mortify

Single sign on to a host of boards is Reddit's power. The ability to share a variety of interests in one place is fantastic, but it assumes the site owner will be open to your interests forever. They aren't and cannot be.

Federated approaches continue to prove themselves to be the most resilient, if not the easiest to use options available.

Using the right filtration, increasing airflow, and adjusting humidity will reduce the amount of pathogens that we inhale indoors. Is that always a good thing in the long-term? If we expose ourselves to fewer viruses could we impair our immune systems and cause people to have more severe reactions when they are exposed to something new? We are also filtering bacteria, not all of which is bad.

Some exposure to 'unclean' environments can be beneficial. This is a topic discussed in books like "Dirt is Good" and is part of the Hygeine Hypothesis that states that over sanitization has negative consequences for our immune systems.

We could be trading a reduction in some illnesses, likely respiratory viruses, with increases in asthma, allergies, and other conditions especially if this were widely applied.

This is a high end Macbook Pro with a matching price tag and additional features. For a device that is aimed at developers and early adopters, it makes sense. In a year I expect to see the Apple Vision Air for less than half the price while the OS evolves.

Sure. I can do that now. The math works out so that I'll break even on the expense in 25 years even when I include government incentives... right about the end of life for the solar cells. If I lived closer to the equator, my break even point would be sooner, but right now for many people it's a huge up-front outlay for zero benefit.

It causes massive damage to the people that abuse it. The vast majority of people have a drink or two if they're out and sometimes more if they're home. Pretending that every person who drinks is responsible for massive damage is ridiculous.

This reminds me of people so religious that they cannot eat a hamburger without somehow referring to the Bible. It's not that everything cannot be political or religious. It's that some people insist that it be so.

It would be nice if the Democrats would tear this down, but they seem happy having the opportunity to spy domestically now that it's in place.

This assumes that Federal government regulation is the only kind and the only way to restrain people from selling dangerous products. Products could receive private endorsements in a way similar to a UL listing for electronics. States would still be able to regulate products. There would be differences in their implementation and we could learn from the outcomes of those differences. Finally, we could offer no direct regulation, but states could place strong penalties for any harms caused by dangerous products which include not only fines that could simply bankrupt a company, but criminal charges by choosing to identify the individuals responsible for neglecting safety measures.

This isn't how we do things and to some these ideas seem like madness, but it's hard to argue that our existing system doesn't harbor its own brand of lunacy. Putting everything in the hands of an central government is a path we've chosen, but it's not the only path.

Taking this to the logical extreme are things that can only be experienced. E.g. I can read about oysters, but I will never be able to understand what an oyster tastes like until I eat one... until I experience it.

When communicating, the more the topic involves an experience the harder it is to communicate. We use metaphor, simile, and analogies to help people relate it to something with which they are familiar, but it fails for many reasons. When building a prototype for a new camera system, we began with a physical mock up which was cut from wood and painted. The client's first comment was that is was garbage because no one would take a wooden camera seriously. Even after an hour-long presentation, his final comment was "This all sounds great, but it absolutely cannot be made out of wood." Some people have terribly abstraction skills, and there's simply no getting through to them until they see the final product. They need the experience to understand.

On or off camera is a cultural norm. I've seen teams that are on-camera all day in a team meeting which also acts as an indicator that they're available, and the people loved it. I've also worked with teams that never met except on chat. This team sat in the same area, but never seemed to talk, but you could see thousands of messages in Jira for each ticket they were working on.

Both scenarios worked because the norm was driven by the team. Where these norms become an imposition is when they're instituted from the top down.