why would you compare Toyota to Mercedes? they have almost nothing in common. I don't think Lexus is a good comparison either but that's more a matter of opinion.
Basic knowledge of cats, most likely. A high number of outdoor cats I've known would hunt animals and bring the complete flailing bodies or corpses indoors. It's just an understood part of cats, kind of like how humans will do things even though it isn't necessary for survival.
This reflects my experience with Go to a tee. (Well, minus being a prolific library contributor, thanks for that!)
Prior to using Go professionally, I scoffed at the language and wrote it off as an extreme form of Blub paradox. Having worked in languages with generics, as well as languages with advanced type systems (Haskell, Rust, Scala), it seemed like a huge step back.
Initially, I did have a problem with the lack of generics, because I leaned on the feature regularly when writing software. Four years of professional use later and I can say that I am very much glad for the lack of generics. It is almost always straightforward and easy to read and understand Go code that someone else has written. The same cannot be said for the other languages I've mentioned.
For the problem domain we are using it in (devops), it has been a godsend. The company makes use of many different languages from various paradigms, yet anyone can pick up Go quickly if they want/need to contribute to or deeply understand our tooling.
Personally, my issue with Electron is that, in practice, it is hugely inefficient. The up-side to Electron, IMO, is that it doesn't try to straddle the uncanny valley of native GUIs. In GTK, usually everything _looks_ like a normal GUI, but behaves/looks just a little (or, often times, a lot) bit different than what is expected.
Blockchain does not provide any verification of trust, nor can it. It provides verification of number crunching transactions alone, as well as an immutable store of that number crunching. It's actually notoriously poor for trust compared to traditional systems, as there is no way to mediate in the case of fraud once a transaction has occurred.
None of which you have listed can be proven by blockchain as it has proofs for today. All would rely on external sources of truth which entirely live outside the verification of the blockchain. The blockchain in these cases would be an immutable chain of unverified facts.
* An anonymized reputation system is the equivalent of a transaction ledger. It needs no external source, as long as the involved actors agree to enter into evaluation of each other.
* Digital assets ownership ultimately only require external sources of truth for storage of whatever digital asset they intend to provide. I concur that this would be impossibly expensive to provide via an existing blockchain implementations, without an external point of truth, but still a technically possible feat.
* An entire company on the blockchain? Sure, it's not reasonable at the moment. It was just an attempt to paint a bigger picture. The fact that it's 'not yet reasonable' is why many people are starting to try. By the time it's 'reasonable', someone will have done it.
Processed is not a bad word when it comes to health. What matters are the ingredients. I'm not aware of any consensus on canola being anything but healthy, but am interested in learning more as canola oil is what I use for cooking.
That being said, like any meat or meat-substitute, I wouldn't consider it a "health food".
I agree with you that the ingredients matter, but I also think as a blanket statement avoiding processed foods is smart.
I think this is a pretty good synopsis of why canola and PUFA's (polyunsaturated fatty acids)are bad. I actually think it's possible that we should be vilifying them on the same level as sugar. https://www.alexfergus.com/blog/pufa-s-the-worst-thing-for-y...
The problem with all oil is that it’s very calorie dense and nutrient poor. A tablespoon of olive oil has 120 calories! And since it’s so calorie dense it doesn’t make us feel full.
Because it's strictly better than the status quo? Given the choice between taking a crap in public and leaving a turd on the sidewalk vs. taking a crap in public and having it flushed how is the former preferable to the latter? The unfortunately reality is that creating a private space for relieving oneself is regularly abused as other commenters have pointed out. It's an instance of hostile design 1, but one that is evidently necessary.
Its also a form of restroom that is common in many other countries. Such a type of toilet is not new.
The former is preferable because you are providing a disservice to the community that will not allow you dignity, even though they can most obviously afford it.
Counterpoint- "the community that will not allow you dignity" is not a homogenous entity. The city of San Francisco contains multitudes, many of whom are compassionate individuals who take active measures to help those on the streets. By pooping on the sidewalk / in front of City Hall / etc., one indiscriminately targets both those who are compassionate and those who aren't.
Furthermore, one isn't likely to create a community that does allow dignity for all, without first winning the hearts and minds of the less-than-compassionate members of the public. And one isn't likely to win those people over by pooping on their doorstep.
Again, the issue is not affordability but the fact that public restrooms are abused and used for dangerous and often illicit activity
The former is not preferable because it spreads disease, and instills disdain for the homeless among the community thus decreasing willingness to dedicate resources towards services helping the homeless (thus hurting those homeless that do try to maintain good hygiene).
Not to mention, you have a very negative and prejudiced view of the homeless if you think that they desire to cause harm to the city. The overwhelming majority of homeless are not the spiteful, antisocial people you seem to believe them to be. They may often resort to harmful activity to survive (e.g. theft) but rarely have I seen them cause harm for no reason but to make other people suffer. Maybe things like leaving trash strewn about after scavenging through it, but that's more negligent than spiteful.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd be hesitant to conclude that people on the streets don't understand the impact of their conduct. I've seen people that are on one hand doing obviously illegal things like processing stolen bikes, but on the other hand take steps to avoid unnecessarily inconveniencing the neighborhood so as to avoid attracting the ire of residents.
Regardless that's largely tangential to the ridiculous claim you made earlier that open defecation is somehow better for the community than using a squat toilet. Not only are you advocating a highly unsanitary activity that can easily lead to hepatitis outbreaks for example (which would disproportionately affect people living on the streets), you're portraying the homeless as some sort of spiteful group that wants to deliberately inflict suffering on the rest of society. I cannot fathom why you thought that comment was productive.
It seems like there are two possibilities- either they do understand the impact of their conduct and just don't care, or they don't understand the impact of their conduct (whether due to mental impairment or some other cause). Am I leaving any other possibilities out, or is that an exhaustive list?
The reason I ask is this:
If they do understand the impact, then they're intentionally endangering public health, harming quality of life for the city's other inhabitants, and possibly committing a crime for which they are of sound mind and body to be (hopefully) held accountable.
And if they don't understand the impact of this choice, odds are that the same applies their other various life choices as well. And if that's indeed the case, can we as a society please stop treating their choice to live on the streets as one that should be respected? We wouldn't let a child make that decision on their own, so why should we let someone whose mental faculties are arguably just as lacking, if not more so?
I'm not arguing that homelessness should be a crime for which people should be jailed. In fact I'm aware already that the courts in the US have barred cities from jailing homeless when no other alternatives are available.
I don't pretend to know what the solution to homelessness is, but I think we need to at least discuss whether a person who is homeless due to mental disfunction can simultaneously be mentally sound enough to decide for themselves to live on the street. I think "respect their decision to live on the streets" lets us avoid making tough decisions about how to help people who are impaired from helping themselves.
Note that I'm only referring to people who are homeless due to mental illness, not due to other factors (domestic abuse, job loss, etc.).
After a few minutes, I was pulled aside and whisked through customs. As I was nearing the exit, a staff member said "welcome home".
It hadn't hit me until later that I was likely skipped ahead due to having a military surplus duffel bag.
No particular point here aside from how silly the whole thing is.