dpbriggs

As always your team matters the most. I went into SRE to learn how to make gigantic and complicated systems reliable. I've learned a lot.

1. It was an interesting adjustment. The work is qualitatively different but it's still software engineering. Just at a higher level.

2. On-call is the best I've ever had at any company. It's 12h a day max and overtime is compensated. You won't be woken up in the middle of the night. There's different tiers as well. I'm tier 1 so that means a five minute response time. That's too much for some people and I don't blame them.

3. My team is ramping up people straight out of university. You'll be well trained and have half a year or longer depending on how critical the service is.

4. In my org it's something like 25% of your time on-call at most. Depending on the size of your team it's less.

5. Not applicable. My first SRE job.

6. None so far. Google is very nice to work for. Like all jobs it'll be stressful at times but it's better here than anywhere else I've worked.

Pan on the stove, butter the outside of two slices of bread with one slice of processed cheese in the middle. Cook on medium low until golden brown.

Sometimes it's nice to get a meal with no dishes to clean up. There's no shame in it and frankly most people don't notice you, less care about you. You're just grabbing a meal.

Now if you're lonely and eating out alone is stressful, well, it's your life. You can make friends or connect with family members.

God save the King.

It's not necessarily a prime bigger than PN as the original proof is about some list of primes, not all primes less than some prime. E.g. 3,5 becomes 16, which is missing 2.

That doesn't make sense what you wrote. I encourage you to read up on long term maurijuana use and addiction. This Wikipedia page is detailed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_use_disorder?wprov=sf...

It's common sense that your body will physically adapt to most substances consumed regularly. Most of the time that means tolerance and subsequent withdrawal when its removed, which is caused by some physical process. Weed isn't magic.

This is pretty cool. Are you worried about copyright at all though? Especially if this get used in a commercial context?

Recovery from wake and bake will involve withdrawal symptoms and cravings, both of which have a physical basis. You can't expect flooding your brain all day and every day with a menagerie of feel-good chemicals and not expect adaptations which need to be undone.

I don't think that makes sense? What are you attempting to communicate?

I'm saying that high potency products are still sold in legalized areas as there's demand for it.

I remember having issues years ago finding low but not non-zero THC products on the government website. I had to get 17% which is still high. Things may be different now.

That could be the an explanation for only having high potency weed in areas where it's prohibited, but it's equally available here in Canada where it's legal. I think people just like it.

It's possible to have concerns about it even if alcohol is worse. I think most people are reacting to the "it cures cancer" culture which denies any negative effect.

Personally I've seen weed addiction in close friends and family and it's not pretty. It's slowly poisoning yourself while your life stagnates or falls apart. But they're convinced they're not addicted as you can't get addicted to weed.

Racist? Could you elaborate? It's a public health concern as people are getting addicted.

Did you intend to be racist and inflammatory, or just inflammatory?

That isn't justification for the censorship. Reporters do report on things they don't understand all the time. The point was to make it possible for qualified people to investigate, but that wasn't politically popular at the time.

Should the scientific community rally to the opposition of the current unpopular president? That doesn't seem like a good idea.

And this last point is a fascinating common non sequitor. That's not even what happened; we had the media clamoring that it came from that market and any talk of the lab is racist and/or xenophobic. Do you think any investigation of the lab would have jeopardized the public? Worse than the visceral eating bats (i.e. selling bats for consumption)?

What are attempting to communicate with this comment?

Who are you talking to?

That doesn't make sense. How is that any worse than the dominant at the time explanation of bats being sold at a seafood market to be eaten. That's way more visceral than a lab accident.

Why is that a justification for heavy-handed censorship of a topic? Do you think that's right?

Non sequitor. That's not the statement I'm referring to. It's certainly the case a virus emerged from nature with all or most of the properties we saw in the original. Unless it was engineered in Loas lol

Good job defending your point. If the error bars weren't so wide on the biological clock idea why we would we be having this discussion? Does the west supress that, and you're one of the few smart ones who have the truth?

No, that was some intentional conflation bordering on propaganda.

Are they all like that?

It's easy to want to paint with a wide brush, especially in times of crisis. One of my teachers was pro-life and anti-war. There's no need for such a conundrum.

Otherwise, frankly, they probably haven't thought about it deeply or support the military for cultural or economic factors.

Are you willfully misrepresenting other arguments? There's a curious pattern in these threads of you ducking out of conversations when nuance is attempted.

The remainder of the reasonable discussion around this topic is centered around the blurry point between inception and when viable birth is possible. The vast majority of people would classify a fetus, minutes before birth, being aborted as murder.

As well, in most countries restrictions occur at some point in the pregnancy (recognition of the trade-off between bodily autonomy and the rights of the unborn). In my country that happens to be nine weeks unless there's an emergency.

How exactly is discussing how this came to be some edgy and hateful thing? People want to understand and discuss the current crisis.

If you want to discuss the human impact make that comment, or frankly, you're visiting the wrong sort of forum.

I never experienced long political diatribes when I attended Catholic mass a few years ago. There wasn't much time for speaking as the mass itself is quite involved.

> It occurred to me that all of this must have been carefully planned at the highest levels of both the church and political/financial benefactors that support it.

I'm curious if we'll see leaks confirming this. Otherwise this might be an anecdote stretched a little too far. It's far more likely you've experienced some bad pastors.

I can't agree that being part of a group, especially one so large and diverse, gives you purchase to make sweeping generalizations.

I guess the disagreement is around the word "undetected". It's possible some failure was covered up and I trust the Chinese government to be capable enough to do that.

> virus has to be collected and be propagated in the lab

That's a weaker statement than the one I replied to. I'm referring to the how it's necessary that it needs to a "pandemicable" virus that enters a lab "undetected" and I guess leaves the lab "undetected". There's several possible ways the virus could have made it into Wuhan:

- Improper handling occurs somewhere in transporting the samples from bat caves (w/e) to the lab.

- Improper handling of samples in the lab.

- Improper disposal of samples in the lab.

- Entering a more speculative area; bat samples are used in experiments and improper handling or disposal occurs.

- Deeper into speculation: Improper handling/disposal of viruses used in gain of function research.

And when any of the above occurs, use the state's staggering power to cover it up.

> You can interpret a molecular clock or a phylogenetic tree qualitatively

I'm sure that could work but I imagine the error bars are quite wide as otherwise that's definitive proof and we wouldn't be discussing this online.

> unless you think the Wuhan lab tested the Virus in Laos

Nice attempt at absurd rhetoric. Strengthens the argument doesn't it?

We already had intense media speculation about the source of the virus at the start of the pandemic because _people wanted to know_. It would have been nice to have a proper investigation at the start of the pandemic as they may have caught evidence before it could have been destroyed.

> For the lab-leak theory to be true, a "pandemicable" zoonotic virus (a VERY rare thing) has to somehow make it into a lab undetected.

That's not a necessary condition and it's ridiculous to think that's the only hinge by which the hypothesis stands. Another far more plausible idea is that a mistake occurred somewhere and it was covered up. This has occurred before in authoritarian regimes before.

An input to a molecular clock is a mutation rate, which I imagine would be hard to quantify given the unknown source and the possibility of gain of function research.

That edit is a nice but ultimately impotent statement.

What matters is the mechanics of how we're in this situation. They're complicated and thankfully this decision doesn't mean an outright ban for all Americans. Providing access for the rest is what should be discussed, over shaking fists and platitudes.

Do you paint other religious groups with that same broad brush? I'm sure you supported similar rhetoric about Muslims post 9/11.