knappe

Yep, so do I. But there has to be at least some consequences for their actions. This seems like the bare minimum and a good place to start.

I really think you're being pedantic to the point of detriment. Runner's knee is a very well known condition in, wait for it, runners!

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/patellofemora...

- if budget isn't balanced all members of congress become ineligible for election

Ask Colorado how TABOR[0] is going. The answer is a 1.5 BILLION[1] deficit because TABOR restricts how money is collected and spent by the state.

A balanced budget isn't actually all it is cracked up to be. The deficit spending at the federal level we have now is bonkers, but a balanced budget every year is just unrealistic. Learn from Colorado and do not put yourself into an unrealistic corner. A budget will grow and shrink with the economy -- a balanced budget over X years seems much more realistic. It would mean we could have never, at a federal level, done the kind of spending necessary to cope with COVID, for example.

What I'd like to see is Congress be entirely unable to draw a paycheck while the government is shutdown. Shutdowns are a last resort, but are now so common we have normalized them. This is immensely unfair to federal workers and everything downstream that depends on a functioning government, like SNAP benefits. If the government shuts down over budget issues, make the people who made that decision pay HEAVILY for the action.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights [1] https://coloradosun.com/2026/03/19/colorado-budget-shortfall...

Right. Those productive companies that totally didn't just steal the entirety of humanities production to build their product.

Yeah, I distinctionly remember a postdoc I knew who was irrationally excited to move to a role where they were going to get paid $35k, in 2010s money, and they were damn excited about it. And they were moving to a high cost of living area (from a high cost of living area). I was utterly flabbergasted because they were very smart, very technical and should have been earning 5-10x that. I feel like they didn't know what they were worth and academia had utterly failed to teach them that.

I don't know how they paid any of their accumulated (I assume) student debt, let alone had an even decent standard of living.

The article articulated this enough, I thought but I guess not.

They're interfering with officially gathered data, used to forecast the weather. And they're not just gambling. They're also gaming the system to make money on it. This goes far beyond 'just gambling'.

Give terraforming mars a try. Massive replayability with a lot of expansions to add to replayability and the theme is really really good. It isn't a worker placement game but you do get a lot of RNG from card drafting each round. The drafting is really great for strategic play as you can see what your opponents picked and build a plan around it

It is also a fantastic 2 player game. My wife and I have played hundreds of matches and it was our go to game during the pandemic.

PSA: don't bother with the steam edition. It has been plagued with bugs and is honestly more infuriating to play as the bugs can be game breaking. And the bugs have been around for years.

Some panel manufacturing has been moved to the US and is actually thriving. Qcells keeps growing, year over year and as of 2023 had expanded their US facilities to manufacture more than 5.1 GW[0] of annual production. I'm aware this is a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated 339 GW[1] of annual production in China, but we're also talking about a single manufacturer operating in an actively hostile administration and yet is still managing to grow.

Given this is the top comment on the article at the moment, I thought it was worth at least pushing back on this sentiment at least a little bit.

[0]https://us.qcells.com/blog/qcells-north-america-completes-da...

[1] https://futurism.com/science-energy/solar-energy-china-produ...

They're not referencing the subsidies.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-offshore-wind-energy-climat...

This is so distasteful. We're talking about the potential death of astronauts here. Maybe be a little less glib and uncaring.

Traditionally (pre-ai) you would use another image of the same part of the sky and negate the items that you want to remove from the image

As an example terrestrial telescope mirrors get dusty. You're not going to break down the scope just to clean up the dust as this is a many days operation in most cases. So instead you would take "flats" that were of a pure white background and thus showed the dust in its full, dusty, glory. When you take your actual images, you negate (subtract from the original image) the flat and thus any noise generated by the dust. You can use this same method for removing brighter stars from an image that would otherwise saturate the ccd and wash out the background. Turns out it doesn't work for planes. Ask me how I know!

You can, but it is damn difficult.

https://www.volts.wtf/p/is-the-brand-new-city-in-california

That is where I originally watched it. It was on Netflix at one point. And now, it is not. Which is most of the problem with streaming service in general.

Meanwhile that same Suncor facility that is keeping gas prices low is also routinely and continually violating EPA and Colorado air quality standards. [0]

It is so bad that the state has implemented fence line monitoring. [1]

As someone who lives in Colorado, I'd be happy to see Suncor go. Especially now that I just learned the oil they're refining is Canadian tar sand oil.

[0] https://coloradosun.com/2024/02/05/colorado-suncor-air-pollu... [1] https://cdphe.colorado.gov/public-information/air-quality-an...

No, no they're not. I would much rather people are warned about the guidelines and adhere to them going forward than the opposite and we then just let violations run rampant.

What really reinforced this for me was learning to what lengths some hedge funds are willing to go to get an edge. Case in point: buying GIS data on major retailer's parking lots to get a feel for holiday earnings. No retail investor is ever going to be able to match that kind of Intel, ever.

I buy index funds and leave the majority of my money there but allow myself to make small bets on trends in the market that I think will play over long periods. Sometimes it works, like buying lithium stocks in the 2010s and other times it sucks and doesn't, like buying solar stocks in the 2010s and watching the entire industry get shredded to pieces in the last 5 years.

I’d say under 10% of junior résumés I look at give me confidence that they’d show up and know how to write real systems instead of just gluing things together

They're juniors. With that kind of mentality, I'm not sure you're looking for juniors, but instead are looking for someone with a few years in industry that is apparently masquerading as a junior. But perhaps my expectation of "real systems" is different than yours.

To put this into perspective, I mentor and have mentored lots of juniors from code schools and traditional, four year university computer science majors in web dev. Having some concept of both the web stack/language and a basic understanding of good coding practices is about the most I'd expect. All thing things that sit on top of it, like scaling the stack, performance optimizations and the like are things I wouldn't even come close to expecting a junior to know. Those are things I'd expect to have to coach on.

Source for this claim?

My father just retired as a lab analyst looking at builder samples for both modern and historical construction, specifically for asbestos.

The day I moved into the college dorms he looked at me and said "Don't move the floor tiles, ceilings tiles or the touch the large ventilation pipe outside my door in the hallway." A lot of the buildings at my university were built with asbestos, so much so that the university had a 30 year contract with the lab he worked at to analyze samples.

And it isn't only historical buildings that have asbestos. A very well known mall that was built in the 2000s had incurred some severe hail damage and while the repairs were ongoing samples were taken and found to be hot. Someone had introduced asbestos contaminated materials into the original build and rather than extensive repairs the mall had to do extensive remediation first, before continuing repairs.

Apparently there is still a large stock of "hot" building material that are sitting in warehouses and every once in a while they make it into the supply chain.

It took them 67 days to disclose that their premier product, which is used heavily in the industry, had been compromised. Does anyone know why it seems like we're seeing disclosures like this take longer and longer to be disclosed? I would think the adage "Bad news travels fast" would apply more often in these cases, if only to limit the scope of the damage.

This reminded me to go look up what Japan was doing with their space junk net. Turns out it failed to deploy in 2017, and nothing has really been done with the idea since. :|

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00945...

Look dude, read the papers or read the book. I don't have much more to offer you. This isn't just about the forest itself but about the land used to grow the forest.

"In the Carbon Costs of Global Wood Harvests, published in Nature in 2023, WRI researchers using a biophysical model estimated that annual wood harvests over the next few decades will emit 3.5-4.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. That is more than 3 times the world’s current annual average aviation emissions. These wood-harvest emissions occur because the great majority of carbon stored in trees is released to the atmosphere after harvest when roots and slash decompose; as most wood is burned directly for heat or electricity or for energy at sawmills or paper mills; and when discarded paper products, furniture and other wood products decompose or burn. Another recent paper in Nature found that the word’s remaining forests have lost even more carbon, primarily due to harvesting wood, than was lost historically by converting forests to agriculture (other studies have found similar results1). Based on these analyses, a natural climate solution would involve harvesting less wood and letting more forests regrow. This would store more carbon as well as enhance forest biodiversity."[0]

[0]https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/wood-harvest-emis...

And the original paper that introduced the idea of land use https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1151861

It makes perfect sense.

Forest are only carbon sinks if they stay as a forest. The second you cut one down it goes from being a sink to source. Searchinger's argument states that more forests will be grown to be cut down if burning wood pellets (that are shipped from North America to the EU) is considered renewable and that means you're now cutting down even more forests to clear land for growing more trees. The land used is not free; it could have instead stayed a forest and remained a carbon sink. When you compare wood pellets using for generating energy and compare it to other forms of energy generation it no longer holds up as a renewable resource after you take into account the land that could have been kept instead as a forest and carbon sink.

That it isn't sustainable. As Eating the Earth points out, by growing trees to then cut them down again we're not accounting for the cost of using that same forested land for anything else, like a forest which is a great carbon sink. Instead burning wood pellets is considered renewable until you consider the cost of using that land for something else in which case it isn't a renewal resource.

This is an excerpt from Eating the Earth. The entire point of the book is that when we consider land use, we're not accounting for other uses for that same land (or how other land would be used) because the land, prior to Searchinger's work in the field all calculations did not consider this factor. Even after Searchinger published their work showing the flaws on land use, it was often ignored.

If you find the excerpt underwhelming, go read the book. I will warn you that in some ways it feels more like a memoir of Searchinger's life than a book on land use considerations, but, despite that, it still does a great job of showing how land use is still not being accounted for in all situations.

I finished Eating the Earth last week and found it rather interesting to read.

And I've seen video games cause people to destroy their lives.

What else should we arbitrarily ban based on this criteria? It doesn't seem to hold up to much scrutiny.

It does not follow that a larger aging population means that the healthcare system must collapse as a result. Japan has been dealing with this issue for decades and notably their healthcare system has not collapsed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan

One of my favorite quotes from one of my Astro professors is "Everything has an atmosphere, it is a matter of how tenuous".

I think the article shows how relevant this still is today.

I go back and forth on the issue. I read our local municipal water reports but then things like this happen https://www.vaildaily.com/news/climax-mine-can-now-release-h...

Denver water couldn't force the mine to continue cleanup of the molybdenum (because they're bankrupt) and instead raised the tolerable levels of molybdenum in Denver water. The same thing happened in 2017, 2010 and I'm certain before that. And then we have things like this https://www.cpr.org/2025/06/04/free-private-well-testing-ote...

Colorado has some serious issues with mine runoff and water contamination.

https://www.pagosasun.com/stories/the-day-the-river-turned-o...

Mostly. I run a pihole and it blocks most traffic, but of course it depends on updates to the denylist to keep up to date on what to block. uBlock helps here, but uBlock doesn't run in chrome now.