thaway2839

If you extrapolate the charts, it looks like if they simply waited one more year the mental health benefits would be the same.

Moving to a less green area appears to be accompanied by an immediate drop in mental health, followed by a steady increase. The only difference from those charts when moving to the rural areas is that there is no immediate drop, which appears to account for all the difference. And the mental health benefits of rural areas appears to plateau, so it's completely possible that the move to the less green area will catch up in the mental health benefit aspect within the year.

So basically a massive worst case financial crisis led to something almost, but not actually, failing.

Sounds like the system worked extremely well.

Part of the reason you can do that, though, is that based on your age, you spent most of your life living in a way where you were naturally active, just to get through the day. You likely did not grow up eating food that was manufactured to addict you to it. And you did not grow up on platforms that have scores of PHds trying to figure out how to get you, individually, addicted to their platform.

IOW, your natural instincts largely worked because your environment supported a fairly high quality lifestyle.

This is not close to true anymore. Our natural instincts and daily lives have been hijacked beyond recognition.

With WFH, for example, people may go days without having walked beyond the distance it takes to go from their bed to their desk, or if they're lucky, from their bedroom to the home office.

I hope the Apple production isn't like the MLB one.

The MLB production is crap. They really need to stop making it look like an Apple product.

This is a strawman.

You don't need to reduce energy to reduce air pollution.

And that makes it a horrible currency. It makes it highly deflationary which absolutely stunts the working of an economy because no one wants to spend anymore.

Good currencies are not stores of value. They are means of exchange. And crypto is a horrible means of exchange.

It may have some use as a store of value (i.e. digital gold), but it's not clear to me why I would store my value in digital gold, which will require people to altruistically spend money on energy after 2040 or so when no more Bitcoins are generated for miners (in practice much earlier as each mined BTC gets increasingly expensive), to maintain the blockchain, as opposed to investing in real gold, which can literally sit under my mattress and not require a network of planet burning computers for it to not vanish.

Lol, so 18% of their employees have access to personal data.

Ok. I am very comfortable entrusting my data to this company.

I don't understand your link to the Onion here.

Are you joking or do you not realize that the Onion is satire?

Also, discretionary here is entirely a political/legal term.

I think one would find it very hard to argue that military spending is discretionary for any major nation in the layman sense of that word, even if the US's military spending is beyond control (on the flip side, the US also gets much less value for its military spending relative to say the value China gets for its military spending).

Next thing you will be telling everybody is that Bitcoin was promoted as a hedge against inflation.

The real economy actually produces value. It feeds people, clothes people, entertains people, etc. even if it does so imperfectly. The economy's value dropping 20% a day would represent a real problem that needs to be addressed.

We saw this when COVID began. The stock markets were plummeting as people increasingly realized that COVID was not gonna be gone by Easter, and that this would affect us for some time and how impactful it would be.

With crypto, the only thing that the falling prices is tell us that another layer of the onion of scams that crypto is built upon has been peeled, and the only real question is how deep the layers go and whether there even is something of value deep inside.

Sounds like a better, potentially more useful, form of peer review?

Most people using Atom or any other open source project, would likely have based their decision at least partly on the organization backing the project, especially in a professional setting.

For the most part, when a different organization picks up the development of the project (if one does) it's a completely new project at this point (there are exceptions, such as a backing organization continuing to back the project, but deciding that it's better supported by an independent trust, and therefore building a transition plan for that).

The best example of this is looking at any Apache supported project today. There are very few projects that were handed over to the Apache foundation that people would want to continue using in their post Apache handover date, even if they were amongst the lucky few that still have active development (OpenOffice, for example).

Sunsetting is absolutely the right term/approach to use.

I'm pretty sure people are actually using it.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Progressive DAs elected across some cities are just really bad at being DAs.

They've identified a real issue where 10% (arbitrarily chosen number...it could be higher/lower) of the justice system is not working well. But at the same time, 90% of it does work. They've turned out to be really bad at handling that 90%.

I don't understand what you mean.

It's very clear that Republicans don't actually believe that improving mental health or mental healthcare is actually a solution to gun deaths, but only use it as a distraction from improving gun regulations that are desired by over 80% of Americans, including a majority of gun owners.

Democrats on the other hand actually do understand that mental health issues are a part of the gun problem, and therefore provide solutions to tackle it both by improving mental health care access, as well as improving background checks to prevent those with mental health issues from accessing lethal weaponry easily.

Every life insurance has clauses that don't pay out under certain circumstances (such as suicide).

And even if they do eventually pay, it matters the hoops they make your family run through and the time they take to pay out.

How does the author know how much Google is paying for the insurance?

My company shows how much the "cost" of any particular insurance they are covering is, but those aren't the actual prices they are paying.

Lightning cables don't last. They are a complete disaster. And that's not even considering how a little bit of dust can prevent your device from charging at all, and lightning ports are a complete dust magnet.

But the best argument against "what about lightning?" is the fact that Apple themselves don't use it on their higher powered devices like macs, and use USB-C instead.

This is the ultimate problem with Clubhouse/Twitter spaces.

Podcasts exist. And they're already great for 1 way audio communication.

So Clubhouse had to push for N-way audio communication as a differentiator, and it's really hard for that to be useful.

It's really rare for the audience's contribution to be useful. And it's even rarer for the audience contribution to be useful in a way that cannot be done equally as well, if not better, in an associated chat room with a live podcast.

Unless you're a bully, you will only use nicknames that the individual themselves has offered you to use.

What a terrible decision by DDG. That's as generous as I can get regd. this.

Relentless pressure to conform and be a "team player" + massive levels of doublethink and hypocrisy + lack of parental guidance and care even in two-parent households because everyone has to work and has no time and energy for raising children.

And why does that only lead to more mass shooting events? Why doesn't it lead to all sorts of other violent crime that went down significantly over this period? Why would overall violent crime drop drastically over this period of time?

Attention seeking may be an answer, because it would explain why it leads to all these mental pressure increasing the number of media covered mass shootings, even if overall crime was going down. But the mental illness aspect simply doesn't fit. We should be seeing an increase in overall violence if so many 18 year olds were mentally unwell.

Suggesting ideas is not the same as assuming everyone else should have the exact same design choice and architecture. The problem is that the actual issue owner on the Google side does not appear to have any solutions (or is burying solutions because they may be too complex).

It's pretty clear that the issue owner agrees there is something wrong here. That's why the issue is kept open and their only reason for not fixing it is that it's a complicated fix which requires effort.

As a workaround, they offer Drew the opportunity to essentially disable his service from being used as a useful source of Go modules.

4 GB/day is a different person facing the same issue who is hosting a single module they claim is likely only used by them.

The second link is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I'm sure there are a lot of shitty Google devs who have behaved shittily with others. I don't think that's reason for, say, an ISP, to ignore any issues Google might face as an entity.

The relevant first link clearly lays out an implementation problem. It's not just git.sr.ht that's facing it, but another user also comes in to point out a tremendous amount of traffic. An amount of traffic that is fairly irresponsible to say the least.

The issue owner doesn't deny the problem. They simply say it requires work. It appears they are unwilling to do the work to resolve the unsavory behavior, and instead are asking the host of Go modules to disable the ability for their service to be used as a Go module host, or instead suck it up and deal with the cost and complications of Google not putting in the effort to fix their architecture's DDoSish behavior.

Google and Go have the market power to pull this off, but let's not pretend this isn't bad behavior. An appeal to Drew's terrible personal communication style does not change that.

Unfortunately US courts have taken a very dim view towards adjusting balance of power.

For example, I don't think there's anywhere else where the mere act of purchasing a product or service can result in you giving up the right to sue the company in court and be forced to enter arbitration with an arbiter of the company's choice.

It clearly isn't a direct and obvious violation.

Even ignoring any say the rest of the Constitution has on civil forfeiture, even the parts that you quote do not prevent civil forfeitures on their own.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

The rub here is "unreasonable". The fact that the constitution explicitly proscribes "unreasonable" seizures means it also allows "reasonable" seizures.

So there is no clear answer here because unreasonable is completely subjective.

The constitution is contradictory. It isn't a perfect document written on a stone tablet by god.

And legal systems of any nation are more than just the constitution.

So the idea that you can just read one clause in the constitution and therefore clearly know what is allowed and isn't (also, even the interpretation of that clause is not as easy as you are portraying here) is absolutely false.

Is this a known thing? I'm convinced it's the case, especially for emails from the 2000s. My email usage dropped in the 2010s, so I don't have as much important stuff stored in there, but there are periods of my Inbox history, where I know I was using Gmail heavily, that have basically little more than a handful of emails anymore.