bonesss

I use PowerPoint for that.

Draw outlines, or use graphics, wire up clickable areas, and interaction flows, and you’ve got a presentable “live” demo that doesn’t run afoul of issues presenting demo sites to non-techies (placeholder text, ugly buttons, test domains, colours, etc).

“Eating less” is the bottom line, but the road there can be fraught.

Many people don’t understand what the high calorie drivers in their diet are, many wildly mis-estimate how much they’re eating, most people inflate the weight loss impacts of training and neglect the appetite rebounds, and the interplay between insulin and appetite and how to manage satiety signals is voodoo for even a lot of doctors. Availability of proper food and time to prepare it are hurdles on top of hurdles.

My estimation is that a lot of people are using way, way, more energy and willpower in their ‘diet’ cycles than necessary but tragically getting poor results because of miscalibration. Our society is geared around profitable food delivery, not healthy dietary wisdom.

“You can’t outrun the fork.”

Nuclear doomerism is what has lead us to this silly "status quo" and the subject of the article/thread.

There is more than one kind of nuclear, and the fuel situation has known reserves that aren't being used because of lack of demand. Fuel costs in reactors are only a very small part of their operational costs so new mines are not the priority. We also have viable seawater extraction technologies that are waiting for appropriate demand. Past that, there are also breeder and waste-burning reactors long held-up as a vital and fuel-conserving part of a complete nuclear eco-system.

Bluntly: the nuclear build-out France achieved in the 70s, scaled globally, would solve the climate problem and position us for synthetic fuel production at a civilizational scale. Modern technologies & robotics have us on track for facilities producing low greenhouse energy for more than a century. Global shipping, transport fuels, and energy-intensive industry require high-energy inputs. WWS are wonderful, but very awkward in those domains.

The other problem is the prisoners dilemma: if the west stops having children and not-the-west does not stop then within a short time we will have replaced the west with an equivalent population breeding much faster for cultural or religious reasons.

There is also a world of social disruption, which could lead to environmentally disastrous wars, that come from those kinds of demographic inversions. The combination of worsening climate issues with those destabilizations might lead to acute depopulation at the global level, but not likely of a climate-friendly variety.

Destroying the world to improve some portion of the climate experienced by some portion of some population at some unspecified later date a century or more in the future versus, say, geoengineering and attacking the present-day cost structures of nuclear energy strikes me generally as a Bad Plan.

Oil drilling helps oil companies.

Nuclear power threatens oil companies.

We used to talk about replacing transportation fuels and low-carbon shipping (global energy). Now we talk about personal responsibility and rooftop solar (residential electricity). You can find oil company PR slide decks explaining why and how. Greenwashing worked, pushing the renewable ‘debate’ worked. We missed the windows on critical infrastructure change, and seemingly enjoy an unstable chunk of desert dictating global energy, inflation & food prices. <shrug>

Hypothetically: perhaps they are trying to curtail users spiraling during episodes of frustration or worse, impacting their own mental health, presentation, and product affinity.

Kinda like how if I break some plates at a restaurant I have to pay for it, but if Tony Soprano breaks them the restaurant pays him.

Protection is a heck of a business model, if you can get away with it.

I landed a massive database upgrade on a payroll system years ago, end-to-end standardization, cleanup, and improvement with a seamless rollout.

Our back clapping was interrupted by an angry customer phone call. One of our customers had gotten access to our internal schema and had a massive reporting setup in Access solving most of his needs.

I ended up converting his reports using some internal tools we had. Customers will grab anything to give them.

[The caliber and depth of his reports were such I wish we would have bought them instead of making me spend months building out our own reports.]

Having built a hobo version of something similar (serving a minimal subset of the Kafka API on top of CosmoDB): there’s also the hybrid scenario where the cheap serverless streams are used for scalability and broadcast while a low-latency core is maintained on sharply reduced compute resources. An 80/20 approach that saves a lot and, in our case, reduced cluster (mis)management risks at the same time.

In our case BLOB and large document transfers were handled in parallel, merging them together through object storage is a highly appealing package. Great work!

Like how Tony Soprano sold sandwiches and ‘protection’ at the same time. Two income streams are better than one.

Blowing something up so hard it almost gets into space is a feat of engineering, even if all it does is rain debris from ahigh.

I believe it’s checkbox-filling in the acquisition process for enterprise contracts, like a lot of other half-baked capabilities in their flagship products.

It doesn’t matter how they work, it matters you can tell leadership “yes, they have that too” to maintain existing contracts and vendor relationships.

Speculation, but: if tech over hired during COVID our section of the market could be experiencing a corrective slowdown while others are booming in aggregate.