These businesses are going to go under. You cannot run food manufacturing operations with the amount of water they have available. We will grow food someplace with more water.
The people who own those businesses will hold on until the bitter end. This is expected. They will try increasingly desperate measures to continue running their business, including but not limited to ecologically destructive practices. It won’t work. There’s no water.
I am dismayed at the number of people I increasingly run into online who I disagree with, where I’m unable to find common ground with. I’m pretty sure this is a result of their online identity being rather narrowly tuned to exclusively present popular frames of mind that I reject wholesale, but I can’t afford to discount the unsettling possibility that it’s me who’s lost the plot.
In the end, I’m only consoled by the fact that I’m the only one of us who’s asking that question. The people I’m referring to are quite certain I’m the villain.
This comment reveals a strange level of cognitive dissonance, because it sounds like you’re describing in others what you actually see in yourself. Someone who does have a list of things they reject wholesale, and refuses to find common ground with others who believe in any of those things. And then you conclude by assuming you’re the only one who thinks critically about this stuff.
For what it’s worth, you do say some relatable things and appear to be figuring out your own mind. Which we can all relate to
I mean, it’s good to be open minded, it’s good to be introspective, it’s critical to take feedback.
It’s not wrong to have a take. You can sit down and say “no this is the way I’m going and I don’t think the other way is correct.”
There’s plenty of shit in this world that is destructive and dangerous. It’s more than fine to not engage with people who are beyond reason, but having confidence in your convictions isn’t a sin. You need courage to make a change in the world.
Those guys are top tier you have to admit— tank their company, get acquired, keep their jobs, eventually wrangle their way into managing their acquirer, tank the acquiring company… this is god tier MBAing.
I think the frustration comes around the constraints. It’s great for reminders and timers, and those meaningfully improve my life. It sometimes can successfully make a call. It interrupts me in the most obnoxious way at least once a week.
But it seems almost willfully stupid when compared to its potential.
At this point pretty much any language you want to pick for me is a couple weeks’ ramp up time. I couldn’t really care less.
What’s the right language? Probably the language you’re already using for the rest of your stuff so we can interface with the rest of the org efficiently.
Is it new? Grab whatever the industry standard is for your segment. Lots of libs, lots of mindshare, easy to hire, get it done.
I do get caught in HR filters a lot without a bunch of projects in gooby though.
> At this point pretty much any language you want to pick for me is a couple weeks’ ramp up time. I couldn’t really care less.
When you learn a programming language for a few weeks, the knowledge will be very superficial. Rather consider a few years of additional learning outside and in addition to the job to be realistic to get a decent understanding of the very encompassing and non-trivial details of the programming language, its lore, its culture and its often huge ecosystem.
> Rather consider a few years of additional learning outside and in addition to the job to be realistic to get a decent understanding of the very encompassing and non-trivial details of the programming language, its lore, its culture and its often huge ecosystem.
Not really, unless you're trying to extract the maximum performance from the compiler, or you're trying to publish your own libraries. You learn Java, C# is pretty close. You know LISP and Java, you can pickup Clojure really quick.
As for the ecosystem, what you need to learn depends on the problem, not on the solution. If you need to do JSON parsing, you take a few days to investigate the available libraries, write your own parser if none exists. That assumes you know what JSON is and what serializing data entails. These are universal problems that exists outside of the Knowing Language X scope.
I'd much prefer hiring someone who can build web applications than someone who knows express.js.
It’s just not that hard. Problem domains are hard. If you asked me to work in computer vision that’d be hard for me. Same for high frequency trading. Asking me to write this device driver in rust versus nasty old C, whatever man, bits is bits. I lie about my experience in different stacks solving the same old troubles all the time.
Languages are boring. Problem domains can be a lot of fun.
In the end if reading content, especially content that is emotionally evocative, does not initiate some sort of change in action or thinking, it is useless.
The overwhelming majority of political content is useless. Did you do anything? Did anything actually happen? You could spend a week in late October doing whatever reading you need to inform your vote, and nothing more, and it would still more than is ultimately useful if you’re not going to do anything about it.
The difference is that when you have a steady stream of political information you're more likely to pick up lies and misdirections. Politicians are pretty good at glossing over mistakes, especially if they happen over topics that aren't salacious. If you hadn't paid any attention to politics over the past 15 years and only looked at it now you wouldn't know about things like the Snowden leaks.
As an exercise I would encourage you to review the news from one year ago today and audit things that a: didn’t end up mattering b: haven’t changed c: weren’t true d: actually made a difference to you in some way.
You’d be surprised how little falls into the “useful or relevant” bucket a year out. And if a year has passed without any change or action on your part, how useful could it possibly be?
You got better things to do. I don’t know you or what you’re up to, but you have better things to do than that.
Do your civic duty and leave the rest alone. It’s the most toxic form of entertainment available.
Common sense? Restricting exhalation to reduce transmission of airborne disease? Have you never been taught to cover your mouth when you sneeze or cough?
Like it would be remarkable if it did nothing. THAT would be a blockbuster result.
The thing worth studying is if the effect is worth the trouble or not. It could be worth doing or it could effectively be a waste of time due to whatever other factor.
Common sense says if you put your hand over your mouth and breath out you will be able to. That says the pressure is overcoming the blockage.
The other way round is far more difficult.
If you leak then you are wasting your time because in a static air environment you’ll delay the critical level build up by a few minutes at most.
Medicine doesn’t like aerosolisation because it sounds too much like miasmia theory.
So we have too much focus on droplets and fomites.
Fundamentally this should have been sorted with a properly designed trial with the correct protocol of sufficient size to answer the question. Given what was on the line why has it not been done?
> Fundamentally this should have been sorted with a properly designed trial with the correct protocol of sufficient size to answer the question. Given what was on the line why has it not been done?
That's an interesting question but if you're suggesting it implies something either direction: why?
Obviously there are a LOT of politicians and people strongly interested in a "masks are useless" position.
But it's not just that the "masks are useful" people have failed to satisfy you.
It's also that the "masks are not useful" crowd has not published a conclusive study of their own.
So it's not convincing to me that the truth is anything other than "masks have varying effectiveness, though the supply-chain-crunch plain-cloth-mask world of 2020 wasn't the ideal type of mask."
Do you have reason to believe an N95 isn't effective? What about a P99? (In the world of media I consume, these types of masks vs cloth masks are things that were widely discussed, along with PM2.5 etc. So the "it was presented as black and white" crowd seems just uniformed of their own volition, maybe watching too much partisan media who had an interest in presenting the issue in a one-sided manner.)
Aye, that brings up another issue. What exactly does “airborne” mean? The assumption early on was that Covid was not airborne, and required droplets of a certain size, though I think that changed over time.
We might never know this about COVID as further studying it can only uncover more malfeasance at this point, but traditional airborne stuff like smallpox or measles won't be affected by a dirty bandana on one's mouth or, even, over the nose.
