I've been very happy with the Audi DSG. Absolutely no complaints. Though when I need to pass on a narrow road sometimes I use the paddle to downshift before I hit the gas just to save the car from the split second it takes to realize I'm serious about accelerating (when not in sport mode). But that's not a big difference in actual acceleration time.
The people setting up doomsday bunkers should probably consider your point. I proposed a strategy they may resort to if they don't (or, as you say, even if they try).
You could ask the same sorts of questions about why fiat money works (if this money has no intrinsic value why will the merchant give over his tangible products for it?). Yet people do terrible things for tyrants. I don't understand exactly why it works but then again I'm not a tyrant of any sort.
If we're considering doomsday scenarios here, the answer to your question lies in the traditional tactics of tyrants.
Hypothetically, Zuckerberg is going to have family members of the people guarding him locked away somewhere as hostages with other people set to guard them with the original guards kept out of direct communication with anyone but Zuckerberg or his trusted lieutenants. Cousin Eddie isn't going to take over when it means Cousin Franny gets to live less than or equal to how long Zuck lives.
Horrible? yes. Rational? Also yes.
EDIT: Remember this is a hypothetical. I'm not saying anything about Zuck's character or motivations here.
I think dispersion plays into this. I could hardly live farther from my aunts/uncles/cousins if I tried (living within this country) and the same could be said for a large number of them. It's a lot harder to stay in touch at a distance. I guess given social media you might say it's easier to stay in touch when close.
That really depends. I'm working sometimes on problems that physician researchers have been cranking away on for decades. We want to do better than their state of the art. That's not something you can throw a software engineer at. There is a pretty wide spread of problem difficulty out there.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted for this - we have the same pain. We're not allowed to have a sysadmin or administer our own servers but IT is busy supporting thousands of non-computery-users. To them we're a fly in the ointment.
When looking for data science jobs it's nice to know from the prospective hire side that your skills will be used well. Coming into a job only to find out you're way overqualified can be a downer, particularly in a field where you need to keep your teeth sharp. I think the same goes for programming - imagine finding out on your first day you'll just be doing user testing and not writing any code.
Personally I find the "random shit on camera" is just fine, as long as the delivery is sufficiently appropriate. But my use case is usually to help me unwind and get to sleep so if the content is too interesting it's counter-productive.
I think the true effect you're probably referring to by the 'unintentional' ASMR is hard to achieve so I guess I don't hold most of the Youtube stuff to that standard as long as I get what I want out of it. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying YMMV.
That said if you or anyone wants to make some suggestions of high-quality ASMR videos I'd be interested.
I find the same thing about typically yelling-at-you advertisements, particularly when interspersed with ASMRey or otherwise non-bombastic content. Maybe we can do something about that (Google? You listening?).
I call what you're referring to Hanlon's Safety Razor: Never attribute anything to malice.
It seems like it deserves a name since in nearly any thread online involving a supposition of malice someone comes out of the woodwork with Hanlon's razor.
PS: I think I had a better name for this in the past but have forgotten it.
TFA discusses a natural experiment with water pipes. Cities near lead production centers tend to have lead pipes, so they compared cities with that characteristic and acidic water (which leaches lead into the water) and such cities without acidic water. The study found a strong effect.
If you put one on a helicopter or drone you could sweep a large area quite quickly. That could be especially useful in situations where a person wasn't planning to be in the wilderness and thus would be more likely to have a phone on them but not another GPS-enabled communicator.
I think you're underestimating the Tesla supercharger network. It basically solves both of those problems (if you have a Tesla) and live in the vicinity of one - if you don't live near one then it still solves the second issue.
The infrastructure is expanding rapidly, so your "unless" is a fairly safe bet.
That's the point of the source you requested and I provided: there are some formulations of stainless steel that are actually kind of ok in salt water despite most being poor.
No one is arguing that it's impossible to build a bear with solar panels. The point is that you can't slap a cheap panel from Alibaba on a float and have any assurance that it will work reliably. Thus costs go up and the whole idea may become infeasible.
Nitpick, but 0.2KW/m^2/hr would be an acceleration, not a constant rate. You mean 0.2KW/m^2 - this is constant power output. W already includes a per-unit-time component. I'm nitpicky on this topic because of how many professionally-written articles I've seen make similar mistakes.
It's not that I want a terrible experience, it's that I can easily sort by price and I can't easily determine how comfortable a plane will be. Until a site allows me to sort by a weighted function of price and comfort it's just too much effort to book a flight by anything but price. Taking into account the various combinations of airports, dates, times, locations (I typically fly for leisure), optimizing is already a exponentially more difficult with each option even with a simple cost function, never mind one that I have to go to a separate website to look up for each and every possible flight.
I think your point is easily solved with a capital gains deduction or marginal rate, where the first X of annual (or averaged annual) gains are exempted. So a person selling $50,000 (or whatever) or more would see a higher rate, thus people withdrawing from their retirement account wouldn't be hit by an increase.
The main reason I would increase the capital gains rate is the very richest, like Warren Buffet (as he himself pointed out), pay a lower rate than much less wealthy/lower income people due to the favorable capital gains rate. This sort of inversion shouldn't exist in a progressive tax system. Personally I view one of the several valid goals of a tax system to be keeping income/wealth inequality within reasonable limits and I think this would help with that.
This is offtopic, but I have to point out that these sort of cynical pronouncements are somewhat dangerous. You are probably coming from a good place and trying to warn people about being too trusting, but I see a risk in these sort of statements in making younger readers believe that this is a normative statement (as opposed to the positive sense I think you meant it in). Ideally HR does have something to offer the employee, balancing their interest with the company's. Let's not retreat entirely from that ideal.
That has nothing to do with the parent's question. Rising Chinese salaries don't cause executives to need more compensation than the did in the 70's relative to their (American) workers. If your point is that high American worker salaries aren't supportable now due to competition, you would have to explain why American executives' salaries are increased compared to the 70's.
Personally, I'm already happily employed and have just started grad school (masters). My motivation, aside from being more competitive in the job market (I don't want to stay in this job forever), is that I enjoy challenges. But I prefer to meet challenges at least somewhat prepared to take them on. I see grad school as an opportunity to study my field in more depth than I realistically have time or motivation for on the job or after work. I figure this will allow me sort of level up and be able to take on more challenging work in the future.
Is it so crazy to want more tax to be collected, especially from the wealthiest who have recently benefited from a $1.5T tax cut? The federal deficit is in the vicinity of a trillion dollars per year currently. Any tax avoidance by gigantic corporations and their wealthy shareholders rankles in this environment, regardless how easily explained.
Perhaps the capital gains rate should be raised to make buybacks equally attractive, tax-wise, to dividends. Perhaps it would spur investment over paydays.
Some biofuels, particularly corn ethanol, are bad for the environment. Given the low return on energy invested for corn ethanol, it's functionally a way to launder fossil fuels (e.g. diesel for tractors, natural gas for fertilizer production, coal or gas for distillation) into "green" fuel. With a nice side effect of further degrading valuable farmland.
Perhaps the presence of the virus causes the beta amyloid to be produced, or to not be cleared (because it's being used to trap the virus)? I'm no biologist but spitballing on why you might see a direct relationship vs an inverse one.
Was he ever known to display any great amount of empathy? I don't know as much about him as many here I'm sure, haven't read the biography. But I have known people with BPD. If the answer to that question is no then I would think sociopathy would be more likely than borderline.
They're both in the same cluster of personality disorders but borderline tends to be associated with more self-loathing and self-destruction since there is still harmful and hurtful behavior like sociopathy but also a good deal of empathy related to an overactive amygdala. Those mix like fuel and air. Sociopaths have reduced empathy so they find harming others and transgressing much easier to live with and move on, so they tend to be less self-destructive as long as they're somewhat high-functioning. They can both be quite manipulative but in my experience people with BPD are less likely to capitalize on it.
What's your evidence that those people are worse off having taken the psychedelics? You can't know the counterfactual isn't that those people who respond poorly to the drug would have had a similar mental break without it. Until the drug is studied rigorously all we have to go on are conflicting anecdotes. That said in the face of a lack of reliable information caution is warranted.
1) Can you get the industrialized farm lobbies on board with this? How about 3rd world rural clinics? How about 3rd world farmers using powerful antibiotics of last resort to make animals get a little bigger?
Successfully regulating antibiotics is a worldwide effort. I'm not confident we'll ever be more than moderately successful at that.