No shit, go see a decent therapist. This is literally the core of what they do as a profession. If they aren't helpful, just want to babble about the weather for 45 minutes, whatever, find a different one. PhD > Masters but I've met bad PhDs and good masters clinicians.
Also, if you're struggling with getting things done because you're always dopamine seeking, get checked for ADHD. There are some extremely effective treatments that can make your life way easier if that turns out to be the problem.
Most of these managers support some form of 2fa. I use a yubikey with mine such that if my master password is compromised someone would still need to obtain my security key. You can enroll multiple and keep one in a safe and one or more on your person. It's not perfect, but it prevents the vast majority of huge dragnet style malware attacks and a lot of the targeted ones until you get to the point where someone is trying to hunt you down on the street.
This still leaves a case where someone manages to get the final key out of memory but you're pretty hosed at that point anyway. I'd prefer a system where the yubikey itself is doing the final credential decryption instead of the CPU, unfortunately most people aren't that paranoid though.
The pilot likely heard "I think 24E is acting suspiciously, he tried to mess with the entertainment system, can we boot him?" and responded by saying "yeah go for it" before resuming checklists.
The way it works is if a flight attendant feels a passenger is somehow a risk they will notify the captain who has the authority to boot them. The captain has a locked door to hide behind and doesn't want to deal with whatever's going on so will almost always just tell the flight attendant they can boot the passenger without any further investigation. The problem is the captain is the one with the regulatory training and the flight attendants are generally fairly poorly trained on anything beyond the emergency landing and evacuation procedures on the card. As such they tend to not really be very well versed in FAA regulations, airline procedures/policy, or security/evaluating threats, hence why weird shit like this happens with some regularity.
I've had them lose their absolute shit for putting tape over a broken strobing seat light on a night flight and got to watch them attempt to improperly deplane a flight without a tail stand risking a tip over. On the continum of aerospace professional to barista the training they get is much closer to the latter unfortunately. This follows the general trend of airlines doing everything in their power to avoid investing in their employees.
We're talking about two different things: the cause of mental health issues and the treatment of mental health issues. The US is pretty modern at treating them and pretty outstanding at causing them.
Here's a good one: the FAA categorically prevents any pilots from taking any psychiatric medication (minor caveats but the point holds in practice), in particular for depression, anxiety, and ADHD, all of which are extremely common in the airlines. As such, everyone just hides their diagnosis and waits until they snap because the alternative is permanently losing a job they took out hundreds of thousands in loans to get. Others pay out of pocket for treatment under false names so the FAA is currently trying to hunt them down.
Before anyone says the usual stuff about not wanting their pilots on meds, the medications are safe to fly on and much safer than the alternative, the FAA just hasn't updated their psych guidelines since Freud was the standard because any change would open whichever bureaucrat up to being hauled in front of Congress for the next accident regardless of culpability. Additionally the medication standards are also inherited from ICAO so even if we wanted to change, we'd need to convince the likes of China and the Saudis (both major stakeholders) that they can come out from the rock they live under and accept modern psychological science.
The easiest way to clean it up significantly is to better tax industry such that energy, resource usage, and transportation are all represented in the price such that the economy actually reflects the environmental impact of production rather than just the business costs of the moment.
Seconded, though I'd add that with the current concerns about climate change and resource utilization, we need to think a bit more about product lifecycle and this is a reasonable way of illustrating that.
If the embodied environmental impact of a product increases 10% to make it last 100% longer then we need to think about making that change rather than producing twice as many to replace the broken ones.
On average they didn't (oh no, that repair costs more than the "car is worth" as if that's a metric that actually means anything) but it was far easier to keep one running indefinitely. You could take an engine to a small machine shop and get the head and block resurfaced, valves reamed and cylinders lapped. Without any electronics to fail it was just a block of metal that was slowly losing material and a quick hit with a file could even out any imperfections leaving it like new, just with very slightly more displacement.
Modern engines are way more reliable because they have coatings and materials that will last nearly indefinitely in most parts of the engine but they're built on proprietary sensors and electronics that need a steady stream of replacements and secret software to debug.
We could make cars last indefinitely from a supply chain perspective, but commoditizing software and electronics would make them very marginally more expensive. We absolutely can't have that because, drum roll for the 1000th time, 99% of the population doesn't give a flying fuck and wants cheap shit at all costs.
Why is everyone worked up about the software? The hardware is where all the time and effort is and Prusa just hasn't been doing much there. They could be using ball bearing rails or more rigid structure but instead they're just lightly iterating on their existing system of low precision plastic parts.
They don't qualify for social security but are paying into it and other than that there aren't any real social safety nets in this country anyway so I still do not understand this logic in the least.
I think it's a case of people only caring about their specific short term individual interests in the narrowest way possible. They're not really a rational thing in any other domain.
Basically, if you have a zero sum game with two companies and one has better IP than the other, it makes sense for the time span through which the company without can't reverse engineer it. In every other case it means the groups of companies under the umbrella of non-competes will slowly loose to groups of companies in jurisdictions without non-competes.
To expand on that, if you objectively have some special sauce that you don't want leaked to your competition then it's a net gain for you and a loss for the rest of X industry (where X is finance because they're the ones who want this, not tech). In reality though, it's extremely rare to have sole control over an incredibly strong piece of IP that defines a market. In reality, everyone thinks they do because they don't know what anyone else has. Everyone has something that gives them an edge, hence being competitive in the market, but sharing those secrets within their local area can make the whole industry way more performant.
The law applies to everyone so if you can't have non-competes, neither can your competition. At a local level it will make groups of companies much stronger than their more distant competitors because they can share knowledge under the table at a much higher rate.
I really wish I could sit on one of these decision meetings just so I could understand how the sausage is made. There's an entire class of people out there running the world yet operating in their own universe completely removed from the consensus reality we live in.
Will this ever die? None of the societies that people point and scream about were actually communist in any real sense. They were just random flavors of authoritarianism wrapped in incoherent bits of Marxist–Leninist and/or Maoist ideology, both of which are the furthest thing from any of the popular left-communist and anarcho-socialist movements that exist in the US.
To put it in perspective, the Soviets literally rolled tanks on striking union workers and students in Hungary and killed thousands of people because they were (to heavily summarize) the wrong kind of communists. This is where the phrase "tankie" comes from.
It's a sort of replayable cutscene that happens a couple times in the game where you can wander through it. The noteworthy bit is it's rendered out of voxels that look very similar to the demos but at a much lower resolution and if you push the frustrum into any objects, you get the same kind of effect where the surface breaks into blocks.
Is there any relation between this class of rendering techniques and the way the BD scenes in Cyberpunk 2077 were created? The behavior of the volume and the "voxels" seem eerily similar.
Also, if you're struggling with getting things done because you're always dopamine seeking, get checked for ADHD. There are some extremely effective treatments that can make your life way easier if that turns out to be the problem.