goatcode

I don't think the federal government is required by law to kill people.

Drat, I didn't come up with a perfect plan, with no possible hypothetical what-if responses. Back to the drawing board.

It's a solution to keep corporations that grow big enough to cause societal issues, having grown that big through utilizing society's resources, somewhat more accountable. There might be issues, but I'd suspect there to be more issues with the current solution: being "nothing."

Easy solution any side can get on board with, for potentially different reasons: If a corporation receives tax or direct financial benefits from the US federal government, it must be bound by the same laws as the US federal government. Even the ones the US federal government ignores.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

I suspect it's a combination of fear and normalization of acceptance of absolute authority in government.

Selective enforcement's a pain, isn't it.

>I guess the table is missing non-sugar carbohydrates?

"Fiber" came to mind when reading your pondering.

It's interesting how much this topic has blown up, especially compared to how it usually does, after pedophiles are targeted.

It's also interesting that at least one prepared response will be found to my point above.

Stop again. Then read the link I posted.

You stop. Looks like we're both wrong: https://www.cdc.gov/features/rhinoviruses/index.html

It's either surface contact or ghosts coughing in the poster's face.

Bring back the Thot Audit.

>got a cold

That's because the cold virus is spread by surfaces, and you likely touched something with it, then scratched your eyes. You can be 80 miles from someone, but if you touch something he touched, you're potentially getting his cold.

The only time "N95" was uttered was last year, when we were being told: 1. Masks aren't needed; 2. Don't buy masks, healthcare workers need them.

It's unfortunate that we didn't go back to talking about proper masks before people started knitting them and making them out of rags and beads. One wonders what difference it might have made.

Fail a bunch of times.

Or new languages will spawn from it combined with whatever of the numerous other-language-speakers use it. Steven Fry talked a bit about "Panglish" on QI, was interesting.

The question becomes: Will we call English English, or will some other language per above be called English? I for one don't use "nother" nor place periods before consequents, so I might be speaking my own language right now, based on what people online seem to have done with English :)

1. English is made up of several languages;

2. "Language changes" pretty much equates to people making mistakes, and those mistakes becoming part of the language. Since English has spread over so much of the world, in addition to it not having a central authority that is looked to for its structure (as does French), many mistakes have come in, and made the language weird. This overlaps a bit with (1).

Yeah, lawyers are scumbags.

I'm thrilled when incompetence is punished by reality. At least twice as thrilled when it's incompetence of government employees.

Two options exist today, depending on the city you visit: innovate parking structures, or lazily attack the car and drivers. Which do you think will not cause high-earning, mobile professionals to just leave your city? Choose wisely.

Hats off to this lady for running a one-person tech company. Doing all the tech stuff would be easy, but handling bookkeeping, taxes, supplies, logistics, vendor relationships, sales, customer relations, everything... I'd actually die. Loads of energy!

TIL "fierce" in the nerd world means having a massive ego and a severe over-estimation of how awesome you are. These kinds of people make me sick, regardless of whether they're nerds.

Gee, a great big "RUSAI DID TIHS HACK" written across the software. Little sus?

If you're competent and happen to be wrong, admitting it underscores your competence. Conversely: you can't fight reality, but trying just makes you look worse.

For me, I've always respected people who admit they're wrong. It shows they know they're capable enough generally to show weakness and know it won't affect them negatively.

Basically, if admitting your mistake doesn't shed light onto anything but the fact that you made one mistake, it won't negatively affect you in a context in which you wish to be working.

If you're good at what you do, nobody who matters will not be convinced you're not by a single error. Additionally, if you have an area in which you recognize you need growth, humbly admitting that and taking steps to grow also looks amazing on you (again, to the people who matter).

I hope these points of perspective can help. It's anecdotal, but they're things I've re-discovered numerous times in my own and the professional lives of those around me whom I respect.

Indeed. People properly wearing and using N95 and above level protection would likely have fared better than people wearing fabric masks, back then.

It's important to not conflate deaths in that time with deaths caused by the flu. Most of the deaths turned out to have been caused by bacterial pneumonia: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/bacterial-pneu...

I'm not sure Apple was as open about advertising how their network functions.

Wouldn't this go against some ISPs TOS about reselling or sharing a connection?

You've pretty much said anything I would have. Having heard the speed at which blind people's text-to-speech goes, I'd say that likely represents some kind of cap. I'd imagine that all factors being optimized, time and practice would be the only way to faster speeds.

That seems pretty reasonable. I'd hate to work at a place that "didn't enforce" something, but had it turn into a 15 pieces of flair type situation.

>Pairing is optional at my employer.

Is collaboration / pairing part of employee evaluation in any way?