reallydude

> 1. by eating less you are going to lose weight

> 2. It's no(t) going to be easy

> Not at all

Self righteous nonsense.

It does matter. I would suggest, that it would be compelling to stop with the deterministic statements that are equivocations to fit your own narrative. What "less" means or what "starvation" means, is information that would be helpful. Given the multiple vectors that compose the general term "nutrition", we can be sure that less intake is more effective for losing weight. Then going on to say "pretty damn easy" is insulting. Most people aren't informed enough to make measured political decisions (many state initiative cycles in the US have shocking consequences), choosing what to eat and how much is an impracticable behavior.

How is that relevant to the topic or infrastructure comment?

SMH

Your assurances that you know what the NSA (or proxy) would reason is laughable, for example. You have a view that he's a bad actor and it doesn't matter to me, other than it's a trivial thought experiment to justify his actions. GL

Not just specific companies, but largely specific areas (which have to compete with specific companies). New grads will, statistically, never see signing bonuses in their career, much less out of school. People paying bonuses for new grads is a sunk opportunity cost and a company should never do it unless it hurts them in some measurable way (cost-benefit analyses are important).

I've interviewed hundreds of people in Southern California, some who came out of google (does give signing bonuses) or Amazon (rarely signing bonus) and it has happened that Blizzard tempted some people with a little bonus...but these are uncommon.

People who jump company to company (google to amazon and back) don't get bonuses (as rehires), although that's outside the topic of "new grads".

I have never seen a signing bonus. Options, yearly bonus, even rev-share, sure.

> There can be other facets of a company that should influence your decision, such as what type of healthcare they offer,

Almost universally, company health care SUCKS. Look for major medical. If it's not there, don't bother. Save yourself the 7$ a month they will rebate you, if you opt-out. JPMorgan? Trash. Experian? Trash. etc

> What the 401k matching looks like

This is important. Generally % of paycheck up to a limit. It does take a chunk from your paycheck, which is you saving for yourself.

> whether they offer a mega backdoor Roth, whether they allow auto-sell of your vested stocks, whether there’s an employee stock purchase plan, and whether they offer free food or gym.

This is all marginal and rare in my experience. Other than a little gym you can pay for or some snacks (which will eventually be abused and changed if the company is growing) or Kombucha on tap or whatever is not a consideration for me.

It keeps industries (affecting the currency, in the case of banks) stable. There's only 1 asshole to talk to, when it stops being reliable or the populace gets uppity enough for the political animals to notice.

> 26 cents per ride That's terrible.

Other non-tech businesses, hell EVERY business that I've ever worked in that used AWS did better per transaction - healthcare, digital advertising, virtual office tooling, gaming. If you can't do better than a credit card processing fee per paid customer interaction across the company on AWS, you might as well be selling retail goods...and depending on age, your company might be soon.

> rock phosphate is a finite resource and the biggest supplies are mined in politically unstable places

A similarity with oil? I think it's a forgone conclusion that politically unstable places are ripe for becoming stable under whatever guise a mining nation chooses. The profits must flow.

> 150 degree weather

I guess that depends on what you consider "weather" If I said "ground temperature", would it matter to the discussion? 60C (140F) was the Average temp in the triassic. With the amount of water in the air plus the carbon dioxide, I expect to see that in places a couple generations after I die...which is the time period I've referenced (political instability).

The highest ground temperature recorded was 201 degrees at Furnace Creek on July 15, 1972, according to the National Park Service. The maximum air temperature for that day was 128. All types of bad things happen at that point. Water evaporates rapidly at 150, so who cares where the water comes from. It's gone or containers rupture as it turns gaseous. What temperature the air is, doesn't matter.

The survival of our technological civilization is very much uncertain. It has been since the nuclear age. If someone wanted to take meaningful action, they would be sinking container ships. In aggregate, they contribute to more pollution (of all kinds), than most singular countries. Nobody is going to war over this, so it's inevitable. If it's inevitable, it's not healthy to pretend otherwise. The earth will survive, humans will survive, and maybe technological action will allow us to terraform the earth in a different or unexpected way (eg Snowpiercer).

This "debate" about what to do is always toothless and desperate and pointless until the death toll starts to mount. Even then, the wealthy will make the same old arguments about irresponsibility and willful ignorance of those with nothing, blaming the victims, which seems to work generation after generation...until finally we get multinational instability and with smaller populations, some semblance of change too late (eg states of the USSR) to recover from the devastation. What's the mini-state of lower california going to do about 150 degree weather and no water? Nothing.

I don't draw any "consequences", whatever that's supposed to mean. I have been following the article's claim and explaining it in simpler terms, because there was a misunderstanding of the claim. Who do you think Callender is? Not me. Talk to the guy making the claim about your explicit objections. His email is both in this thread and trivially available. I don't care that you object to the claims he makes. That isn't a debate I'm participating in (if you even read the article, or the thread). Your opinion makes no difference to me (a random guy on the internet who can read english). Good luck with whatever.

You continually make the grave error of framing the criticism as if I had proposed it. I am clarifying what is plainly stated in the article, by Callender, but somehow has escaped the narrow focus of individuals like yourself.

> It doesn't make any sense, they aren't equal, they aren't proportional.

That's not relevant. You increase one, you increase the other. [1]The equality symbol is not a literal equality. In a macro sense, it's a relationship that is directly correlated as opposed to equal in any sort of specific calculus.

> The first error is that at some point you use that the volume is "equal" (proportional?) to the entropy, but this relation is wrong.

You missed the point, which was initially:

> Here’s another way in which the analogy falls flat.

> So what do we make of all those thermodynamic relations that include volume, like Boyle’s law

Callendar was making his core argument that the entropy of a black hole is not expressed as a function of volume in one sense - because there's an assumption of quantum mechanics that take over, as you say it's "wrong" following the unproven "black hole thermodynamics" models ... but in another sense (Bekenstein–Hawking) there is a paper describing how surface area is a function of entropy. So this looks like a dichotomy since the surface area (which can tell you the entropy) can tell you the volume of a sphere, but volume of a black hole sphere isn't used to correlate to the entropy...so there's a dichotomy that is related to breaking laws (equivalence doesn't mean anything and it's all nonsense). Basically there's an assumption that beyond the event horizon we assume that the rules of physics break down into something new, although the black holes (theoretically per Bekenstein–Hawking) exhibit what a classical physicist would expect. Why not treat the black hole as if it has entropy as per the classical physics models, since it exhibits that quality already and see what insights that yields, rather than a whole new branch of thermodynamics that are necessarily exotic theory?

> now you are removing and exponent, not a multiplicative constant

See [1]

I have rephrased the position and I think maybe you should have a talk with the originator ([email protected]) if you are still confused.