HN user
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. eddieplan9 didn't claim that the US is a flawless, perfect nation. They're saying that despite the issues with the US (and I do agree that there are a lot), drawing conclusions between the US and China is a false equivalency and that things in China re: social freedom is much worse than here. Pointing out flaws with the US doesn't take away from his point.
I can't speak for other people, but I can see this being a bad feature for me.
It'd be great for chicken where I usually get the same thing (~5lbs chicken thighs). For beef though it'd be an absolute nightmare. I vary between flank, eye of round, ribeye, rib roast (which granted is basically a really big ribeye) and chuck in different amounts depending on what I feel like cooking.
I also know myself well enough to know I'm going to have a forgetful moment in the kitchen, order "beef" when I'm focusing on something else, and accidentally end up with 5 lbs of flank when I wanted 1 lb of ribeye.
What does that even mean?
My guess is it's just another way of saying people like consuming media from companies that are relevant to their interests.
I personally find Snap's advertising to be nice. It's nice to have it separate from what my friends upload like what others have said. I've also found that what Snap puts out is way more enjoyable to look at than Facebook's advertisements.
Take sports for example. I'm a huge NFL, NBA, and MLB fan. Facebook's sports-oriented ads are usually limited to the game score which I don't need to look at because the game is already on my TV. Snap, on the other hand, puts up a nice collection of Snapchat videos from other people. I can get a pre-game locker room video from the players and I can get a fan's view of the game-winning touchdown in the same collection. Both are things you wouldn't see on a typical game broadcast. I'm fully aware that both are advertisements, but one is significantly more relevant and more enjoyable for me to consume than the other.
Perhaps repealing the English only teaching requirement via prop 58 last year had something to do with harming English proficiency in underserved populations.
It wouldn't have affected any of these test scores. Prop 58 was approved Nov 2016 and took effect July 2017[1], whereas the 2017 tests cited in this article were taken 2/3 of the way into the school year[2], which puts it in Spring for a normal school year schedule and months before Prop 58 ever took effect. Any effects of Prop 58 on testing scores won't be seen until this school year when students take the tests in early 2018.
[1] http://downloads.capta.org/leg/Prop58_Support_FullAnalysis.p...
So what is being 'stolen' is something that largely comes down to a 50% probability in most situations?
Yes, but that 50% probability makes a huge difference. .300 is considered a fantastic batting average to have. .400 makes you a legend. The former means that a great batter can hit the ball in pay and not get out before they reach first 30% of their at bats.
So even improving your batting average by .05, i.e. have 5% more of your at bats result in hits, makes a huge difference to both your team and your career.
And as far as that 50% probability goes, it tells the batter a huge amount. A typical fastball comes in in the high 90s mph, an offspeed in the 80s. So even just knowing whether it's an offspeed or fastball ensures you won't swing too late or too early.
Is there a history of 'stealing signs' in baseball? ...Since it could be communicated almost as effectively offline as by a smartwatch.
Yes. First it's worth noting that stealing signs without technological aid is legal. The issue here is that the Red Sox were using an Apple Watch to aid them.
By far the most common and traditional method of stealing signs is using a runner on second. If a batter reaches second base, he has a clear line of sight to the batter and catcher. The catcher is the one making the signs to the pitcher, and by observing the catcher, the runner on second can relay those signs to the batter thereby improving the batter's chances of getting on base.
The obvious issue here is that if you cannot use electronics to assist you, then your chances of stealing signs is limited. The runner on second is about your only chance of being able to do so.
Also, how accurate can the team read the other team's signs from the dugout?
Not very. If you watch a typical at bat, pay attention to the catcher. He holds his hand between his legs, right in front of his crotch. His signs makes him look like he's scratching his crotch. Because of how close his hand is to his body, the fact that his legs are always extended on either side of his hands, and that the dugouts are on either side off the field, the dugout's view of the catcher's hands are obscured so they can't see his signs. Goes back to my above statement of the time proven method of stealing signs with a runner on second.
Is it a high probability the information between sent to the players is accurate?
Depends on their pre-game preparations and adjustments. What often happens is catchers mask their signals. A simple example of this would be the catcher and pitchers plan beforehand to send four signals, and the second signal is their real one. Obviously it's more complex than this in real life, but the point is there are safeguards against stealing signals. If you have figured out their code then you have a very good chance of predicting pitches. If not, then the signs you steal probably won't be any better than guessing.
On a tangential note, that might not be the case anymore next year. The Thunder got Paul George, the Rockets traded for Chris Paul, Gordon Hayward is now on the Celtics, and Jimmy Butler is in Minnesota. Meanwhile, there's rumors that Kyrie Irving wants to be traded.
Doug Demuro of "Bumper to Bumper Warranty" fame has used Turo-rented cars in some of his videos.
If you follow the PAC12, SlingTV has the PAC12 networks as an add-on package
No kidding. I miss the old days of ESPN. Doesn't help either that ESPN isn't showing good games anymore and that it has big competition now.
For football, this past season they were only showing the MNF games. In the Bay Area, NBC Sports Bay Area has broadcast rights to all the Giants and Warriors games. IIRC, NBC broadcast holds the rights to the Sharks. In San Diego, Fox Sports San Diego has the rights to the Padres. I can't remember the last time I tuned into ESPN to watch a game I wanted to see beyond "Oh that's on, I guess I'll watch."
Even ignoring the broadcasting rights, sports talk on other channels have become vastly superior to ESPN. My two favorite segments on sports this year (ARod + Pete Rose discuss batting, Isiah Thomas discusses dribbling) came out of Fox Sports and TNT. I'd pay good money to hear more detailed analysis from former players, rather than talk endlessly about how Tom Brady looks like he's from NSync with his haircut.
In my opinion ESPN just got too complacent with their status and is digging themselves into the grave. I swear I can go on for hours over all the things ESPN is doing wrong in the sports media today.
ESPN is suffering from a two pronged death.
Like you, there's plenty of people who aren't interested in sports and aren't interested in paying extra for a sports-bundled cable package.
Then there's people like me who like sports and don't like the programming on ESPN. Two decades ago, ESPN reporting used to be legitimately great. They'd talk about strategy, roster moves, interviews with players/coaches, etc. These days it's TMZ with a sports focus. Even something as mundane as Tom Brady's new haircut became a talking point on ESPN. The most recent example I have of ESPN's decline was the recent NFL draft. It was nothing but baseless conjecture on who's getting whom. It's a lot of random guesswork and hot takes portrayed as journalism. The talking heads would just shout about the most outrageous conjecture with no rationale.
ESPN has gotten complacent and they're paying for it now. In my opinion they were relying on cable subscriptions when that's going away, and they haven't invested in quality programming to keep the sports fans in the longest time.
I think a part of it has also been Nintendo's terrible naming scheme the past few years.
I don't follow gaming news closely, so when I heard of the Wii U I thought it was a hardware revision not unlike the Xbox One S to the Xbox One. It took me over a year after launch to learn that the Wii U is an entirely new console.
The same thing happened with the 3DS. When I finally looked into getting one this past holiday season, I was confused by the 3DS vs 3DS XL vs New 3DS vs New 3DS XL. I was hesitant to buy since I wasn't sure if the New 3DS was a hardware revision or an entirely new console like the Wii U.
On top of that, the marketing wasn't there for me. I learn of my gaming news when it hits the front page of Reddit. When the Switch was announced, there was massive hype behind it. I didn't see the same for the Wii U.
Isn't that their legal obligation though? Certainly they could have offered more considering everyone was seated already, they had the crew for a future flight to transport on time, and everyone was initially unwilling.
I think it's the timing that made things so difficult for them. If they asked me at the gate I'd be willing to take $400 plus flight comps. If it's when I'm already seated on the plane though (and reports said the man taken off was seated and buckled in already), my price goes way up.
One would think that since the crew dropped the ball by pulling people this late they would offer more money to make those guys volunteer happily.
Maybe not, but the remaining country can still severely harm California. Additionally I wouldn't assume that California-based military will support CalExit.
I lived in San Diego and spent a lot of time with active duty sailors + marines down there when I attended Community College. They were from all over the country, and the vast majority were from red states. I befriended active duty military from Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Carolina. Conversely, despite being a military city I only came across two people from California.
What I'm getting at is in the event of civil war I can't see the majority of armed forces in California supporting CalExit.
1. Even if you take slavery into account, I see a lot of similarities between the Civil War and CalExit.
For the southern states, many wanted to keep slavery for economic reasons. It was very cheap labor, and banning slavery would have meant less money for Southern states imposed on them by outsiders who did not live their societies or work their jobs.
I see the same parallels here with CalExit. Even on this thread, people bring up how California unfairly pays more net to the federal government while red states take more federal resources. CalExit doesn't have the (IMO) moral reprehension of slavery, but from my perspective I see people upset that outsiders who don't share our lives and views are dictating our bottom line.
2. I highly doubt that the federal government would let any state undergo peaceful secession. A secession by its nature is a threat to the United States. Allowing states to leave will mean the states aren't united. Furthermore, it won't just be California. Off the top of my head, states like Washington, Oregon, and New York are generally as unhappy as California in with the state of our government, and allowing one state to leave will open the floodgates for other states.
This to me means the obvious consequence is violence erupts if we attempt to secede, even with peaceful intentions at first. As another user on this thread stated, California will not win an armed conflict. The US military is much stronger than our California National Guard.
I understand your political sentiments, and I do agree that the current state of national politics is a major issue. However, I don't see a peaceful CalExit as either practical or realistic.
Nope. Those are my thoughts exactly. The obvious implication of CalExit to me is civil war. Like you I definitely think a state leaving undermines the very nature of the United States. Political motivations aside, the idea of California leaving bears many similarities to South Carolina during the 1800s, and we know how quickly that turned into war.
For me it's an amusing thought to entertain as a form of escapism but I really hope people aren't taking this seriously. It'd be disastrous for both the country and California.
Regarding longevity, it's also worth noting that telomere shortening are a very effective anti cancer mechanism.
Cancer is the runway division of cells. Preventing cell division when the telomeres are too short ensures there is a finite number of times a cell can divide, meaning there is a finite number of times a cancer cell can divide. This helps prevent cancer from dividing indefinitely. Especially in older folks, we see how terrible cancer can be when those cells mutate and can regenerate telomere length, giving themselves unlimited division.
It's the physical trade-off we have with lengthening or preserving telomere length. They give all of our cells more divisions, good and bad. Since cancer is an exercise in the law of large numbers (how many random mutations will it take for it to hit a critical point in your DNA?), Longer lifespans with longer telomeres will inevitable also mean more aggressive cancers.
I'm a developer myself, but I do have non developer reasons for not liking the new MacBook.
* No SD reader: not ubiquitous in the age of smartphones, but I take pics with my DSLR on vacations and not having an internal card reader makes me unhappy. I could add a card reader, which leads me to my next point
* USB-C only: USB C is the future. However, that future hasn't fully arrived yet and migrating would be pricey all in one go. My external drive, external card reader, and thumb drive are all USB A. Sure I could buy the adapter but with MacBook > Adapter > External Card Reader > SD card, I lose the portability I have with my current MacBook. Same goes for my always inserted 64 GB tiny thumb drive full of movies.
* MagSafe: I'm clumsy, and MagSafe is a big deal for me. I understand the appeal of USB C and being able to replace a single cable versus the whole charger, but I'd rather have the clumsy-proof nature of MagSafe
* Keyboard: highly subjective and personal opinion, but I prefer more travel on my keyboard. I've used the new butterfly on the new MBP, but I still like my old keyboard.
* Price: on top of the aforementioned adapters and new accessories, the MBP itself has a higher base model price.
Obviously my thoughts are personal and not universal, but my reasons for not wanting the new MBP for non developer reasons.
Honestly as a developer the only thing that would bug me with software development specifically would be the lack of FN keys.
I'm in the same boat as you here. Level 2 and 3 are unsafe for me as an individual. When I drive, actively focusing on the road and driving keeps me awake. When I'm a passenger, the lack of mental concentration plus the gentle rocking motion of a moving car knocks me out within ten minutes.
The current Tesla autopilot is obviously working well for many people, but for myself I have to wait until level 4. Anything more hands on than that is inherently unsafe because of my habits.
To me, something also worth noting is that prior to the Duck Dynasty show, none of the people behind the company had their well known "bearded outdoorsman" looks. There's a widely circulated photo where they look like your average upper middle class suburbanite.
The point on the Democrats celebrity endorsement is true, but I'd argue that the GOP celebrities, including the Duck Dynasty people, are of the same vein and aren't the rural everyman they portray on the show.
In my house, we make good use of delivery for one major reason: sports.
Sometimes theres no dinner ready and in the hecticness of life, we forget to cook the night before so we get into an unfortunate situation of either going hungry until the game ends or cooking and miss the game.
Delivery solves this issue. Take out is definitely faster, but that usually means missing part of whatever game is on. My case obviously isn't universal but given the popularity of sports and how primetime games are only an hour or so after you get home from work, Id think there's a non negligible amount of people with similar situations.
It still does not change liability though, only where the money will be coming from.
Ah, gotcha. I misunderstood that one. My bad.
That said, I'm not too sure how that would work. They only check your boarding pass at the initial security check before the scanners, and the order at which people have their IDs checked is not preserved once you get to the scanners, so you can't track identification that way. On top of that, as someone who's been swabbed multiple times (I'm assuming something to do with my camera equipment), I've never been asked for identification when swabbed. So you might get some DNA to sequence, but you won't really know who it actually is.
Adding onto this, a skin swab for a DNA sample is pretty useless. You have contamination from everything from skin flora to skin cells from other people you've had physical contact with. Given the very public nature of airports, contamination by others is not far fetched.
I think it's safe to say the last one isn't for humans.
How many of them are working in fields directly relating to their studies, and how many of them are being paid a livable wage?
Because I can guarantee you right now that a postdoc salary is horrible, especially considering the amount of work that goes into getting that PhD in the first place.
Being employed != being employed in their field, and being employed != being paid a livable wage that can simultaneously sustain student debt.
Furthermore, this adds nothing to your original belief that if people were to do something that benefits society, they would be financially stable. This statement cannot be any further from the truth.
You only have to look so far as teaching to see how wrong that idea is. Teachers are absolutely necessary, and yet in many places, teachers are heavily in debt and not being paid a livable wage. You don't even have to look far - in the Bay Area, the center of technology, school districts are facing massive staffing shortages because teachers simply are not able to live with the salaries they're offered, so they're no longer looking at the Bay as a viable option.
You and I have the immense luck of both being able to enjoy programming and having some measure of talent in it. On top of that, our mutual field is going through an extraordinary time of heavy demand and high salaries.
Not everyone is that lucky. It is absolutely factually and logically wrong to extrapolate your own lucky circumstances and impose them on people less fortunate than you. Not everyone can enjoy and be good in a field that is constantly hiring and paying very well. Not everyone who works hard gets the same opportunities at financial stability that we do. To look down on people and think that by doing something "meaningful" they can find financial stability is a horrible logical fallacy to make.
Thanks, I forgot to include that. In my experience, it's definitely true.
I absolutely love biology and do miss being in the lab. That said, love for a field doesn't pay the bills, and like you pointed out, it's a lot of work for comparatively little money. Double so for people like me who simply do not have it in them for a PhD, and have to "settle" for a B.S. or M.S.
That's an absolutely incorrect statement.
Before switching to programming, I was a research associate. Internships, publications, the whole deal.
I would argue that cancer research and the other biomed research my colleagues did was absolutely useful to society. Yet it's no secret that if you want to be financially self sufficient, a B.S. in biology is a horrible way to go about it. Sure, there's private industry, but then
a. How useful to society is working for Pfizer, GSK, etc? b. Is it really a viable option when you have dozens of applicants per job option?
People in development are in a great spot in the job market today. Demand outstrips supply, high salaries, etc. That said, do not think that the rest of the world is like that. The world also needs lawyers, researchers, teachers, and a whole list of other jobs, yet those jobs are also well known for having horrible job markets and lots of debt.
While unreproducible data does exist, I'd honestly blame mainstream news organizations more than the researchers themselves for all this 'course correcting'.
Case in point, back in my bio days I worked in a lab that published an article on CBD knockdown of metastatic cancer genes in cell cultures. Mainstream news organizations picked it up and published it as "Smoking pot cures cancer" pieces, which was not at all what our research even touched on.
I never understood comments like this. Whoever said it's either/or?
Watching a football game is about three hours out of your week, and that's only for 1/3 of the year when it actually is football season. Less than that if your team doesn't make it to the playoffs.
I've spent a considerable amount of time volunteering in my past while being able to enjoy football all the same. The same can be said about any number of hobbies. Comments like this do nothing but create a false dichotomy.
Bokeh can be overused, sure, but it still has its place. It helps immensely with separating the subject from the background and some (much better than me) photographers can do great things with narrow DoF. Beyond that, you don't even need that expensive a lens to get good narrow DoF. A nifty fifty is enough to get you there.