thaway2839

If you extrapolate the charts, it looks like if they simply waited one more year the mental health benefits would be the same.

Moving to a less green area appears to be accompanied by an immediate drop in mental health, followed by a steady increase. The only difference from those charts when moving to the rural areas is that there is no immediate drop, which appears to account for all the difference. And the mental health benefits of rural areas appears to plateau, so it's completely possible that the move to the less green area will catch up in the mental health benefit aspect within the year.

So basically a massive worst case financial crisis led to something almost, but not actually, failing.

Sounds like the system worked extremely well.

Part of the reason you can do that, though, is that based on your age, you spent most of your life living in a way where you were naturally active, just to get through the day. You likely did not grow up eating food that was manufactured to addict you to it. And you did not grow up on platforms that have scores of PHds trying to figure out how to get you, individually, addicted to their platform.

IOW, your natural instincts largely worked because your environment supported a fairly high quality lifestyle.

This is not close to true anymore. Our natural instincts and daily lives have been hijacked beyond recognition.

With WFH, for example, people may go days without having walked beyond the distance it takes to go from their bed to their desk, or if they're lucky, from their bedroom to the home office.

I hope the Apple production isn't like the MLB one.

The MLB production is crap. They really need to stop making it look like an Apple product.

This is a strawman.

You don't need to reduce energy to reduce air pollution.

And that makes it a horrible currency. It makes it highly deflationary which absolutely stunts the working of an economy because no one wants to spend anymore.

Good currencies are not stores of value. They are means of exchange. And crypto is a horrible means of exchange.

It may have some use as a store of value (i.e. digital gold), but it's not clear to me why I would store my value in digital gold, which will require people to altruistically spend money on energy after 2040 or so when no more Bitcoins are generated for miners (in practice much earlier as each mined BTC gets increasingly expensive), to maintain the blockchain, as opposed to investing in real gold, which can literally sit under my mattress and not require a network of planet burning computers for it to not vanish.

Lol, so 18% of their employees have access to personal data.

Ok. I am very comfortable entrusting my data to this company.

I don't understand your link to the Onion here.

Are you joking or do you not realize that the Onion is satire?

Also, discretionary here is entirely a political/legal term.

I think one would find it very hard to argue that military spending is discretionary for any major nation in the layman sense of that word, even if the US's military spending is beyond control (on the flip side, the US also gets much less value for its military spending relative to say the value China gets for its military spending).

Next thing you will be telling everybody is that Bitcoin was promoted as a hedge against inflation.

The real economy actually produces value. It feeds people, clothes people, entertains people, etc. even if it does so imperfectly. The economy's value dropping 20% a day would represent a real problem that needs to be addressed.

We saw this when COVID began. The stock markets were plummeting as people increasingly realized that COVID was not gonna be gone by Easter, and that this would affect us for some time and how impactful it would be.

With crypto, the only thing that the falling prices is tell us that another layer of the onion of scams that crypto is built upon has been peeled, and the only real question is how deep the layers go and whether there even is something of value deep inside.

Sounds like a better, potentially more useful, form of peer review?

Most people using Atom or any other open source project, would likely have based their decision at least partly on the organization backing the project, especially in a professional setting.

For the most part, when a different organization picks up the development of the project (if one does) it's a completely new project at this point (there are exceptions, such as a backing organization continuing to back the project, but deciding that it's better supported by an independent trust, and therefore building a transition plan for that).

The best example of this is looking at any Apache supported project today. There are very few projects that were handed over to the Apache foundation that people would want to continue using in their post Apache handover date, even if they were amongst the lucky few that still have active development (OpenOffice, for example).

Sunsetting is absolutely the right term/approach to use.

I'm pretty sure people are actually using it.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Progressive DAs elected across some cities are just really bad at being DAs.

They've identified a real issue where 10% (arbitrarily chosen number...it could be higher/lower) of the justice system is not working well. But at the same time, 90% of it does work. They've turned out to be really bad at handling that 90%.