Side note: landing on this particular website was a hilariously bad experience.
The scrollable content area on my (modern and average sized) mobile device represented less than one third of the viewport.
The remaining two thirds are taken up by ads. The bottom ad drawer (1/3) contained extremely low value irrelevant ads with blatantly false claims.
The top third was taken up by an ad seemingly from the site itself to try to get me to sign up for a free “preparedness binder”. I’m assuming that later leads to some type of marketing drip campaign.
For the icing on the cake, the central tiny (less than 1/3) area with scrollable content is an ad disguised as a poll!
One of the challenges of (even modern) scuba diving is that failure conditions are at odds with normal reflexes.
For example, if you run out of air your first reflex as a non-diver might be to hold your breath and swim to the surface. As pointed out in the article, that’s a terrible idea at depth and can severely injure or kill you (instead, divers are trained to breath out during an emergency swimming ascent).
There are a number of other ways to die while diving and recorded mortality data proves that out. Each dive, on average, has a broadly similar risk profile (5, in micromorts) to a single jump while skydiving (8) or running a marathon (7) [1].
There’s seemingly room for technology to help make diving a bit more safe. It will be interesting to see if that does happen in the future.
I agree that we’re practically in a recession and that our present recession was brought about from congress via the fed. However, that particular chain of events was set in motion in the 1970s with the public mandate set for the FOMC. It wasn’t a recent secretive reaction to tech companies.
Do you mind expanding on your statement that the current actions of the fed/congress are a reaction to technology companies?
I’ve had some luck with Remarkable. Remarkable has a reasonably good experience for getting a PDF to the device, working with it, and then getting it back to the source as a seemingly plain PDF.
I’d imagine it might be technically possible but not practical. The weight required for ballistic parachute systems is substantial. On small aircraft (such as Cirrus and Icon) it reduces the useful load, and thus range/payload, substantially. Range and payload are very important aspects of commercial passenger aircraft.
Further, commercial passenger aircraft are already very safe due to system redundancy not practical on smaller aircraft. Would a ballistic parachute system help with many accidents in this category? I would be willing to bet not. Ballistic parachute systems are not a magic bullet - they require substantial altitude/time to deploy (as much as 900 feet in a spin, for example). Many substantial aviation accidents happen during takeoff and landing below or near these altitudes.
Would you pay a multiple of your current airfare for an extremely small (practical) reduction in travel risk?
I like honey bunches of oats cereal. It’s delicious. The variety I like is also ~200 calories _per cup_. That’s before adding milk of any kind. Add a little bit of milk and tip the box a bit more than usual (I imagine a lot of folks are not very precise when measuring breakfast cereal) and we’re easily sailing over 500 calories. I eat a modest 1700 calorie diet most days and I could easily crush 1,000 calories of this cereal without even feeling full.
Likewise for sandwiches. The best rated local sandwich shops near me offer a selection of (very likely) 1,000+ calorie sandwiches. They also do not list calories so my estimates are based on casually deconstructing them and plugging in constituent ingredients into MyFitnessPal ensembles with surprising results. It’s surprising because I’ve proven I can eat more than one without feeling full.
It doesn’t take a mad genius in an evil food lab somewhere underground to make food that’s guaranteed to derail a diet. The ingredients are cheap, easy, and abundant everywhere.
“James [the client CTO] mentioned multiple times that he wants a future-proof technology, and he is not in favor of Angular because it has a bad reputation after AngularJS got deprecated.”
Few things in our industry are future-proof (or even future-resistant) and the stated indictment against Angular over the v1 to v2 changes is unreasonable even at the time.
These decisions are important but it looks like the author lost (or maybe never had) significant influence over them. The ability to influence key stakeholders over critical design decisions using rational (and evidence based) arguments is an important precursor to a successful project. It’s still possible to ship large projects without it, but it makes for a very challenging environment.
Optimized headline aside, I appreciate this summary because it highlights some of the nontechnical challenges in building larger applications.
An important consideration is the number of lives are phthalates improving or saving, something that might be challenging to quantify but shouldn’t be ignored.
Mobile phone use leads to thousands (US) [0] of deaths per year but there are few calls to outright ban smartphones.
Similarly, automobiles lead to tens of thousands of deaths per year (US) [1] and yet only minor support to ban or minimize these death machines.
There are countless other examples of useful objects that provide first order - easy to reason about - benefits that come with steep prices that we are willing to pay.
We’re hiring two more .NET developers to work with us on our C#/.NET team. We have a strong focus on prosocial projects and would love your help making the world a better place.
While our immediate term work includes consulting on non-profit projects, the long-term goal of our organization is to build and support artificial general intelligence. Your work on our .NET team will not require (or likely directly use) machine learning experience but it is helpful to have, especially if you would like to transition to our other projects.
You may have met us at NeurIPS, MLConf, or the Montreal AI Ethics Meetup.
For some background, I’m a longtime hardware and (more frequently) software developer. I also do quite a bit of ML consulting.
I was gifted a MacBook Air many years ago. I was an avid Ubuntu (and, to a much lesser extent, Windows) user and developer at the time so I didn’t know what to make of it. I certainly didn’t expect to be blown away and switch to all Apple devices.
Eight years later and I’m solidly in the Apple ecosystem. I have an open mind about switching but I love the reliability and consistency of the user experience. I can count on the core apps that I frequently reach for to just work. And if they don’t work there’s almost always an obvious, low-time, solution to fix them. I still do a great deal of development in Windows, but it’s exclusively in a Parallels VM on a MacBook and I’ve long since abandoned my desktop for development.
The Apple ecosystem has built up enough trust with me that I also use it when flying (Foreflight on an iPad). You couldn’t pay me to switch to an android tablet as an alternative for that use case.
My largest complaint is python development is not great on OS X out of the box. But that’s easy enough to work around.
My wife and I have many good memories playing checkmo against a beautifully maintained PDP-8 At the museum. She just yelled out a genuine “No!” when I relayed the closure.
At one point they kept a binder of photos of victorious players.
We never made that binder and I guess we never will.
There are similar (but more basic) systems built into some retractable gear aircraft. They generally provide an audible alert if the plane appears about to land but the gear is still up.
Pilots still land gear up, even with the alarm sounding. There is (or at least was) even a public (YouTube) video of this happening from a passenger filming.
Landing a plane is not difficult (source: I’m a pilot) but there’s a lot going on. This is clearly a UI/UX issue but innovation is relatively slow in the certified market.
You may be an outlier. Personally, I’ve tried a number of different brands and haven’t found one that’s consistent enough for me to get through even a half day of work let alone an hour without at least one occurrence of both contacts rotating out of place at once.
I think I’m not alone because the handful of folks I know with contacts for astigmatism have reported similar issues. Additionally, Reddit is full of similar complaints.
It’s possible that these are all unusual cases. I’ll try to track down a more objective way to review contact lens satisfaction for users with astigmatism later when I get a chance.
Contacts for astigmatism that can automatically adjust orientation through an active (powered) mechanism would be game changing for the afflicted. Current passive orientating contacts for astigmatism are severely limited.
Equipment used is part of it, but smaller than you’d imagine.
Well maintained single engine aircraft (in the certified category) are generally reliable. The majority of incidents in these planes come down to avoidable pilot error. Looking at the forces behind pilots making mistakes will provide a lot of insight. General aviation is not forgiving to mistakes and tired, under-trained, overconfident or briefly otherwise human behavior can (and does routinely) cause issues. These factors are more carefully compensated for on the commercial side.
Of course, the counter argument here is the missing safety features that should exist to compensate for mistakes.