z9znz

But one common fact of the most successful Youtubers is that they have been putting out content fairly consistently for years.

There definitely seems to be something about time and consistency in the equation of success.

In Sci-Fi, it's normal to see landscape displays on forearms. Often it's part of a suit, so it is kind of an obvious solution. But watches could take this concept at a smaller scale and provide at least double the screen real estate without ending up looking like a brick.

The bands on some watches are already fairly thick, and people have shown they are fine wearing thick bracelet things for decoration. Why not embed batteries into parts of the band? The obvious case would be the big metal links (like tank tracks), with the wiring through the link connections. Not only would you be able to store a whole lot more energy compared to a single battery in the watch body, but you could also have swappable bands so you could always have one charged and ready.

And some of what they deem as right is arguably wrong, or at least is not right without additional context (such as which icons are hollow and which are solid). There is a valid reason for some icons being outlines while others on the same screen are solid.

This site is cute, and what they're trying to do is good; but I wouldn't pay them to build a UI.

There are some fundamental negative usability practices which are popular and get repeated all the time, even by people who claim to be UX experts. The worst is when you (the developer) raise an issue to the team about some UX problems, and they have closed ears because they implicitly trust their "UX expert" (who has a title).

In a supermarket, oysters don't fit. There is nothing exclusive or sexy about most grocery stores.

But when you're at a nice restaurant terrace hanging out over the ocean, and you receive a large sculptured platter of ice with 6-12 oysters on the half shell, garnished nicely, it is a special thing. Coke vs champagne.

As for flavor, I can attest that good oysters have a distinctly nice (if acquired) flavor. Two to three chews, then a swallow. Served chilled.

Diamonds, on the other hand, only have a legitimate industrial use. As a "precious stone" they are not legitimate and only appear as such because of marketing and lots of terrible tactics. And for industrial uses, manufactured diamonds are superior. So this isn't really the same as oysters or other consumables.

"What are the symptoms of illnesses that can result from eating contaminated raw oysters or clams?

The illnesses of most concern from eating raw or undercooked oysters or clams are Vibrio infection, norovirus infection, and hepatitis A. See fact sheets for those diseases for more details.

Symptoms can include vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, stomach pains, severe weakness. Vibrio infections can also cause skin rashes and blisters, shaking chills, and high fever. Hepatitis A can cause yellowing of the skin or whites of the eyes. Some of the illnesses can be quite serious and require quick medical attention."

So the oyster is a good showpiece to replace, if you can do it successfully.

I still think the whole fake meat business is misguided, but I ranted about that in another comment.

Also knowing that oysters are essentially water filters, it seems strange to "eat the filter". I cannot even fathom eating Gulf coast oysters...

Having fake alternatives is nice. However, like the recent topic of the robotic industrial farming weed sprayer, I think it is engineering effort directed to the wrong place.

The #1 problem with transitioning from an animal based diet to plant based is the misunderstanding of what plant based diets can be. Ask a traditional meat eater what a vegetarian meal looks like, and they probably envision taking their steak away from the plate and just leaving some broccoli and potatoes. Indeed that's not very enticing.

Good vegetarian meals are practically art in terms of their combinations of textures and flavors, not to mention colors. But they take a lot more skill to make, so people rarely encounter them.

Instead, everyone is busy trying to replicate meat without meat - namely to replace that steak that was taken off their plate with something that is close to it.

Until we reach scale with lab grown meat (which even then I have doubts about long term downsides), no fake meat replacement is really good. They are manufactured, which means there are extra ingredients (or quantities of) that are not good for you. I think the reason for all this effort is that this is business. Companies want to sell you a thing; but a well made vegetarian meal is really just good plant ingredients and skilled preparation. It's hard to package that into a box which can be sold in the grocery store.

As far as I know, none of the first ladies from Nixon, Ford, or Carter were on TV regularly talking about drugs.

Edit - added: The Clinton years saw even greater rate of increase in prison population, and for most of the same reasons.

"Reagan's presidency marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law violations increased from 50,000 in 1980 to more than 400,000 by 1997."

Indeed the "drug war" began before the private prison industry, but it has directly and indirectly influenced drug policy to protect and expand its business. https://justicepolicy.org/research/gaming-the-system-how-the...

Poor people cannot afford to defend themselves, so they make easy targets for incarceration.

Wealthy or connected people take much more time and effort to imprison, so the risk vs reward for prosecutors is just not worth it in most cases. You have to _really_ piss off or embarrass a lot of powerful people to get taken down like this current case.

Some years ago I was visiting Germany for the first time, and while walking the city I passed an area with 20+ police vans and dozens of officers armed with assault rifles.

I paused and politely asked one of the cops if there was something going on... or why was there such heavily armed police presence? He casually said, "oh there's a football match here this afternoon".

Assuming an average line of CSS is 30 bytes, that's 66 lines of CSS. That definitely should be enough.

I would argue that if on a diet, 20 lines of CSS should be enough to provide a very readable, aesthetically inoffenseive website.

If browsers had consistent, sane defaults which were designed for readability, then CSS wouldn't even be necessary for most information sites. The symantics of HTML tags were observed uniformly, sane defaults could be assumed.

But how to identify common patterns of problems? I think we just need to make an effort to zoom out and consider the phases of software development and infrastructure management we do, then look for similarities.

For example on the web development side, we routinely build web application foundations which require authentication (and less often but also authorization), state storage (database backends), and presentation layers. And yet, unless you start with something like Wordpress, there is little out there which provides a fundamental foundation with modular extensibility.

From a terminal perspective, we manage processes - start/pause/kill, we check states - active network connections, running processes, resource consumption levels, and we do ad-hoc data processing (piped unix commands, but typically in service of one of the previous two categories of needs).

In my work, I commonly use tmux to keep sessions open for different constant needs like psql shell, tail -f of logs, and other routine system management tasks. Most of these could be modules enabled and configured within a management system. I'm sure plenty of other people here have built their own scripts to do exactly this, especially for text or tiled UI systems.

I like what they are doing. And like copilot (which I'm not a fan of, but I understand the goal maybe), I think it is leaning toward the real issue - we waste energy solving the same problems over and over.

Instead of helpers which enable us to reinvent wheels, we should be directing our efforts toward establishing a collection of pattern solutions and tools to compose those solutions into bigger ones which solve specific needs.

In the terminal, there are certainly a limited set of things we do repeatedly. In fact, much of what we do in the terminal can be done elsewhere (UI); it's just slower or more tedious due to clicking. It's also less easy to automate. But the intentions behind the actions are the same. "Create a new directory <here> name <name> and execute this <script>". Perhaps the biggest challenge is just in naming and organizing.

There are so many ways to avoid paying taxes if you are wealthy, only a few of which have been publicized (Warren Buffett vs secretary, Mitt Romney and the Bain Capital leak, Panama Papers revelations, etc.)

Regular people don't have those options; and a vastly greater percentage of their income (which is directly taxed already) goes into local taxes on gas, essentials, and any luxury purchases.

When we see another reminder of how unfair these systems are, and we know that their design comes from the people who benefit from them (like Thiel), it is reasonable to direct our ire toward them.

And finally, this doesn't even touch on the overt criminal tax avoidance that is well known to persist amongst this group. The Swiss bank leaks exposed some of these, and the US tax amnesty programs have further illustrated it. Even so, there's surely a lot more money hiding away that has not and never will be taxed.

Unfortunately there is not much "myriad" in the candidate choices. To even reach a level of opportunity to compete in an election means to already sell out to some special interests. It just costs too much money to run with any hope of getting elected.

Both parties in the US cater to wealthy supporters, whether those supporters are actual humans, corporations as humans, or PACs. Those who want to protect their wealth spend a lot of money to ensure that all likely candidates will make or modify rules that benefit them.

It is very reasonable for us to direct our ire toward the wealthy individuals who make very public efforts to affect policies (very selfishly). And with the recent tally of $880 million spent by billionaires on the recent midterm elections, it's even more clear where we should direct our attention.

I recently received a series of notices from my credit card app about rejected $1241 charges on my card. My card company was rejecting the charges because I have my daily limit set lower (which I modify when I need).

Someone got my credit card info and set it up as THEIR Facebook pay payment source. And while I don't use Facebook Pay, I can assume from my credit card transaction list that when setting up a new card, FBPAY makes a $1 charge/hold as a test to validate the card. If that hold succeeds, then I guess they are happy enough.

What real companies do, if they want to ensure that you control the card you are using, is to make some small random charge and then require you to tell them how much the charge was. If they charge 0.61, you would only know the amount if you had access to the account behind the card. But no, Facebook just charges $1 and presumably doesn't even ask you "tell us how much we charged".

I opened a support ticket with Facebook because I wanted the person responsible for the attempted fraud to at least get banned. I provided exactly all the data required, including screenshots of the failed transactions from my mobile credit card app. It should be pretty easy for FB to find in their system, since the crook made 10! attempts for the exact same amount over a period of hours. Oh and as I provided all my credit card details, that should be IN their system and easy to associate.

Long story short, my very slow email interactions were just as stupid as TFA's. Worse even, the Facebook support moron kept trying to refer to my Facebook Ads account, which I do not have and never even mentioned. Eventually they just banned me from running any Facebook ads, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

The support people at many of these companies are either stupid, non-human, or low budget non-English speaking people who copy/paste text from a cheatsheet. And the companies that run such support operations are assholes, top down. There is zero excuse for a "top tier" tech company to have the problems these companies have. It's just a shame that it is virtually impossible for anyone to do normal life/work stuff without having some dependency on these companies.

If the customer(s) of your business are in Spain, then you would almost certainly find it least complicated to setup a business in Spain. As a legal resident of Spain, you are already required to pay taxes there.

From what I've seen, the tax rates quickly surpass those of the US; so you'll pay all your taxes to Spain and owe the US nothing (although of course you still have to file).

However... if your customers or clients are US based, then you could setup an LLC in a favorable state like Wyoming (you can search on this topic of course; and my serious search resulted in Wyoming seeming to be best). Then your US clients will not face any perceived or real obstacles in doing business with you; and your tax work should be easier (getting qualified help).

Ideally we would work to develop food forests everywhere in and around our population centers. However, that's much harder for a multinational company to make money doing, so it's not going to happen. Likewise, with city land becoming increasingly expensive, reverting blocks or spaces to be used to develop food forests is not likely.

Maybe our best bet is to learn how to eat money.

The water shortages are going to be our first impasse, because there's no remedy. Current farming uses vast amounts of water, much of which leaves the area due to evaporation. This leads to rapid desertification of regions, and then traditional farming becomes absolutely impossible (without lengthy restoration beforehand).

Reducing meat consumption definitely makes the problems less immediate, but so far it doesn't seem like we will be able to reduce that consumption. So I wouldn't count this as any near term solution.

Crop densities have been increasing dramatically over the last few decades, well beyond what natural soil systems can handle. Consequently, fertilizer use has increased dramatically. Our soils are just nearly dead as the factory monoculture farming has sucked everything out that it can (and killed a lot of important things it needed).

This current advancement (TFA) is just a bandaid, or paving a crack in the road. Perhaps a better analogy is that this is paving a crack in the road when we should be designing a whole new transportation system to meet our current and future needs.

Most of this agriculture is owned by a few huge companies. They are not interested in large systemic changes as those cost capital. They would much rather optimize what they have, even if the cliff is visible in the distance. Beyond one earnings quarter or perhaps a CEO's tenure, they don't care. As long as they are not standing on the cliff today, you cannot expect real (beneficial) changes.

As for replacing nutrition, this needs more research. But there are aquaponic systems which seem promising and enable a much more closed loop with vastly less waste.

Oh speaking of waste, I didn't even mention water yet. Current farming systems use water like it will never go away (and is free), but we know it's a problem now and presents its own absolute cliff in the near future.