wysifnwyg

They're encouraging the scientific process, which is the method by which we validate science. Your objections to scientific process only serves to detract from that process.

If we could consume the exact same plant calories, that would be an apt comparison. However, I'm loathe to consume such plant matter like corn cob, stalk, leaf, and other plant matter that is indigestible to humans.

Melatonin is broken up by sunlight exposure through the eyes, perhaps endogenous DMT might be impacted in a similar way?

I saw similar issues in Shasta County and Butte County.

You'd find something else. There's always inequality to be found.

Making a claim, in some cases, will increase your premium costs. Additionally, there's emotional and mental costs, which home insurance may not cover.

Makes me wonder if this would be different if the criminal had holed up in an officer's house.

The Camp Fire, which killed 85 people, started due to neglected protective maintenance around their power poles which allowed uncut brush to burn at an extreme rate.

Included in the link text.

From Microsoft documentation:

This program will allow ISVs who deploy their software on an Azure customer’s infrastructure an opportunity to get credit for the impact of their software.

The data generated by the Azure ISV Customer Usage Attribution program will be used for ISV partners to qualify for partner programs by providing a automated method of linking a customers usage to the ISVs software.

ISV partners will receive reporting for deployments from the Azure ISV Customer Usage Attribution program. Data may be anonymized for deployments from outside of Azure Marketplace. Reporting will be made available in the Cloud Publisher Portal, the same platform where GUIDs will be registered and partners can configure and manage listings for Azure Marketplace.

>ISV partners will receive reporting for deployments from the Azure ISV Customer Usage Attribution program.

This seems like an issue.

Considering the recent piece I heard on NPR about the link between sugar and Alzheimer's Disease and the anti-fat/pro-sugar campaign, that makes sense that those numbers are up significantly.

>Not liking someone is not discrimination.

I've heard the same by some individuals who say they don't like people of color. Perhaps your line of reasoning is not complete.

It is exceptionally easy to manage when there's nothing to manage. At that point, managers are superfluous, and the company is wasting money and not maximizing their profits that could benefit from a good manager working with excellent contributors with imperfect dispositions.

More important than any culture fit is for a business to make a profit. Without that, there's no business to begin with, and while I concede that different traits can make that easier or harder, a good manager can make a team where none would have emerged without them. It's repeated often that employees don't quit bad jobs, they quit bad managers.

A good manager will inspire motivation, bring comfort, foster a nonthreatening environment with an appropriate level of conflict, and shape a competitive force to be reckoned with. This does not mean creating a hug box. Not having a hug box doesn't mean employees have to be unhappy. It's bad managers whose ineffectiveness allows negative traits (which everybody has) to impact other employees.

Are disabilities not a protected class?

They state they are a hiring manager. If they can't manage difficult but productive employees, they may need some aid learning how to manage effectively.

Unless you own the company, you don't pick all your managers, coworkers, and clients. It's an exceptionally valuable team skill to be able to work with someone you wouldn't invite out for a beer. Learning to work with different viewpoints and behaviors builds character and makes one more competitive. Effective managers know this.

If a team is a good team without the assistance of a team manager, the manager is superfluous. A good manager can make a good team out of a diverse group of individuals.

Given their history, I would say they aren't friendly and/or cordial. I'd say they're professional.

Good hiring managers will recognize that everyone doesn't have to like everyone. Work isn't a social club, it's a business in the market of delivering products. If candidates aren't measured on a metric of their capability to deliver and instead is measured on their metric as a drinking buddy, your company needs better managers.

To deal with this, I use the YesScript2 plugin, now I can read whatever article I want.

I use to have the sources somewhere but I'm not finding them at the moment. So let's just do this as a mind exercise.

Take into consideration that while ships are tremendously more efficient, they travel significantly more miles. When comparing a single shipping container, a cargo ship burns 0.3 gallons of bunker fuel per hour and a semi truck burns 10 gallons of diesel. If you add distance into the calculation, a cargo ship from Brazil to NYC takes 122 gallons of bunker fuel while something produced locally takes 1/12 of that in diesel. Further more, bunker fuel exceptionally worse than diesel when comparing emissions.

This is just for the transport side of things too. The electricity production in many other countries produce an increased amount of green house gasses compared to the United States.

Electricity, transportation, and manufacturing add up to about 80% of all GHG emissions. If you want your diet choice to have the biggest impact purchase locally produced and unprocessed foods.

Bernie Sanders has.

A market for a product does not justify the GHG produced. They choose their method of manufacture. Additionally, wasn't China supposed to be recycling the plastics that were shipped to them?

Before your tangent, I agreed with you.

The vast majority of what is transported is not food. It's other material goods. Targeting the pennies misses the budget by pounds.

It allows them to feel like they've helped while not actually targeting the areas which are producing the highest amounts of GHGs (transportation & electricity production). Areas that would financially impact the wealthiest among us.

In addition, the restrictions on government agencies for who qualifies can be restrictive in ways that exclude the top talent.