Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
badged content
recently badged: kleinbl00  bfv  _refugee_  johnnyFive  PTR  
_thoracic  ·  60 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Today's Writing Prompt: This Is What It's Like

“This is what it’s like” says your instructor, watching you carefully for mistakes

        Training you on bandages, splints, and the cruel rhythm of chest compressions

Teaching you what kills right away, and what takes a while longer.

Telling you that sometimes all you can do is hold a hand and say something kind.

And you listen, wide-eyed.

“This is what it’s like” says your crew chief, pulling you up into the ambulance.

        Showing you streets, the bad stretches of interstates, the homes of frequent fliers. 

Reminding you to check pockets for knives and arms for track marks.

Relaying experience’s thousand little lessons, unteachable in the classroom.

And you listen, working hard to show your worth.

“This is what it’s like” say your patients, pointing to where it hurts.

        Screaming with pain, clutching an extremity turned the wrong way. 

Groaning and sweating, grabbing at their chest saying it’s just like the last one.

Lying still and silent, unknowingly trusting a stranger with everything.

And you listen, replying with soothing words.

“This is what it’s like” says your gear, speaking in clicks, beeps and error messages.

        The defibrillator whines its way up to 300 joules, saying it’ll try but no promises. 

The ambulance growls, bouncing and rattling over potholes as you try to start an IV

The BVM whooshes, fighting to push breath into a ruined airway.

And you listen, hoping that together it’ll make a difference.

“This is what it’s like” says the notch in your shears, bearing witness.

        Reminding you of that one, the one no one could have saved. 

Pulling you back into the dirt and blood of the scene, unbidden.

Making you feel old, far older than you should be by now.

And you listen, wishing you didn’t have to.

“This is what it’s like” says the calendar, slowly passing time

        Marking out your shifts, 12-hour gambles on what’ll come your way. 

Quietly telling you it’s almost time to renew your license again.

Studded with anniversaries you’d prefer not to remember, but can’t quite forget.

And you listen, stunned that it’s been this long.

“This is what it’s like” you say to the newbies, watching them carefully for mistakes

        Training them on bandages, splints, and the cruel rhythm of chest compressions

Teaching them what kills right away, and what takes a while longer.

Telling them that sometimes all you can do is hold a hand and say something kind.

And they listen, wide-eyed.
veen  ·  64 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The Seven Deadly Sins of AI Predictions

qrguy  ·  96 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: May 24, 2017

Your original transaction sent 0.00859833 BTC to your new address, paid 0.00025 BTC in miner fees, and sent the remaining 0.0002924 BTC in "change" back to the original paper wallet.

Of that remaining 0.0002924 BTC, I sent 0.0002424 BTC to myself, and paid the last 0.00005 in miner fees. The paper wallet now has nothing left. I probably could have used a lower fee, if I had been willing to wait longer. The transaction backlog isn't as bad as when you tried it.

I also stole your 0.0002924 in Bitcoin Cash from the same address.

I recovered the private key by filling in the blanks in your picture. The private key was on your receipt twice -- once as a barcode and once as text. You covered up part of each, but not the same parts -- QR codes actually start laying out the data from the bottom right. So I could reconstruct that corner using the beginning of the text.

This was how far I got before my phone could scan it (with a bit of difficulty):

Even if I hadn't been able to fill that much in, the combination of you showing most of the QR code, plus its built in redundancy, means that it would likely have been feasible to brute force the remaining bits of the key.

lil  ·  101 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Elemental haiku

This poem is handy to know. Recently a friend of mine dropped his iPhone into water. People said to put it in a bag with rice, a common response.

(Note - just checked the rice-cell phone solution here.)

The rice soution gave me a chance to quote Fire and [R]ice.)

  Some say the cell phone will end in fire, some in rice.

From what I've tasted of desire, I hold with those who

favour fire

But if it had to perish twice

I think I know enough of hate

to say that for destruction rice

is also great

and will suffice.

My friend said, "Wow, did you make that up just now?"

Clearly he wasn't a Frost fan.

OftenBen  ·  119 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: If someone gives you a badge, can you then give it away?

You don't get to give away badges that your content has been given.

Devac  ·  119 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: If someone gives you a badge, can you then give it away?

Badges received from others and the badges you earned by persisted posts and comments are in different counters. One does not influence the other.

It's like a gift to put on your mantle piece, man. You don't just give your recognition away. ;)

weewooweewoo  ·  121 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: A Flower Pot of Significant Personal Importance

I once had three mice. I named them Theodore, Buttercup, and The Holy Spirit. They were feeder mice meant to be fed to snakes. I had them for about 6 months and they helped with my depression. Mice are particularly hard to pet, and they started to hiss and bite at me whenever I went to feed them in the cage. This went on for awhile and on one particularly bad day I decided to kill them off. I rationalized that they were feeder mice that were going to die anyway. I took a half empty jar of peanut butter and put then waited awhile before I put the lid on it.

I woke up the next day feeling the absolute worst, and I was worried that my family would come in and notice that my mice were missing. I bought three more mice and pretended that everything was fine, but in the back of my mind I felt that there was an aura of fear left behind by the previous trio and these new mice knew that I was a mouse killer. I kept them until I left to find myself across the US and I couldn't find anyone to take care of them and I didn't have any friends with snakes so I decided to kill them in the same way, in a peanut butter jar.

I don't trust myself to take care of pets or plants right now. If you buy a succulent I'll buy a succulent.

coffeesp00ns  ·  125 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: About this Googler's manifesto

I think this game is an interesting response to the original manifesto as well

steve  ·  171 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The World Economic Forum presents: The Death of Retirement

Welp... I might as well take the whole bottle of pills and lie back down...

steve  ·  176 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: GOING ON TOUR!

Four miles west of downtown Denver. Super convenient to highways and amenities. PM me if Denver makes sense for your travel schedule. Even if it's just for a lunch stop, hit me up and I'll buy the band lunch.

Edit: screw that - you guys should come stay if possible. We could even do a house show. And your keys player has to show my oldest kid a thing or two.

malen  ·  204 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: 228th Weekly "Share Some Music You've Been Into Lately" Thread

Only recently learned about Langley Schools Music Project, and I was just enchanted by it. So emotional

kleinbl00  ·  231 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The French Election Is Way Too Close To Call

So a "fixed payment annuity" is effectively an agreement between you and whoever manages the annuity. The agreement says that if you make payments over the allotted time, when the annuity reaches maturity, the manager will pay you back. What's typical (what my pension looks like) is you work for a certain amount of time to be vested, then you contribute the requisite number of hours or days or years of employment, then when you've reached that number (and usually a prequalifying age), the annuity manager lets you flip the switch from "putting in" to "taking out" which you typically do until you die.

My grandfather was a regional president of the AFL. He was a tool and die machinist, and then he was a union foreman. His pension kicked in at 65 and provided him with something like 75% of his salary until he died, and then it was supposed to provide his wife with 50% of his salary until she died. I think his other choice was 100% until he died, and then 25% to his wife until she died. That pension was written in the '40s, kicked in in the late '60s, and paid him until the early '90s.

It's not atypical for the money that you get out of a pension will be more than the money you put into a pension. This shortfall is covered by the fact that the pension manager has your money now to pay you later so they can invest it, earn interest, make stock splits, etc etc etc. In other words, they're taking on the risk but also capturing any gains above and beyond what's necessary to pay out the pensions of the accounts under management.

Now take me - I've been in my union since 2008. I got enough union work to start earning healthcare and start vesting in 2013. At the end of this year, I'll be eligible to actually get money out of my pension when I retire - but I'm a six figure guy and as it sits, I think my pension payout when I reach retirement age will be like $137 a month. Now - if I keep mixing high-budget full-pop network shows under my union contract for the next seventeen years, my payout will reach.... drumroll please... $837 a month.

Now granted: That's nice money. But I earn more than that in a day every time I work on a holiday and once I retire, i won't be. And a lot of the reason is that the pension managers can't guarantee they'll make killer gains to cover the shortfall.

A lot of the reason is medical plans. See, retirement and medical benefits are often mixed together and when the 'boomers were getting their rippin' pension and health plans set up in the late '60s/ early '70s...

...they weren't expecting to spend a factor of ten what they were currently spending.

I've got great health insurance. It's good enough that I leave my family for three months a year to keep it. And COBRA on it is like $1800 a month. That's for three young, healthy people. Now - I got a buddy whose wife is currently dealing with early-onset Alzheimer's. I have another friend who has been dealing with skin cancer. And I have another friend who regularly tears himself up falling off of horses. And the medical plan pays out for all that.

Combine that with the fact that it's gotten harder and harder to make the kind of gains that pension plans are used to.

twenty fucking percent. And since like 2011 the interbank rate in the US has been close enough to zero that it might as well be nothing. The rest of the world? Something like 2/3rds of the world's currency was under negative interest rates for the past three years. And if your pension plan was set up on the assumption that it could make an easy 10% a year because it always had forever and ever amen, you have a massive pension shortfall.

So that's pensions. You put a set amount of money in, you eventually take a set amount of money out, and the pension manager covers the shortfall by profiting off your contributions. Great to be a pension manager if that's easy, shitty to be a pension manager if it's hard, used to be easy, is now hard. Pension shortfalls 101.

401(k)s? Those are just bank accounts. They're bank accounts with special tax status but they're just bank accounts. You put money in, your employer matches it, and you play the ponies. You get to see every month (or every second, depending on how interested you are) just how your 401(k) is doing and you get to rebalance it, reallocate it, contribute to it, draw it down, use it as collateral, tap into it under penalty, all that fun shit entirely on your own. If you don't have enough money in your 401(k) when it's time to retire, that shit's all on you - you should have saved more. You should have invested more wisely. Your employer has fuckall to do with it - it's their pension fund but it's your 401(k).

If your pension is with CalPERS, you're fucked because they ran out of money. If your 401(k) was with Enron, you were fucked because you folded your retirement plan into a house of cards.. If you were a public worker, you had no choice other than what CalPERS invested in. If you worked for Enron you had all the choice in the world - but it seemed like the smart thing was to invest in your employer.

Ironically enough, Steve Bannon blames the latter for his worldview.

kleinbl00  ·  233 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The Blueprint for Coffee in a Changing Climate

Okay. Look. I get it. Save the earth one cup at a time. Do right by your supply chain. Get the girl, kill the baddies and save the entire planet. And hooray for having your heart in the right place and sure - this is not a large trade organization and it doesn't have a lot of power so at least they're taking on what they can take on.

But this whole paper is an excuse for inaction. Cliff's notes on Action Item 3, "Measure and Reduce your Carbon Footprint:"

- Farmer Brothers (1800 employees, $240m sales)

- Determined that 85% of their carbon emissions come from roasting coffee

- Determined that 14% of their carbon emissions come from driving coffee

- Determined that 1% of their carbon emissions come from being in business

- So they got their engines certified clean idle

- And bought some carbon certificates

- To advance their goal of reducing their carbon emissions by 80% forty fucking years in the future

How many carbon credits did they buy? So few it didn't even make their self-fellating annual report. And - and here's my beef -

it wouldn't do fuckall about the future of coffee anyway.

Your argument - more money in cows than in coffee. To acknowledge that briefly, ranching is generally done on public lands while farming is done on private but we'll ignore that. One cow takes about 1.3 acres per year and one cow is good for about 500lbs of trimmed beef (and byproducts). Argentinian beef trades wholesale for $330/kt (or so) or $330/2200lb or 15 cents a pound so your 1.3 acres is earning you 75 bucks or, wholesale, you're making $57 per acre.

How 'bout coffee?

I know a shit-ton less about coffee than you do. All I have available to me is public information. When I google "coffee yield per acre" I get an article that tells me traditional methods yield as little as 450lbs an acre while intensive farming can push that up to 3,000 lbs. So right there, I know that if a specialty coffee association member wants to make a difference, he needs to find a modern farm that isn't fucking around because apparently the agricultural multiplier is a factor of seven. But how much are we getting for a pound of coffee?

Good thing your buddies at the SCAA are available to tell me. Looks like $1.75/lb. So even fucking around with shade-grown don't-care cherries-roasting-in-the-sun agriculture, a coffee plantation makes about a factor of ten over beef. But, of course, the capital expenditures to plant an acre of coffee and raise it to harvest are intense and no doubt reflected in that.

So I come back to this point - the links in the paper you shared all indicate that a coffee plantation is good for 30-50 years. They also indicate that 50 years from now, coffee will be coming from very different places. And digging into it a little more, it becomes obvious that an enterprising coffee roaster that actually wanted to make a difference (as opposed to sit around the tradegroup campfire singing koom bay yah) might get involved with some agricultural NGOs attempting to get ahead of the production curve on a crop that has a heavy sunk cost, an admirable response to intensive agriculture and the demand curve of a luxury item.

THEIR REPORT SHOULD BE BETTER THAN THIS.

Because see, if southern Mexico is currently the world's 8th largest arabica producer, I'ma guess that in 50 years south-central Mexico is gonna be the world's 8th largest arabica producer and if white-boy me can have some influence now that pushes things closer to the 3,000lb/acre number than the 450lb/acre number, FUCKIN'A PUT THAT SHIT IN WRITING.

    OVER THE NEXT 25 TO 30 YEARS, SALES OF TIMBER HARVESTED SUSTAINABLY ARE ESTIMATED TO GENERATE APPROXIMATELY U.S. $1,264,820 IN SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME TO THE PARTICIPATING COFFEE FARMERS

At the most, that's the equivalent of 50 acres of coffee. That's a legit "who gives a fuck" statistic. But your trade group gave it a quarter of a page.

I drink coffee. I like it. I want to keep doing it. And for fuck's sake, if your industry is worrying about 50% of the available land going away in the next 50 years, fuckin' do something about it.

    IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS.

    Minimize travelling and transport distances. Choose airlines with green travel credentials and choose economy class.

If you're worried about the carbon imprint of your ass in business class, you're worrying about the wrong damn thing. I mean - sure. Maybe you feel better riding in economy class because your tradegroup told you to. But I'd rather know that you're taking steps to not burn more of the Amazon.

And this paper says fuckall about the Amazon.

realusername  ·  247 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Full Debate - Animals Should Be Off The Menu?

Ignoring the morality of eating animals, on the subject of the animals, raising animals as/for food is horrible for the environment.

Cows/pigs/ships contaminate water sources.

Mammals fart, which in big enough numbers is pushing global warming.

The resources used to prepare one meal from an animal can be used to make up-to 100 meals from plants.

This effects everyone, no one is above global warming, yea the poor will be screwed more then the rich, but everyone are screwed. So avoiding eating animals for this reason alone in your self interest (unless you are going to die soon).

Food prices mostly affect poor people, and less so in richer countries, those that can afford to eat enough meat make global changes in the economy will be effected by it, so it goes to morality (do you care that your enjoyment of eating dead animals might starve someone to death ?).

There is also the subject of heart problems and colon cancer, you are less likely to die from them if you go vegan.

I think those are the main topics of eating animals, from there it's a personal choice, do I care about my heart ? do I care about global warming ? people less fortunate then me ? can I handle the social aspects of going vegan ? can I handle the mental changes required to change my diet ?

    I call Scotland "dude" because I'm from California, and she and I have that kind of comfort in our relationship.

For the record, I consider "dude" to be gender neutral ;)

    The real question is, am I rude or inconsiderate or diminishing if I don't remember your gender preference and preferred pronoun to put in front of "coffeesp00ns"?

    I'm honestly asking. I have no idea of ooli or War or rd95 or snoodog's gender, and only know Elizabeth's and Lil's because of their names, and know kleinbl00's because I know the guy in person.

IMO, no, you're not being inconsiderate. The nature of online discourse means that gender is generally a lot less relevant unless it is inherently a part of the topic being discussed - which is how it should be IRL as well. If we were in public, however, and I had spoken with you and told you the pronouns I wanted you to use, and presented as female, and you still used "he/him" for me, I'd probably be seriously uncomfortable.

The most important thing to do? If you don't know - ASK. I have never met a trans person who would be more upset by you asking their gender than they would be by you getting their gender wrong. And if you mess it up the second time around, just correct and don't make a big deal - We're way more scared than you are.

I do think it's a good case of due diligence to look up some of the linguistics behind trans stuff, just because It's not really going away any time soon so far as i can see. So, like email and internet and cell phone, it's something we all have to learn. the same thing might become the case if the community and/or english scholars can decide on what gender neutral pronoun to use (probably singular they because our language already sort of supports it - like taking advantage of a weird compatibility in a program).

So here's a basic rundown on some stuff that, if you know, makes wading through conversations

Transgender person - Someone whose gender differs from the one their doctor put on their birth certificate.

Trans(gender) woman - Someone who previously used he/him pronouns who now uses she/her pronouns. That person could have been assigned male by their doctor at birth, or possibly had unclear genitalia at birth and was raised as a male. Regardless, they now will likely be going by female pronouns.

Trans(gender) man - Someone who previously used she/her pronouns who now uses he/him pronouns. That person could have been assigned female by their doctor at birth, or possibly had unclear genitalia at birth and was raised as a female. Regardless, they now will likely be going by male pronouns.

genderqueer - One of many words used to describe people who don't feel strongly as either male or female. An example might be someone who dresses very androgynously and uses they/them pronouns.

Cisgender - Cis is the opposite of the latin Trans - Cisalpine Gaul, for example, meaning the area of Gaul on the Roman side of the Alps, and Trans Atlantic meaning across the Atlantic Ocean. A Cisgender person is someone whose gender is the same as the one the doctor put on their birth certificate. That means that a cisgender man will likely, but not exclusively have XY chromosomes and a cisgender woman will likely, but not exclusively have XX chromosomes. Chromosomes, and genetics, are complicated.

    I gotta wonder if the gendering of anybody is really of material value

I mean, in a perfect world gender wouldn't be a factor in how we talk about each other. Men and women would exist perfectly equally. Trans people would still exist, but their taking of hormones to change their body wouldn't be a social issue, just a private one.

However, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where we put people into boxes because humans like little tidy boxes. Turns out that the world of human gender doesn't fit into our two box system of male and female, or even into some other cultures' Three gender box (though more boxes is likely better). So we are currently at a cultural turning point where we have to deal with trans people again. It's happened before (see the Weimar Republic for a recent example), and our choice has been to sweep trans people under the rug - Hopefully we can prevent that from happening again and start to change the way we look at gender.

Hope some of this helps.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah fuckin' blah.

LOOK

I give money.

I contribute to culture.

I make the arguments.

I financially support the candidates (FUCKING OUT OF STATE CANDIDATES).

Blah blah blah blah "The left gave the fuck up on a lot of "Flyover Country" and now they don't have the House, they don't have the Senate and they only control 26% of the state legislatures" EAT A FUCKING DICK.

This has been said so many times it's like the fuckin' koreans and their goddamn breath-stealing fans. "The Left gave up on Flyover Country." What the fuck does that even mean? Does that mean, like, when every liberal under the sun petitioned Scott Fucking Walker about unions despite the fact that we're pretty much never in Wisconsin? Does that mean giving to Planned Parenthood despite the fact that we're not young, not female, not pregnant and have absolutely zero difficulty pointing to eighteen places within a ten mile radius that perform abortions? Does that mean bussing to fucking New Orleans to help rebuild after Katrina? Because that's how the Left gave up on "Flyover Country." Meanwhile the shows we're showing you don't represent your values, the food we eat is somehow offensive to your deep-fried ass, the music we play offends your pedal steel heart and the fact that you fucks consistently vote against women, black people and the poor is somehow

OUR

FUCKING

FAULT.

So look. Y'all can pick your own fucking candidates, with your own fucking money, and twist in your own fucking wind. And yeah - the Republicans are going to take it all. Here's the difference: you shitheads wanted this. Us "coastal elites?" We voted for what we wanted, clear and simple, and got everything we wanted locally, clear and simple, and the values we represent, the values we live, the values we put forth? The ones that you're pissed off because somehow, we "abandoned" you?

Who's doing the abandoning, shithead?

Sure. Win some fucking elections. But you know what? If we don't know how to win YOUR fucking elections for you, STOP BLAMING US FOR TRYING.

I am legitimately sick of this shit. Because honestly? I can continue to fly the fuck over your country. Here, look: I can paint the problem with the United States in one fucking step:

1) Insist that homeownership is the key to happiness and increase accessibility to homeownership for all

Here, watch what happens next:

2) Watch housing prices increase due to easy access to ownership

3) Watch urban mobility go down due to lack of fluidity within housing

4) Watch cities and towns become more vulnerable to shock when industry changes because people are trapped in their houses

5) Watch blight increase as foreclosures replace tenant changeover; watch the savings of homeowners go to (coastal) banks, watch places without the ability to adapt to change (rural areas) become skeletonized wastelands while everyone of means bolts to the cities, where all the money is

JP Morgan Chase: NY, NY

Bank of America: Charlotte, NC

Citigroup: NY, NY

Wells Fargo: San Francisco, CA

US Bankcorp: Minneapolis, MN

Bank of NY Mellon: NY, NY

PNC Financial: Pittsburgh, PA

Capital One: VA

HSBC North America: NY, NY

TD Bank of America: Cherry Hill, NJ

__________________________________________

Know what? I want your side to start winning elections, too. But you're not going to. You're stupid fucking rednecks. Sure - not all of you. But enough of you. And you know what? Every time we try and help out the rest of you ungrateful little shits? We're not helpful enough. "What's the matter with Kansas?" It's a fucking shithole full of ignorant rednecks that want to go back to the barefoot, pregnant and syphilis days, duh. And that's why everyone with half a fucking clue moves away, and that's why your population is collapsing, and that's why there's nobody left to work the farm, and that's why you have a sea of fucking Walmarts instead of culture.

Because you've been screaming at the top of your lungs you want it that way since nineteen diggity two.

But hold the fucking phone if we listen.

rd95  ·  503 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: On Veganism

Alright. So I’m gonna want you to bear with me here, because I don’t think you’re gonna necessarily like everything I have to say in my first few paragraphs. Bear with me though, because I’m going somewhere with this that I’m hoping might help a little bit here.

So first I want to start with the desire to refer to the meat industry as a “holocaust” or “genocide.” Genocide is a very strong, very serious term with a lot of emotional, political, and historical baggage. It is so loaded that different people view the term in different ways though there are some underlying similarities between them all. With that in mind, let’s just look at Wikipedia’s opening definiton of the term. “Genocide is the intentional action to systematically eliminate an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group.” The meat industry is none of those things. These animals have no religion or nationality that we are trying to crush and we are not trying to drive these animals to extinction. When people refer to the meat industry as a genocide they’ve suddenly made their positions seem unrealistic to the people they’re trying to persuade and at the same time, they’re cheapening a very serious word. In all seriousness, they are not the victims of genocide, they are a commodity. But, that is not to say that means they’re not victims of mistreatment and that the meat industry does not have its issues.

You have some very real concerns about consuming animals as meat and consuming animal products. Saying that you object to the meat industry because it’s like a “genocide” is being lazy. You need to think about why you object to the meat industry and what about it concerns you. Are you concerned about how the over use of antibiotics are causing medicine resistant bacteria? Are you concerned about the fact that raising beef cattle uses up an alarming amount of resources, from water to land, that could be put to better use? What about over fishing? The inhumane practices of factory farming in general? You need to think long and hard about these things, and trust me when I say it’s not pleasant to do so, and think about why you find them objectionable. By doing so you’ll have a better foundation for the arguments you want to make. Saying “I object to the meat industry because it’s genocide” isn’t going to get you very far with people. Saying “I do not eat meat because I have concerns about X, Y, and Z” will get people to take much more seriously.

If there is one more thing I would say, it is to take it one step further and think about why others might support the meat industry and the various practices in it. As a whole, it creates jobs and drives our economy while at the same time allowing us to afford meat at a crazy cheap price these days. People argue that using antibiotics and growth hormones allow for a consistently better, cheaper final product. Factory farming is an efficient use of both physical space as well as resources. On and on. By understanding other people’s positions, you can more easily talk to them in an open and respectful manner and hopefully they’ll do the same towards you. At the same time, while you’ll more than likely be unable to convince others to give up meat altogether, maybe you can influence them to be a little more thoughtful in their consumption, say for example, reducing the amount of wild fish they eat.

Think about that for a bit. Then let’s look at the pig and the man.

    Boiling it down for what a pig can do for our man-made country sounds more of a moot point. In the realm of "What you do defines you," the man wins out - considering the blanket notion they'll live a productive life. A difference lies in the basis of what is valued as productive seeing as it's relative term with human connotations. As in, what's productive to a pig in its community is likely different to us. I get the thought this is splitting hairs, though.

From my perspective, and I cannot stress that enough when I say from my perspective, no amount of hair splitting is going to change the fact the value of a pig and the value of a man are incomparable. Additionally, we need to look at this value in terms of human connotations because humans are the driving factor in animal consumption, it’s humans you’ll be having these conversations with, and ultimately, you’re trying to navigate in a world dominated by man who dictate what is and isn’t socially acceptable.

So with that, let’s look at a pig. A pig is a pig and if you go to the grocery store you can get a pound of pork product for about five or six bucks. That’s raised, slaughtered, shipped, cut, and ready to cook. That’s disgustingly cheap. That’s so cheap that most people won’t second guess whether or not they can afford to eat pork chops that night. That’s so cheap that almost no one appreciates the fact that they’re eating an animal with an intelligence that’s considered to be greater than that of their own pet dog. That’s so cheap that it almost seems to make pork valueless.

Except that pork has immense value. Someone raised it, someone slaughtered it, someone shipped it to the stores, and someone sold it to your neighbor. That is money in the pockets of each of those people so they can go on living their lives, supporting their family, and enjoying this beautiful world of ours. Similarly, that pork is enjoyed not just by your neighbor, but most likely his friends and family, giving them the nutrition they need to go about their lives, enjoying this world and equally giving back to it.

Now let’s look at a man. Compared to a pig, his value is potentially infinite. A pig can only consume and be consumed. However a man can consume and create. He has the capacity to be an artist or a scientist, a philosopher or a community leader, a factory worker or a teacher. That pig, by giving up his life gives sustenance to men. A man though, by living, gives sustenance to all of humanity through culture, knowledge, and compassion.

Think about that for a minute. Now think back to the term “genocide.” A genocide is more than the destruction of a group of people, it is the destruction of their culture, their values, and their potential to make the world a better place in their own ways. Pigs do not have culture, men do. Pigs do have value, but men infinitely more. That said, I don't think it takes any stretch of the imagination to say that even as food, pigs deserve as much humane treatment as possible. It's the least we can do for them, seeing as how they're here to support us.

Now, I want to take you on a bit of a detour here, about something I touched in my earlier response. Namely this sentence . . .

    Knowing that to exist is to consume and to consume is to destroy, do you think that you as an individual will eventually find peace both with yourself as well as the world around you by embracing vegan philosophy?

Veganism is a very noble mindset, but it isn’t a complete solution. Just by existing, we change the world around us. If you were to switch to an all vegetable diet and lifestyle, your consumption will still cause harm. Pesticides known as neonicotiniods are suspected to be responsible for the collapse of bee colonies all over the planet. Fertilizer runoff from farmland is one of the main causes of harmful algae blooms. Your use of electronics is a direct cause for the exploitation of cheap labor overseas. If you’re an American, the amount of waste you create on a yearly basis is absolutely mind blowing. On and on I can go, but I don’t mean to depress you. In fact, I want to encourage you. You yourself said . . .

    Frankly, a basis with which I'm thinking veganism in general is a bit silly compounded with our current theory of evolution. Which, mind you, I'm fully aware in this context nearly contradicts my comments above if taken at face value.

    I do like how you point that idea out of what I'd be going through carrying mental weight. I've sustained the "eat less meat" initiative, witnessed by my grocery receipt, in part a remnant of the "down with the man" mentality against food industry. But, now if I'm out of my normal environment: back home with family, at an event with friends, going out to eat, then I don't limit myself so much, if at all. Of late, my mentality has shifted away from the previous ideal towards enabling myself to eat a proper diet. I've gone back to eating other animal products like eggs and yogurt, and I've drastically increased the amount of fruits and nuts I buy. Funny how it feels like going from one extreme forces me to temper myself to a mid-point between where I was and what I sought to achieve.

What you’re describing here is mindfulness. Your entire original post in fact is about how you’re trying to reconcile how you view the world and how you want to interact with it. Where you are mentally right now is a very important place to be. You’re paying attention to your actions with a desire to not just do less harm, but do more good, not just for the world around you, but yourself as well. Embrace this mentality every time you can. You don’t have to turn your whole world upside down though. Small changes and careful actions can be enough to start making a difference without driving yourself crazy. Me? I’ve cut my beef consumption literally in half and I can’t remember the last time I had a fish dinner. All because of a few articles I read and an evening of introspection.

Even better though, is that you’ll soon find that your mentality really will rub off on other people, as long as you stay positive and respectful. Sometimes just saying “Hey, this factory farming concerns me and here’s why” is enough to not only cause yourself to behave more responsibly, but it’s enough to get others to think about how they’re behaving as well. Today you’re talking about meat consumption. Tomorrow you’ll be talking about protecting biodiversity. Next year, sustainable energy, addressing the very legitimate criticisms of fair trade and God only knows what else. The world is getting smaller every year, with more and more human connections being made on a daily basis. Keep them positive and you’ll be helping to change the world for the better.

Just remember. Slow down a bit. Do your best, but don't become obsessive.

kingmudsy  ·  546 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Hubski, what do you do to unwind?

Here you go!

I can reduce the static too, if you want? I was going for a more glitch-y VHS feel with the original.

here you go thenewgreen - I think you could do the vocals better, they're very you.

_refugee_  ·  629 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Today on "Questions you'd never think would be asked"...

whaholy fuck

Here's a really offensive idea, why don't you just have an amnio and if it comes back "your kid will be disabled" STOP HAVING THE KID ANYMORE

OK, OK, that clearly won't solve for Example Kid #1, but still. I'd advocate for that way before I could get on board with making disabled kids permanent kids.

I find this disgusting.

CrazyEyeJoe  ·  632 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: ELI5: fourth generation (4G) wireless communications - how do they work?

I can't give a great answer to all of these, especially since my knowledge of 2G and especially 3G is pretty basic, but I'll give it my best.

    Is speed/quality of connection the only difference between the two generations of communication?

Again that's kind of vague, but the short answer is no. There are many differences. However, what most of these differences are attempting to achieve is better speed and quality. As my experience lies in the physical layer, that's what I can comment most on. The modulation schemes (how the physical signal is transmitted) are different between all three. I started writing about the differences, but it just got too long and complicated. I don't think it would interest you too much anyway, and I wouldn't want to say anything wrong about 2G/3G.

    Are there any particular interesting events connected to the transmission of the signal with 4G (or in general)? I remember seeing something about radio echo while skimming over the Wikipedia article, and it sounded fascinating.

What I think you're getting at here are reflective channels (to put it in layman's terms). When you send a signal over the air, it'll bounce off of all sorts of stuff, like buildings or mountains, etc. Therefore the receiver will receive the same signal several times, with different amplitudes and delays, in very rapid succession. These will overlap, and that of course causes problems. What was really sent, and how can you determine that when what you receive is basically a jumbled mess of reflected versions of the original? Think of it as if you were in a room that had a lot of echo in it. Somebody speaks to you, but the echo is so long that all the words just get blended together in a mush.

The answer, and this is true for 2G, 3G and 4G, is that you periodically (in 4G about 4000 times per second) send a reference signal, a signal that you know what is supposed to be, and you compare that with what you receive. That's the purple blocks in the image in my last post. You take the differences, and use those to make a guess about what happened to the signal between the transmitter and the receiver. This is called channel estimation. Once you have a channel estimate, you use it to correct the received signal.

Another thing that is done is that if you're sending, let's say, 8 bits of data, you will actually send a lot more bits over the channel. Something like (this varies based on channel quality) 24 bits of data. By adding these 16 "redundant" bits, you can retrieve the signal even if some received bits are wrong. This is called channel coding.

    Are there differences in physical structure between the 4G and 3G signal transmitters/accepters (the proper term skips my mind) - as in, are they physically different schemes? I remember reading that 4G is non-backwards-compatible, but does it mean protocols only or the transmitters as well? Can one encode a 4G signal with a 3G transmitter (if there even is such a difference)? Do they have to upgrade the equipment of the cell towers to match the new generation?

Short answer: yes, they are different, and they must be upgraded. Here my knowledge is very limited, but I know that these standards are made in such a way that network providers shouldn't have to completely change all of their equipment to make it work.

To give you a little bit of context, one of my more experienced colleagues at the company told me that when they originally implemented the 4G in the modem I was working on, they did it with a 3G receiver. This shows that it's possible, but he made a point of how impressive it was that they achieved this. I consider this guy to be a straight up genius, so the fact that he found it difficult to do makes me think it was far from the optimal situation.

    How is it possible to remain within the same cell of the station and not tangle up the signal with others?

Modern digital processing. It's what I was talking about in the previous post, with that time/frequency grid. The base station tells you which of the squares are for you, and it tells you which squares you can send on. In 4G, you will actually receive all of those squares, but you will only decode the ones which are for you.

This is made possible by using the Fourier Transform, which is a mathematical operation. The Fourier Transform takes a time domain signal (in this case, some radio wave) and decomposes it into its frequency components. In the picture you see there are 7 symbols in each time slot. That means that you must take the Fourier Transform at 7 different times to get the frequency components of each time instance. This is how you get the grid, which then in fact just becomes a grid of numbers. Those numbers each represent a set of bits. When you know which ones are for you, you can go ahead and decode your data.

    Does different encoding mean that it's simpler/easier/quicker to decode the signal by those of ill intent, thus enabling for easier eavesdropping? Alongside that, does 4G protocols of transmission mean that one would have to catch the required frequency first? is it as easy to do as with 3G communications?

You're confusing channel coding with encryption. Channel coding (which is what I was referring to) is about how you represent bits on a physical signal, it's not about obfuscating the data. In fact, data transmitted over 4G isn't encrypted, although it's not trivial to eavesdrop. I think, however, that if you implement your own base station clone (a very non-trivial task), you'd pretty much be able to listen to anything going on around you. You'd have to know which frequency network operators are using, but this is not exactly secret information.

This turned out fairly long, but I didn't want to be too superficial. I hope this helps.

lil  ·  633 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Bernie Fucking Sanders (tng records a weird thing )

    I basically write and record a song about 4 nights a week.

I found that line majorly inspiring tng. It made me realize that if I'm going to get the 1-woman-show done by my bday 2017, I'd better start working on it... i.e. do something four nights a week. One or more hours at least. To be a good hockey player, I'm going to have to play a lot of hockey.

btw, after April I'm open to editing yr start-up docs, in exchange for stox, but I imagine all the principals have wives for that sort of thing.

user-inactivated  ·  634 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Can some explain to me why would anyone vote for Trump?

It's funny I should read this where I was, I was in a public restaurant on wifi and all of the sudden the couple next to me started discussing Trump, and why the guy was going to vote for him! I took notes, not to be a dirty little spy but he was in a public place saying stupid things that were relevant to this discussion. She was against Trump, so it was an interesting discussion. She also said that he wasn't doing anything "wrong", though.

Anyway, the arguments he made, mixed with some of her comments and my own in italics (less of those since they are slightly off-topic):

- Trump does not tiptoe around any issue and just says what's on his mind, and what's on everyone else's mind. Her rebuttal was that it's a form of inducement, that he doesn't in fact say what's on everyone's mind but tells you what should be on your mind so you think it's what is on your mind.

- Trump doesn't talk like a politician, and for people who are sick of politicians, this is appealing. My rebuttal to this is that he's the most snakey politician that's using the most manipulative politician tactics around, just bringing it into the modern age. He's brought IT usability principles into politics, and lowers the barrier for entering the political debate by talking at a 5th grade level.

- Trump doesn't use talking points, he doesn't use a teleprompter, etc, and the other politicians don't know how to handle this in debates, so it makes politicians look bad. He's making politician's look like assholes, which they are, so he must be doing something right and he'll likely bring that power to the executive branch by cutting through the political bullshit.

- Trump isn't racist, he just says things that are edgy and it plays into people's racist fears. Which she shot back with was essentially the same thing as racism.

- Trump's main points of growing the economy and military are the two things that will make America great again since we are in an economic and military crisis. There is a perceived fear and a perceived threat felt by some Americans even today from ISIS, as if they are in direct danger from ISIS or that an increased military could even impact this. Unfortunately, everyone thinks that Obama is pro-terrorism for some reason since he hasn't taken out ISIS, but the point of ISIS' terrorism is that it is an idea now instead of a real network like Al Qaeda was. They have their self-proclaimed caliphate, but the only threat we have locally is crazy people agreeing with them and acting on their own accord with no direct ties to the caliphate itself. This can happen for the extreme views of any political, religious, or opinionated topic.

- People don't know what fascism means, fascism is a system of government and not an individual. Mostly true, but it's also a word to describe a person who subscribes to fascist ideals. Kind of like communists vs. communism. I'd also point out that saying "my choice of a candidate isn't a fascist!" isn't really a good campaign slogan.

- People keep comparing Trump to 1940s Hitler, he's more like 1920s Hitler. He is addressing and embodying the desires of the people much like Hitler started out, but he will go a different path. He's just using the same tactics to gain power that Hitler did. I really don't know what to say to this one....

- If he decides to do something fascist, the system will prevent him anyway so it's okay if he wants to be like that. Time and time again this has been proven to be a stupid assumption. The government always has gained more and more power, and the executive branch is already exceedingly powerful. There is plenty he can do as president without passing laws....

- Cruz and Rubio are for loyal republicans sticking to their same ideas and are the status quo for politicians, therefore Trump is a good candidate. Lack of sound conclusion jumping there, just because all the other candidates suck, doesn't mean that the last one is good.

- The Tea Party endorses him, and the Tea Party is trying to properly fix this country. Every ideal that the Tea Party started out with has been completely squashed and has nothing to do with what they actually care about now. Most of their small government rhetoric is immediately followed by a policy involving the increasing of the government.

--

Another point is that most people in the US nowadays get their news and the articles they read almost exclusively from Facebook suggestions. After you click one link on one topic, you end up getting marked as someone that would click that type of topic, and the learning algorithms adjust and conform your Facebook feeds to fit you. Since everyone is talking about Trump, the media keeps publishing and covering his candidacy pretty much 24x7 at this point, even if they say he is a "bad" candidate people start to click more and more links about him and get drowned in Trump stories in their Facebook feed. Remember the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? Well, in this case it's true. If there's really that many stories about him, that much information about him, and that much coverage, people start to take him more seriously as a candidate without even needing to research their policies.

I remember myself when I was in junior high school, way before I was really politically aware of a lot of things, I supported a candidate exclusively based on groupthink. You see two polarized sides form and you pick a side. It's one of the biggest issues in this country and if you aren't aware of the effects of the extreme polarization of every issue in our country at the moment (just think of the media, you are either "for" or "against" an issue, never "it's more complicated than that" else you get kicked off the show forever). Everything is about debate for debate sake, without actually logically analyzing the situation and taking it as seriously. People jump to conclusions very rapidly since attention spans are short and peer pressure to be a part of a group is high.

This is why I do not really talk to anyone anymore if I can't help it. I feel that being my own person is something that requires me to isolate myself, and I watch as people form illogical groups and stop attempting to learn new things. I watch coworkers and friends fail to even gain any ground in their level of knowledge or skills in the workplace or life because they are focused more on their social status and their Facebook feeds than attempting anything of any challenge. Some of this is due to the human desire to be recognized or be a part of something that matters or is just historic, regardless of what it is, and their feeling that they cannot do this alone. This is much much harder to do nowadays since the population is simply so vast.

kleinbl00  ·  653 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: How To Be Mean To Your Kids [The Last Psychiatrist]

Goddamn it.

    An inner city psychiatrist sees 20-40 people a day. 15 minute med checks, which in a city is 5 or 10 minutes. "Any major symptoms? Suicidality? Side effects? Here's your refill." You try and pull that off in a suburban area and the Feds will be shooting your dog to access your backdoor.

I knew that guy. Compass Mental Health. There, and he was also the one lone psychiatrist at the rural clinic in Gray's Harbor County. He also did some private practice for the rich kidz. Rich kids? 90 minutes. Downtown Seattle? 10 minutes each. Gray's Harbor? 5-7 minutes, once a week. In '97.

    And there's plenty of money to be made for the entrepreneurial. If you want to be rich in inner city psychiatry (and you don't have to be a doc), you open a clinic and hire 1 psychiatrist and lots of (talk) therapists, usually social workers. Medicaid will pay for 1 therapy visit per week (around $60/hr) and a 15 minute med check with the doc ($40/visit). The doc usually gets salaried but proportionally takes 50% of that. Let him have it all. The therapist, however, gets very little-- $20/hr.

Goddamn it. Yep. Social workers were making $17 an hour. And he was making enough to justify driving eight hours round trip every week for one day a week. Doing state work.

Fuck you. Badged.