Do you have a source for that? Or any more info? It’s not that I doubt it, I ask because some details like my work email, job title and place of employment has been leaking into the hands of marketing companies and I an trying to figure out how.
Your own company could've sold it to data brokers. Look into Equifax's Work Number score, it includes fun things like where you worked and how much you made. But no, let's not unionize or anything.
Hmm I totally get where you’re coming from but I have used a “hi” in the past to basically probe and figure out if a friend or colleague is available for real time conversation because I suspect that the conversation will need to be a quick back and forth, lasting only minutes, rather than an extended asynchronous chain lasting multiple days.
"Hi $COLLEAGUE. I'm having a problem with $TASK: I'm trying to accomplish $GOAL but I keep seeing $ERROR. I've tried $WORKAROUNDS, but none of them have fixed the problem. I think it will be fastest if I can demo this for you; do you have 10 minutes so I can walk you through it interactively?"
You’re not wrong. I think the problem here is that the context of who we’re talking to is missing. I only talk to people in this way who I know well and do the same with me, I have like 3 people in mind.
I can understand how it would be frustrating if you did this with someone random at your company.
It’s not just the atmosphere that’s an issue though, having a laser in earth’s orbit track something on mars’ surface and vice versa would require some incredible tracking, it would be easier to go from orbit to orbit
It's not that hard with modern electronics. Telescopes with adaptive optics have been doing that since the 90s. Also beware that a laser doesn't remain perfectly coherent over many kilometers (let alone millions). So it's not like you need to perfectly hit a satellite dish area of a few m^2 on the surface of mars from earth. It's not really any harder to do from the surface than from orbit. In fact it might actually be easier since you don't just have to account for the rotation and orbit of earth but also for the orbital velocity of the relay.
I was reading the example of UC Berkely appearing to have gender bias in the admissions and read the following:
“it showed that women tended to apply to more competitive departments with lower rates of admission, even among qualified applicants (such as in the English department), whereas men tended to apply to less competitive departments with higher rates of admission (such as in the engineering department)”
That’s the opposite of what I would expect, I’d expect that English and the arts in general would be a lot easier to get into than stem, that’s how it is in Australia
Edit: When I say get into I mean get into university, not getting into the industry
The data is for application to graduate programs. There is a ton more funding for engineering, and many/most students going for a PhD in engineering don't pay for it. There's very little funding in the humanities, and most students are not willing to pay high costs for a PhD in the humanities, so the department tightly restricts admission.
As a result, it's easier to get into an engineering PhD program - as long as you are competent enough.
I had a friend who was a fellow engineering student. He became disillusioned and wanted to go into journalism. He applied to transfer to the Communications program at the university and told me how competitive it was - they admit less than 10 people per year. He did not get in.
[1] Obvious if you've spent a lot of time in grad school.
I was surprised to read that too. I think the answer is that here we're looking at admissions rate = number admitted / number applied, which is not the same as overall difficulty in a conceptual sense.
The only people applying to grad school in math are people who got a BS in math and did so with good grades (or perhaps some other STEM field + significant theoretical math coursework). On the arts side I suspect they draw from a larger pool (plus people tend to switch from STEM to something else a lot more than the other way around) of backgrounds. It's easier to convince oneself that a short story is great (when others may disagree) than convincing oneself a math proof is correct when it objectively is not. So there's less self-selection on the applicant side, and hence a lower admissions rate.
Competitiveness is one measure of difficulty, but there are others. Engineering departments tend to be qualitatively more difficult to get into than the humanities, which are quantitatively more difficult.
I was with you until you said it’s disgusting, how is it disgusting to put an extreme emphasis on health, when it’s been neglected for like all of human history.
Like sure, maybe it doesn’t make sense for most people to put so much focus on something they have little control over, but disgusting? Nah.
Also trusting science is a complete misunderstanding of science. That’s how religion operates.
Edit: Also also, I have some faith in the scientific process, as soon as business and money enters the picture though all trust goes out the window. Corporations do not care what poison they give you, as long as it does not affect their bottom line. Have no doubt that they will ignore their scientists if they can get away with it.
I think you might be experiencing a bit of a dunning-kruger effect
Also, in my experience there’s a huge difference between having an intuition for something and having an understanding of something to the point where you could model it.
It’s not clear which part of the comment you meant when you said it’s not true, but PTFE is a PFAS, exactly how toxic it is or isn’t I don’t think is well known yet but people have been living with PTFE implants.
The toxicity of Glide. PFAS is a very broad class of chemicals. The toxic PFAS associated with PTFEs are PFOA and PFOS, both of which were phased out in production in the 2010s.
Whenever this topic of Glide being toxic comes up they cite this article :
Which is based off blood samples drawn in 2010-2013, which is at the time PFOA was being phased out of the PTFE production process due to lawsuits around the PFOA toxicity, which DuPont was aware of. The new process using GenX (seriously), which is known to cause problems too but at a lesser extreme than PFOA. However the issue with PTFE was with the residuals of PFOA which you don’t find in commercial PTFE for GenX.
And yes, PTFE is widely used in medical implants and devices.
To be fair many of the games on this list would be trivial to preserve as long as windows remains backwards compatible with older software, and not too hard even after that. Breath of the wild and Tarkov stands out as exceptions
I think you’re right in general but in Australia and I think some other places as well we have a 10c refund on plastic bottles made out of PET
(Also glass and aluminium)
Most of our PET bottles, for stuff like soft drinks is now also made partially out of recycled plastic, many are made out of 100% recycled PET
If I understand correctly this is only economical because there is this whole system where all plastic soft drink bottles are made of PET, and so easily identifiable as PET and to get the refund you have to take it to a collection point where the only plastic entering the system are these bottles.
It’s actually hilarious how easy it would be to catch the criminals if they don’t take extra precautions like wearing masks. Just have some fake wifi looking cameras in easy to spot locations and use wired real cameras.
Hardest part would be finding a consumer system that still uses hardwired cameras
> Hardest part would be finding a consumer system that still uses hardwired cameras
POE cameras grow on trees. Sold individually or in kits complete with POE NVRs. If you're handy you can put up a decent system, completely independent of any cloud service, for ~$1000.
Is there anything out there comparable to Unifi these days? Most all their cams are POE and something better would be an easy consideration for those of us not all-in on the iot systems out there now.
