rich because the environmental movement has positioned everything in terms of asceticism and sacrifice. No one talks about the unequal consumption of high end furniture, art, entertainment, or spa visits because all of those things are managed by price signals. The whole point of being rich is to be able to consume more. The problem is that we aren't pricing environmental impact.

Because it's purely political and not related to technology.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

It's more the equivalent of getting banned from driving because someone reported you to Honda, and Honda didn't verify anything.

The supreme court just slapped down the EPA for trying to overstep their authority. Regardless of the merits of banning natural gas for heating, this is pure grandstanding because they know the EPA cannot do this.

On the merits, requiring replacement with a different type of unit is foolish policy and not the right starting point. As it stands now, new houses are still being built with natural gas. Eliminating that would be a bigger win, and twenty years from now you can work on phasing out what already exists.

This is an excellent point and easy for designers themselves to overlook. They may see DALLE as a tool that some are claiming does their entire job, and it can't quite yet. But it's really a question of how close it can match the actual result of employing an illustrator.

This is true. I am intentionally flying in to San Jose on Monday because I hate the Millbrae disaster of "which train goes where".

You are mistaken. I doubt you will choose to take a train from LA to SF if you are already at the airport. I haven't kept up with the details of just how slow "high speed" rail is supposed to be, but to those who live in California just seeing Fresno on the route triggers an immediate reaction of "why are you going 100 miles off the direct route?"

Pulling up a map of Australia, this is the equivalent of setting out to improve transport from Canberra to Melbourne, and the first sections to be built will connect Leeton to Echuca.

This isn't the way house hunting works in most markets today (well, at least up until a few months ago). You need to consider each property as it comes up and decide whether to make an offer or not.

Either you use broad filter criteria and you look at a few houses before you say "this is a better option than what we've seen, let's make an offer". In which case you can ignore the filter for purposes of fitting the house search to the secretary problem.

Or like the parent post, you think you can express what you're looking for exactly through facts that appear in the ads, in which case you look at a few houses, then you buy the first house to appear that exceeds best of what you've seen.

What you do not have in most markets is the option to go back and buy a house you looked at two weeks ago. Houses that sit on the market aren't houses that are appealing to buyers who intend to live in them.

I'm less convinced by studies that use an unconventional control group. What I mean by unconventional is primarily the single set of 30 reps once a week, which is not representative of conventional wisdom in weight training (conventional wisdom would be 3-5 sets of 5-8 reps, with a rest of at least a minute between). Another factor is that they are doing maximal eccentric movements. This means lowering a weight slightly heavier than the subject is able to lift slowly. Does this make the study invalid? Not clear, but it makes it less clearly applicable.

this is the interior volume of about 27 2000 sq ft houses with 8 ft ceilings.

This is an incorrect analysis of where the conclusion comes from.

Allowing the use of the courts to prohibit slander is a government action. Slander and libel are long standing exceptions to free speech. "Fighting words", espionage, contempt of court, or insubordination in the military are other exceptions that come to mind.

The "the first amendment only applies to the government" is an argument that anyone is free to choose not to associate with you, or consider you a jerk, for something you said.

His job is to make big ambitious bets. These didn't pay off. CEOs are not hired (or retained) for the benefit of employees or customers, they are hired by boards for the benefit of shareholders, and shareholders in Robinhood were not buying for stable reliable dividends.

The conventional way to add a page to a book is to glue it along the inside edge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipped-in_page

There are several versions of this article floating around the web showing the process if you happen to have bookbinding equipment laying around https://www.lineco.com/book-repair-3/

You misrepresent my claim. I said it is natural to assume that someone who has done work that will earn a Nobel prize is at least approaching notability. I did not say that is required for notability.

I'm not a wikipedia expert but many of those don't meet their criteria for notability. Taking the first in the Canadian physicists category, I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Abella The only non-primary source that isn't an obituary is Who's Who in Science and Engineering. He objectively doesn't meet the criteria listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic...

I can't find the original pre-deletion article, but the edit comments mention that Strickland was a past president of the Optical Society. The guidelines for notability contemplate this sort of thing when they say "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)". There are lots of other criteria, but that's one of them, and we can recognize that the Optical Society is not in the same category.

You can say wikipedia's notability criteria are inconsistently applied. I'm not surprised. But most of these complaints amount to asking wikipedia to recognize inherent merit, which it doesn't do. Wikipedia correctly recognized Strickland's notability after the Nobel committee recognized her merit and accomplishments.

Interestingly, while responding to this I noticed that the article we are discussing here, when talking about Strickland, probably misrepresents things. The edit history on wikipedia shows an article was created and then deleted in 2014, not "just a few months before Donna Strickland won the Nobel". The Washington Post article cited in the previous sentence doesn't support that claim either. So part of what we are discussing here includes supposed facts which might be fully invented or significantly distorted by the reporter.

> Just a few months before Donna Strickland won the Nobel, a Wikipedia editor had smugly insisted that she wasn’t a notable physicist.

I heard about this at the time, and it stood out to me as totally missing the point. It's completely 100% possible that winning the Nobel Prize elevated Dr. Strickland from not notable to notable. A physicist who has done work that could win a Nobel Prize is probably getting close to notable but it's hard for an encyclopedia that doesn't engage in original research to adjudicate that. Actually winning is that third party recognition that wikipedia's notability standards are supposed to rely on.

I think this featured in Charlie Stross's novel Rule 34. His version includes what seems like dynamic rerouting based on willingness to pay a premium.

I'm sure this state rep is a scumbag in general and all that, but what the law says is:

* bystanders can't record within 8 ft of the police questioning a suspect, arresting someone, or dealing with a mental health case.

* the person police are interacting with is exempt and can record unless that interfere with the police operations. I.e. no guarantee you can hold your phone while handcuffed.

* the driver and passengers of a car pulled over are also explicitly exempt.

I think the opposition to this is a knee jerk over reaction comes across as just ... not rooted in reality.

If you insist on getting up in arms about Arizona's contempt for the first amendment, I encourage you to go burn a flag and dare them to arrest you for violating https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03703.htm

Why would you imagine rather than spend a few minutes to read the article? It explicitly exempts passengers in a car from the 8 foot rule.

Headline here omits part of the headline in the linked story: Gas and Nuclear are both now considered green. Which to me just reinforces the absurdity of environmental advocacy. It's clear that CO2 is the most urgent environmental issue today, and I say this as someone who is skeptical of many of the doom and gloom extreme claims and policy prescriptions that amount to shaming for wanting luxury. So in that regard nuclear is not just a bridge solution, but a long term (nearly indefinitely if we reprocess fuel and use breeder reactors), especially if we get our act together and stop making it cost a fortune. While natural gas is continuing to contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere.

OP also said "in their 30s" not "at 30". So I'd use 35-45 rather than 30-40, which shifts it a bit.

There are different categories of things you might see:

1. This is wrong. I can tell from reading your code that it doesn't do what the description of this PR or the name of a test or some other indicator shows its supposed to do. This should be communicated in a tone of "you must not merge this".

2. This violates our agreed-upon style or best practices. The strictness of enforcement is part of that agreement and company culture. At my current company, this would be communicated along the lines of "this is not how we prefer to do this, so unless you have a good reason why our standard method is wrong, change it"

3. This is confusing to me, or I have a suggestion for improvement. This should be communicated as a suggestion or general feedback. If you're getting miffed about people not taking the suggestions, maybe it's actually in a category above, or maybe you need to adjust your own assumptions about how much stylistic consistency to insist on, since it sounds like you don't have a consensus.

4. You are new, either to software engineering or at least to this company, and your style is inconsistent with how things are done in this code. This is the same as #3 but should be communicated more strongly and depending on your company normals may be effectively a requirement.

Thanks, professor. Now how about you tell us your solution to peace in the middle east and renewable power.

Why is a letter about crypto referring to Fintech in general in the title? To me this shows a distinct lack of context and the view that these people think they know a lot about crypto, but know very little about finance and moreover the authors don't think they need to know much about finance. For example, the bald assertion that crypto has no real world use cases ignores the work happening within traditional finance to use blockchain for trade settlement.

Do I know everything about these topic? No, but I'm not writing a public letter soliciting signatures.

Am I a crypto shill? No, I think current crypto is a rip off, but this letter isn't a good argument for that. It's too light on details and doesn't acknowledge the areas where it could be valuable.

One month severance is perfectly reasonable. They're under no obligation to make sure people are in a better position than they were before, and if someone walked away from options, etc at a previous company that's their business. One month is enough time to find a job if you aren't choosy.

You have to draw the line somewhere. When the economy goes south, guess what? People will be out of work. I don't know why white collar workers seem to think they need to be isolated from all bad events.

I think the key here is repeated letters. Queue, etc.

Specialty tools that fit vehicles you don't have. Specialty tools for operations that no one would perform by hand anymore. E.g. a cylinder honing tool.

Whitworth wrenches, sockets, taps, and dies. My dad had a British motorcycle shop around 1980 and I'm pretty sure there is still some of this in his tool boxes in the garage.

Homemade jigs whose purpose you can't even figure out.

I think the dominant category would just be extra or broken or cheap tools that aren't worth hanging on to. For some reason I have like four stubby Phillips #1 screwdrivers. Cheap hatchets with broken handles. Mushroomed lead mallets. A whole drawer of dull drill bits.

Helmets, even the light helmets bicyclist wear, are very effective at reducing the severity of head injuries. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686160/

That isn't to say that a policy of requiring helmets is good on net (because people may ride less), but in any accident that you hit your head, you would greatly benefit from wean a helmet.