danjayh

The article mentions childcare, and I can definitely attest that it is a factor in people's family size decisions, along with the push for two working parents. We are privileged enough that we can survive on one income, however, were that not the case we'd be looking at paying $12/k a year for each child in childcare, on top of other baby-rearing costs. As it is, my wife plans to drop to (extreme) part time once we hit baby #2 ... at that point we'll still suffer some loss, but at baby #3 it will be a wash.

And why such a childcare shortage? The government, of course. In a time of extreme demand, shortage, and rapidly rising rates, the availability of childcare is still decreasing. I asked about this, and our local center has to report to & be inspected by three separate government agencies. Their compliance costs are enormous. They're as much a paperwork collection, processing, and reporting center as they are a childcare center. With the advent of nanny cams, I can watch my child any time I choose, and record the action whenever I wish. Makes me wonder if the regulation needs to be quite so heavy in the modern age.

On a separate but related note: the impact of low birthrates and long life expediencies is unavoidable. Either:

1) People need to work longer, or

2) Retired people need to have a lesser lifestyle (so that the working population can live approximately the same lifestyle that current retirees had while they were working), or

3) Working people need to have a lesser lifestyle compared to past generations (to free up resources for retirees)

It seems that we are slow-walking towards 3), which is a problem because it'll to some extent push the working population into a death spiral. They have less, so they work more, so they have less children, and the problem worsens. Repeat.

Did I miss something, or does he basically cite restaurant employment numbers and declare the hike a smashing success? While that's one metric, using only that metric to declare success seems just as arbitrary (& biased) as those who were selectively using other metrics to declare it a failure.

Although google still collects an inexcusable amount of data, they have at least become a little more obvious about it lately. When the new year rolled in, my phone gave me a super creepy map with a timeline of everywhere I'd been this year - I knew they were collecting this, but it might be a wakeup call for the average user. What ticks me off about their policies is that they require permission to collect & use data that is seemingly unrelated to a provided service on Google Assistant. I have the ability to "send text to [person]" off for this - it wanted some ridiculous unrelated permission (I think maybe the ability to store search history?).

Despite their efforts to be more transparent about what they are collecting, I'd still say that Google has gone full-blown anti-"don't be evil" these days due to the coercive way that they try to convince users to allow them to collect the data they want.

Thanks for the snarky but uninformed reply. I will edify you: There are some vehicles in which mirrors and should check alone are not enough to get a complete picture, and the only way to know what's around you is to keep track. Large RVs, trucks towing large trailers, etc. all fall into this category. Sedans, compact crossovers, and large SUVs with decent visibility are all comparatively simple to drive.

It is obviously the bike's responsibility not to rear end a pedestrian, not vice-versa. In any case, I would counter that a bike rear ending a pedestrian is a lesser accident than a car rear ending a bike.

Ignorant because it's not what you believe, or because you have data to justify your beliefs? Explain to me the logic from a safety perspective. 40mph car vs 15mph bike? Biker is lucky to live. 15mph bike vs 4mph pedestrian? Maybe a broken bone, if that. Besides insulting me and declaring that because bicycles are vehicles they should be on the road, you provide no quantitative reasoning to back your position. I fail to see how that's enlightened.

Let's first acknowledge that between mixed traffic (whatever the mix may be) collisions will happen, and then discuss how to minimize harm.

I wonder if the explosion in homelessness is in any way related to the importation of voters from San Francisco & related areas. Similar policies, similar problems?

GM has a fantastic camera enhanced rear-view mirror that solves a lot of these blind-spot problems ...

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/general-motors-technology/gm-...

Hope it catches on. Can't wait till it's on more makes/models.

I use my adaptive cruise control to prevent tailgating. Any time I find myself getting annoyed with a slow jerk blocking the left lane, I force myself to turn it on to make sure that I don't subconsciously creep up on his butt (because I know that's a thing that I sometimes do). ... I have also taken my owners manual's advice on the use of the high-beam flasher ... it calls it a 'flash to pass' ... so now I give a little blink of the brights after setting the cruise. Probably safer, but sometimes I fear that it may induce road rage.

BLIS is a supplement to proper situational awareness & manual checking, not a replacement. These systems can and do fault, especially in heavy snow and sometimes rain.

Take a look at some of the late-model cars with gigantic A, B, and/or C pillars -- in many of these, head-checks are not as effective as in older cars. The Cadillac ELR, Nissan Leaf, Infiniti QX80, Lexus GS F, etc. All have gigantic C pillars and/or headrests that block rearward visibility, which results in blind spots the size of Texas if you rely on head-checks. Now take a look at some older cars, maybe a 2012 Ford Escape. Awesome visibility. The dual pushes for improved structural rigidity and strength (small overlap crash tests, anyone?) and swoopier designs are causing many new cars to move in the wrong direction on visibility.

Absolutely, this is the best advice in this thread. In the event that I lose track of what's behind me, I will even sometimes go as far as intentionally varying my speed a bit to get something to go around me so I can re-establish a complete mental picture with 100% certainty.

Exactly. The article doesn't state it quite so clearly, but any mirror showing space that can't be occupied by another vehicle is wasted mirror. Turn them out further.

Agree that extra caution is needed for pedestrians and bicycles. Having said that, I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. The threat posed by a car to a bike is much greater than the threat posed by a bike to a pedestrian, therefore, to maximize safety bikes should be on the sidewalk.

As far as motorcycles are concerned - I think they're a bad idea in general. I have a cycle endorsement, and when I ride, I am acutely aware that it's on me not to get hit, because many vehicles just realistically don't have the kind of visibility to reliably spot motorcycles. The law should probably be updated to reflect that ... because although most bikers are aware that that's how it is in reality, it's not codified anywhere.

Grand Rapids did it (and Lansing is doing it) in Michigan. Yes, a smaller scale, but still a big enough scale to show that it can be done. In GR, it fixed the problem, period.

The crazy thing about this article is that it presents Chicago's solution (make the combined sewer bigger), then solutions that are being tried in other cities (increase permeability), and then completely ignores the entirely successful solution that's been used by Grand Rapids (and soon Lansing) on the other side of the lake: Separate the storm and wastewater sewers. Grand Rapids used to regularly have sewer overflows into the local river (not flooding, though - there was enough capacity to actually get the crap and water into the river). Over the last few decades, a separate storm sewer has been built, and this water can be treated more quickly. The storm sewer skims off things like oil, etc. and then returns the rainwater to the river and lake. No impact on the shit sewer. No shit and piss in the river, no shit and piss in the lake. It works, and it's what should be done in other cities that have this problem (and maybe a little bit of permeability on the side).

Late 30s up to late 60s for people who consistently do stuff right on the first try regardless of complexity ( and I only say late 60s because everybody over about 35 has a pension in our industryn so they all retire when they hit their 60s). In aerospace there isn't as much age discrimination as on startup culture, and we are blessed with a lot of these fantastic senior engineers.

And the fusion energi can go 85mph in ev mode, so the speed is not limited in a meaningful way. You can also lock out the gas engine to keep from accidentally starting it with a heavy foot...

21 miles and up to 85mph when the battery is new (although at 85mph the range would be considerably less). Electric heat and a.c., electric transmission lubrication. Mechanically, its as much an ev as the volt, with about half the battery. Were it not for the cooling problem, it would be a fantastic car. So much bigger and more usable for a family than the volt (it has a real back seat, unlike the volt, and can be loaded up with lux stuff in the platinum trim, unlike the volt).

More importantly, phevs with an ev mode that are intended to be driven as an ev for a significant portion of their miles are devalued by battery degradation in a similar way to pure evs (because of you pay all the cash for the expensive phev systems,you don't plan to be forced to use it as a plain hybrid).

I have a Ford Fusion Energi plug-in. Force air cooled using the computer's choice of cabin air or outside air (no dedicated AC evaporator). Battery is at 72% capacity (5.5 total kwh of 7.6 when new) after 40k and 3.3 years. Usable capacity is at 65% (~3.7-3.9 kwh down from 5.7-5.9 new). I would never buy another plug-in or electric vehicle that doesn't have some form of active cooling powered by the air conditioning sytem. Liquid cooling without a chiller powered from the AC system is insufficient. At minimum, chilled air routed from a dedicated evaporator through the battery (older Escape hybrid, Outlander PHEV), and ideally, a liquid system with a heat exchanger to the AC system (Tesla, Volt, Bolt, Pacifica hybrid, maybe others?)

Anyway, with Michigan's $0.15/kwh electricity and a climate that's either way too hot or way too cold, the break-even point for electric vs. gas is about $1.90 a gallon ... so at least for now (with gas below the break-even point), it doesn't hurt so bad that the battery capacity is so low.

The AMA might not control it directly, but like any good union, they are politically active and have members on the relevant controlling bodies...

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-associati...

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/its-doctors-w...

When both Forbes and MotherJones can agree on something (maybe this is the only thing :) ), there must be some truth to it.

He mentions the impact of globalization, but I think that it's a much bigger deal than he makes of it. For work that can easily be offshored (manufacturing, software dev, phone/online support, creative work, etc.) the obvious corporate response to unionization it to move shop. OTOH, for professions that can't easily be offshored (medical, local services such as fire/police/utilities, education, etc.), many are still heavily unionized. Some of the unions are non-traditional - for instance, the AMA (American Medical Association) effectively serves a role as a Doctors' union even though they don't advertise themselves as such. They control training into the profession, they are the sole arbiter of who can practice the profession, and they generally work to suppress supply below the level of demand (and therefore drive up wages).

OTOH, software is already being offshored at a rapid pace (I really doubt whether I'd recommend that my children go into the profession), and I think that labor organization would only serve to accelerate that. Having said that, it probably could prevent some of the more egregious benefit erosions that plague our industry ("unlimited" vacation, anyone?) ... which would be nice while it lasted.

You have to measure rectally for good results. Forhead thermometers, ear thermometers, under the tongue thermometers -- all crap. If you have an infant or small toddler, use a rectal thermometer. Measuring this way, results are both precise and accurate (and therefore, repeatable).

Rapid rise in temperature in infants, toddlers, and young children can cause febrile seizure. Given the trade-offs, we generally choose to medicate our child when his temperature passes ~102 and it's on a rapid uptrend.

Batteries don't need to hit theoretical maximums, they only need to get within the ballpark of liquid fuels (maybe .25-.5x)? This will basically require the use of air in the reaction, since one of the reasons liquid fuel can store so much energy in such a compact and lightweight form is that it doesn't require storage of one of the primary reactants (oxygen).

Worse still, Amazon will delete authentic reviews that contain information they don't like. For instance, I started working my way through all of the batteries on Amazon (top review on this product, for instance: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B009PPR5OU/ ), and Amazon deleted them from multiple products because of the table with cost/battery data (which is extremely relevant when reviewing a commodity product like Alkaline batteries). I got pissed off and quit reviewing stuff on Amazon unless it sucked (or in rare cases where a chinagarbage product and/or seller exceeded my expectations).

Glad to see him mention the Samsung debacle as well. When my Note 4 finally gave in to the eMMC problem earlier this year, I upgraded to a new-old-stock LG V20 instead of the latest greatness, because it was the last flagship made with a user replaceable battery. Over my Note 4's 3 1/2 year tenure, I replaced the battery annually. Each time, the battery life performance was restored to what I remembered from when the phone was new. I don't know what I'm going to do when the V20 dies, but it'll be a sad day indeed. I just have such a hard time believing that I'm the only one who wants a rugged (plastic or metal), repairable phone (the V20 can be [i]screwed[/i] apart ... no glue here) with a user-replaceable battery.

Not sure. I'd be surprised if they did. I've run into quite a few people who pay of for WSJ, but not as much NYT. I think maybe it's because WSJ has a tighter paywall + is a little more straight-laced when it comes to journalistic integrity?

I voted for trump. I voted for him specifically because he published a list of justices that I was more or less OK with, and chose to hold my nose over a lot of other stuff - I think he's kind of a sleaze (in the locker room sense) - but the Supreme Court is so much more important than the presidency.

I am happy about Gorsuch. I am appalled that Trump has continued Obama's use of executive orders to get his way (I was equally appalled when Obama did it). I'm disgusted by the continued irresponsible deficit spending. I'm pleased by the burning pile of regulations that have been axed from the federal register. I'm annoyed by the tariffs, but I will tolerate them -- the aerospace company I work for recently transferred nearly $1Bn in IP to a Chinese JV as a precondition to gain access to the Chinese market. Trump is actually correct about that problem. The border separations were reprehensible, but 'catch and release' encouraged human trafficking of children (a child, any child, was a ticket into the USA) and was an equally bad plan. Would I say that I don't have a party? Well, I do -- the Libertarian party -- but I don't think they'll ever win so I usually vote Republican.

I guess my point is, nobody will ever be completely happy with any president or any political party, and even people with ideologies tend to be pragmatic when it comes time to vote. I think that includes supreme court justices, when they must vote on the outcome of a case.

This situation in particular is more complicated than the media portrays. Separating children from parents is obviously bad, and needs to stop. Zero tolerance for illegal crossings, on the other hand, is probably actually good. The prior policy of letting anyone with children go & handing them a court date heavily incentivized human trafficking of children, because a child was a golden ticket into the USA (and indeed, many children were trafficked as a result). To eliminate that incentive, deportation after an illegal crossing needs to be enforced, even when a child is in tow. I think that the best answer is detention as a family during the process of prosecution and deportation, but I understand that there are some legal hurdles to that. They need to work them out, and fast.