RandomInteger4

"This is as in many other projects, except it seems that releases of the LTS version, dubbed to be Oracle JDK, will no longer be free. This means that companies looking to stay on a specific version for more than six months would need to get updates from a commercial operator or apply patches from later free OpenJDK versions manually."

You may be perfectly fine, but one of your more conservative coworkers might be a talented bigot hiding their bigotry in the closet until such time that it might present itself, and human resources has to get ahead of that before it becomes an issue.

This isn't bringing politics into the work place. This is making sure hostile politics (i.e. bigotry) doesn't affect the workplace.

EDIT: Er, calculus rather. Still not far removed from high school and should be a college course required for being a researcher.

There is no fraud when someone can't pay back their student loans. Bankruptcy isn't fraud. Bankruptcy isn't paid for with interest. Bankruptcy is a right that debtors have when their debt gets out of control due to whatever reasons, and sadly us students do not have that option. Bankruptcy is mostly unavailable to us, and when it is available, it's made unavailable by terms that make absolutely zero sense at all.

If I can't find a job, I have absolutely zero way to attempt to pay back student loans in order to show I made an attempt, which would be one measure needed to qualify me for bankruptcy. If I'm barely making enough to support my basic expenses when I do have a job, I can't be expected to prioritize my student loan over my ability to eat or provide shelter for myself. If the bar for showing an attempt at repayment is as low as sending $5 / month, then what's the point in having that restriction on student loans to begin with.

Why was the ability to file for bankruptcy on student loans ever rescinded in the first place? It absolutely was not because there were more and more people trying to defraud the system, unless you somehow twist logic forcefully enough to fit that demented narrative. It was a means to shore up the predictable deficit that would be caused by the Bush tax cuts. Yes, the bush tax cuts. It was not that long ago that the ability to file for bankruptcy on student loans was stolen from us.

If you live in a red state or purple state, then good fucking luck getting any sympathy from the judges with zero qualifications merely elected to their positions when seeking bankruptcy.

It's like Congress agreeing to raise their own pay. Is it rational? Not really, but who among them, the people making the decision on government spending, would disagree with this move? Maybe one or two with principals, but not many.

EDIT: Is it rational for the sake of the overall system I mean. It's obviously rational from the perspective of those increasing their own wealth.

Social security, workplace safety, overtime ... all just magically appeared, correct?

Because maybe, again, just maybe, I'm being dense, but I don't think "skillsets" were ever a limiting factor for those who spearheaded unionization. "skillsets" are a facet of the bourgeoisie labor market, which I say as a firm capitalist. It's always been those at the bottom who have fought for worker's rights.

These one time increases and whatever other bread crumbs that get handed out are sculpted to feel good at that moment, but pale in comparison to the truck that's going to hit them down the road when the completely unnecessary government budget deficit as a result of tax relief for the rich starts eating away bit by bit at the government and country. This isn't hyperbole. This is history repeating itself.

If a car is travelling at 35 mph and you're traveling at 25 mph, then the relative speed of the car is 10 mph.

If a car is travelling at 35 mph and you're travelling at 10 mph, then the relative speed of the car is 25 mph, which is going to hurt a hell of a lot more than being hit by a car travelling 10 mph relative to you.

Stop pretending that you're seeing these cyclists performing an Idaho stop during busy traffic. You know full well they're paying attention a whole hell of a lot more than you considering their life is on the line. You may not see us looking both ways, because it only takes about 15 degrees of head movement to allow our eyes to capture the full peripheral to check for oncoming traffic and it's a hell of a lot more convenient for the drivers behind us to have some distance between us.

The only reason this is a big deal is because humans are barely different from monkeys on an emotional level and can't rational handle the concept of there being a different legal context for a bike vs. a motor vehicle.

Anyone else remember the days of printing out map quest directions only to find that they were out of date or really really wrong?

Everything else that comes with a smart phone is an added bonus.

EDIT: As far as notification anxiety. I mean, there's a simple way to deal with that without handicapping yourself: Turn off notifications except for the most crucial items.

If the government didn't have a monopoly on law enforcement, what you'd end up with are rival gangs each enforcing the law in their own biased way, propogating the amount of injustice we're already dealing with, and decentralizing it, making it harder to fight.

When you have a centralized source of law enforcement, you have a "single point of failure" that you can apply pressure to if it becomes corrupt, much in the same way that electric vehicles centralize the source of emissions making it easier to sequester.

Decentralization is not a panacea.

EDIT: That's not even considering the fact that without the government providing law enforcement, among other things, that many would be guaranteed to go without those things. Right now that may be the case for many with the current system, but at least that is fixable by, again, applying pressure to the single source to adequately provide those things. In a system where the free market is supposed to take care of this, many poor folks would go without. That used to be the case with fire fighters, but we soon learned that it was a bad idea for nobody to show up to fight the fires of the poor folk, because those fires would spread. Same goes for crime, disease, etc.