macksd

My house has a non-potable water supply used for irrigation, and is in fact required by the town to. I know the same is true in some parts of Utah and probably other places. In such cases, also requiring toilets to be supplied by the non-pot line would be a trivial cost that would pay for itself eventually.

They explain: "Disclaimer: word "cuda" is taken from Serbian language, it means "miracles"."

Right or wrong, I wouldn't be too surprised if they got a nastygram from NVIDIA's legal department at some point.

Narcissism probably isn't the right word for me to be using here. It was on my mind because of this comment, where there happens to be more discussion of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27920152. And it happened to fit the case I was thinking of at the time. But it probably shouldn't be part of my original comment. Specifically what I'm referring to is an integral part of paranoia: someone thinking that, while long-term unemployed and living with their parents in their 40s, they are so "in the loop" as to be aware of conspiracies and such a threat to those conspiracies that they're a target. I have a hard time not equating that attitude with a little bit of narcissism, though again - probably not the right word to have used when discussing specific disorders.

>> In 1995, 2% of schizophrenia diagnoses in the country were associated with cannabis use disorder. In 2000, it increased to around 4%. Since 2010, that figure increased to 8%, the study found.

Worded that way, causation isn't the first thing this suggests to me. If percentage of cases associated with marijuana rise, it could also be that a larger percentage of the population is smoking and admitting to smoking marijuana regularly. If cases themselves rise, it could also be increases in the percentage of cases that actually get diagnosed, etc.

It could very well be that marijuana puts you at higher risk of schizophrenia - I certainly have an acquaintance in mind for whom recreational drug usage seems to have led them to a paranoid and narcissistic personality described here in other comments - but the connection in this article feels weak. Certainly weaker than the connection we see between marijuana law enforcement and the negative fallout of that.

>> More than half a century later, Grissom’s name has faded from memory... Grissom deserves recognition not as an unlucky footnote but as a genuine hero.

He was also very personally involved in the design for Project Gemini, which certainly had its flaws but is underappreciated IMO. It ends up being seen as simply a stepping stone toward Apollo, but it had actually had a bunch of very interesting design goals of it's own: very precise and controllable landings (including, in earlier plans, a fold-out glider with the pilot's windows facing forward for landing), the beginnings of space stations, much faster turn-around time and more modular design than Mercury, etc.

I agree with most of your points. But if you'll excuse an economic analogy, I think one of the reasons why you don't see "market dynamics"-like forces causing change here is that you don't really know what a company's interview process is like until you do it, and I think it would be rare that someone passes an interview and remains motivated to get it changed, or fails an interview and has any say whatsoever. So there's no equivalent of "voting with your dollars".

I suppose one could come up with a dramatically new approach and "market it" to get a lot applicants. But I think the current process, while deeply flawed, probably does at least correlate with good engineers, and such a process would perhaps be biased towards poorer applicants. At the very least, I can see how there's the expectation of that, and that alone is enough to prevent it from happening.

The problem is I'm sure we've all worked with people who had impressive resumes but were unproductive and probably couldn't pass FizzBuzz, and we all want to avoid that. I would imagine that making the labor market a little more fluid would help, so companies bias more towards hiring without a bunch of arbitrary tests, and are more inclined to let a poor performer go early. But it's still hard to really see someone's potential for several months, because it can always be blamed on getting up to speed, onboarding processes, etc. There are companies who don't hesitate to let poor performers go (e.g. PIPs and up-or-out positions), but companies that do that a lot are widely regarded as having toxic, corrupted versions of such a process. I wouldn't actually bet on it being a net improvement.

The first one is absolutely problematic, and I've been personally negatively affected by other people's non-competes a couple of times, but there's some nuance there, I think.

I would like to live in a world where companies invest heavily in educating and training their employees and where there's a lot of transparency within companies. One of the reasons you don't get that is because of the fear of an employee getting seduced by a tiny pay increase and losing a bunch of competitive edge / trade secrets / investment.

There are other ways to address that than non-competes, granted, but we're not doing those things either. In place of more nuanced non-competes you just get more companies expecting you to take on the risk of buying your own education to be trained in a job, bureaucracy and lack of trust in employees, etc.

> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all?

I feel like I'm yelling at a brick wall when I make a fuss of this, but this happens every time I see a doctor too. I'm asked to sign forms acknowledging I've read and understood long legal documents that they don't have a copy of to show me.

"It doesn't matter". Well I can't see the doctor without signing it. It only matters if they don't get their way. The same is true of the non-compete: it's because it only benefits them.

I think at this point we're reading too much into specific units to compare very distinct things. The point of the analogy either way is the compounding effect of seemingly small things repeated.

As others have mentioned, the energy density is a big deal because those planes' fuel accounts for A LOT of their take-off weight. To both illustrate this and point out another potential problem: when a fully fueled heavy, long-haul / high-capacity airliner needs to make an emergency landing shortly after take-off, one of the first things they do is start dumping fuel to reduce the weight (make it more maneuverable) and reduce the fire risk of a crash. Not sure what a comparable procedure for batteries might look like.

Does everyone interpret the question as something that's headed towards being so depressed you're unable to work? Or would a lot of people interpret "I feel somewhat burnt out" as "I would enjoy a vacation and not needing to be productive".

Not that I think the credit-reporting system in the US is sane or fair, but one of the factors that may go into one's score is the amount of credit you have available to you (i.e. a reflection of how much other lenders have already decided to trust you). So if you have a bunch of credit cards with low balances? That looks good. You can only get approved for a couple, and you push them to the limit constantly? That looks bad. An account closes, for whatever reason? Affects that metric. I wouldn't expect it to be significant, but people who monitor credit closely might notice.

If the recitation of GPL code required Copilot to be GPL licensed, then that would be incompatible with other licenses. If the copyright is held by someone else, you're simply not the one who can ultimately decide the terms under which it is redistributed.

Now if I understand correctly, unless someone inherits a private key of his, his bitcoins are effectively dead now, right? I wonder how this will impact the economics of cryptocurrencies over time: I'm starting to see more and more reminders to congratulate dead people on work anniversaries on LinkedIn, and it feels quite morbid.

This was my thought. A popular open source project will get a lot of wannabes who just want their name on something and file issues from random code analyzers, etc. I've looked at CVEs that don't have a good solution and decided to release because I understood the attack vector and it didn't apply to how we used the library. That's not the same thing.

That said - the problems being discussed here do happen, I just don't know how accurately the headline represents that.

It makes sense if you think you're likely to have to defend the decision in court. For instance, I've worked on a team where a guy was fired for performance reasons that were obvious to all of us, but he sued and claimed it was discrimination. HR had known of a performance problem and the process was documented, but if the trustworthiness of the manager who gave them all that information is cast in doubt, could they really defend it quickly and decisively in court? We all had to be deposed. Imagine if it became a lengthy court case. I imagine it would be nice for the company to have a paper trail of convincing evidence of a performance problem. A timeline of significant, non-work web browsing during work hours on work machines would do the trick, and protect the rest of the team and the company.

That said, I agree with the commenters that I wouldn't want to work somewhere that did this as a matter of routine. I always have my work laptop encrypted with a key only I know and I have not (yet) been forced to give work root access for management. I'm always confident handing in my laptop that they couldn't find anything even if there was something.

Honestly that movie is a lot of why I got into math and engineering.

Jim Lovell was undeniably a badass but I watched that movie and thought the heroes were the ones reading telemetry off a computer screen and using their slide rule to figure out what to do. I hope Hidden Figures does that for another generation.

My point was more that the class was just plain garbage and that's the most objective measure of how terrible it was that I can think of. There were people repeatedly and absent-mindedly pointing rifles at the person next to them. You know why they still got the hunter's safety card? Because they didn't do it on their last shot, so obviously they learned their lesson. The in-person instruction was also just a slide-show of the instructor's previous hunting trip.

That said, I stand by my suggestion that an inability to hit a standard sheet of paper at 5 yards with a training rifle is bad enough to qualify as a safety issue. Doing the math here, these people would be unable to hit a 60' target at typical deer ranges in my state. You can't be sure of your target and what's behind it at that point, and that's one of the 4 fundamental rules of gun safety. You should be measuring your ability to hit the vital organs of an animal in a low number of minutes of angle - so we're talking INCHES at the same ranges. If you can't do that you have no business hunting. If you're off by 60' you're just plain being reckless.

And such measures can be pretty useless and only amount to rent-seeking. I did hunter education in Colorado with the Makhaira group. Some students were unable to hit an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with a .22 bolt-action rifle at a distance of 5 yards (which is absolutely pathetic for someone who thinks they can hit a deer at even 100 yards with a hunting rifle). These individuals were granted their credentials because they failed this exercise while not breaking any of the gun safety rules (I'm not sure how you can say that you can fire a gun safely when you're that inaccurate, but that's my point).

It's not quite the same, but I can think of a lot of meetings where I've been pinged (or I've done the pinging) to follow-up in another Zoom with someone immediately after a larger meeting and discuss HOW to actually do the WHAT that was decided in the previous meeting. Maybe it just needs to be more intentional.

> This is a completely rational reaction of people who feel they're being unfairly demonized as a group

That also explains the public backlash against police in the first place, doesn't it? We can't keep speaking with this perspective of police always being the good guys / bad guys and protesters / rioters always being the good guys / bad guys, otherwise we've just given up on any societal sense of right and wrong and all we're doing is picking sides to fight for the sake of it.

Yeah, this seems like an even weaker connection than disibributing a GNU/Linux-based VM or Docker image with a non-GPL/LGPL application in it.

> Dealing with USCIS/ICE/EOIR/State is akin to bureaucratic hacking. Anticipating what the Government agencies want to see and hear in your petition is their exploit.

Unfortunately this is very true of many other areas of the government. Reading through all of the paperwork and possessing all of the practical skills was insufficient for me to get approval to build a cabin. I couldn't figure out how to get anything past them. A couple of well-connected friends chimed in and boom - I got my permit.

>> For the most part, they don't. I'm not quite sure if it's an issue of incentives or culture.

Classic example of "good is the enemy of best".

I've heard quite a few stories like this, and anecdata though it may be, I find it very intriguing. How WOULD we know? There seems to me to be a pretty consistent timeline: confirmed cases and rampant spread in other countries, the first confirmed cases in the US and rampant spread among vulnerable populations (nursing homes, etc.), and subsequently the overwhelming of ICUs. Each step seemed to take a few weeks, and progress consistently. There's a lot of suspicion from some that things were misreported, and some of that is the typical lies-with-statistics, etc. but I know enough people who were working in nursing homes and in ICUs that I personally trust the general timeline to be reality.

So what's up with these early possible cases? I wonder how plausible it is that it there was some early spread of the same disease, but vulnerable populations were just luckily avoiding exposure. It really seemed to take off in the US in those nursing homes. IIRC that's what happened in Seattle, and that's what happened in my county. THAT'S what wiped out most of our body count, and that's what initially overwhelmed ICUs. And that's what raised a lot of awareness, and probably a few self-diagnosed false positives too. Could genuine COVID cases have been going around before then and just not getting the attention, or causing as much damage until that point?

No, hospitals absolutely share a lot of the blame for problems like this. Even WITH insurance, I've been burned so many times that I ask a lot of questions in an attempt to prevent problems and surprises. I get asked to sign forms acknowledging I've seen papers that they can't show me because they don't have them. They will refuse to provide care without me signing the form. Eventually I sign - and will later see a copy of this paper when I contest a bill. I will ask them what something will cost me in the event that my insurance doesn't cover it, and they'll tell me "it depends on how it's coded", and it takes time for them to find out how it will be coded. They will tell me. And then they will code it differently when billing the insurance. I've had bills from doctors for services provided at a hospital that had no record of that doctor, yet the doctor had copies of all the forms I signed at that hospital. And insurance wouldn't cover it because the doctor was not part of my network, even though the hospital proper was.

Insurance companies are full of scum bags and I have my problems with them too, but there's plenty of blame above that really has nothing to do with my insurance company.

I do not (AFAIK) suffer from ADHD, but having been in therapy for a while for other issues I had a similar concern at one point: I had a bunch of problems I wanted to talk about, I thought my therapist was missing the obvious and following a red herring with her questions. But she mentioned a book on a disorder and I read it: it was like reading a book written just about my personality. I had heard of the disorder, kind of a lot, actually, but it was nothing like what I had inferred. Understanding it better helped break a lot of unproductive cycles of thought.

If you're inclined to not treat your ADHD with drugs, I think that's admirable. But IMO it's important to have a period of time in therapy where you don't hold back and really try to understand everything that's going on with you. There's a great answer to your question in one of my favorite podcasts [1]. The wife in that relationship was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult and, similarly: recognized herself in a lot of the symptoms that she didn't actually think were typical of ADHD. She's now on medication (some of the time, I think), but just knowing that was an underlying condition helped her, her husband, and her family manage a lot of relationship problems better.

[1] https://www.nottheworstmarriage.com/episodes/mental-health-a...

I have similar observations, and your suggested explanations seem reasonable but I have nothing but anecdata either way. I have known a lot of people in tech in the US from whom I've gotten the distinct impression they are formally diagnosed with ADHD and perhaps on medication.

I have also known a lot of people who tend to self-diagnose problems that I suspect they don't really have and then talk about them a lot (such as ADHD). They're usually the people who are fixated on vaccines and 5G as the cause of many health problems, but they typically won't have much interaction with "establishment" doctors on these issues. It's my impression that this is more common in the US than Europe, but it's a distinct issue. Not sure if some of that is mixed in to your observations?

>> the Big Bang should have produced matter and antimatter in equal amounts, and over time that all would have collided and annihilated, leaving the cosmos a very empty place. Obviously that didn’t happen

Why do we expect the Big Bang would have created little more matter than we observe? How do we know that almost all matter wasn't annihilated, and what's left really isn't just a rounding error after ~50% annihilated ~50%?

Everyone seems to be missing the part of the story where I actually got connections and introductions to others in the medical field and got an answer, and the part where an anesthesiologist actually gave me what turned out to be a pretty good guess at the answer because they DO understand biology in general better than me and hey do have to learn a lot about the immune system even if they specialty isn't vaccines.

My point was that the less educated someone is in the medical field in general, the less willing they seem to be to entertain a genuine question, and this is the opposite of being "pro-science". It's only a step above being an anti-vaxxer because they choose better experts to listen to.