1g of Xylitol is enough to kill 3 dogs in half an hour.
That is the oddest mortality unit I've heard in a long time.
1g of Xylitol is enough to kill 3 dogs in half an hour.
That is the oddest mortality unit I've heard in a long time.
When I go to mac donalds, I get a hamburger and a diet soda (I don't really care for the fries).
Makes sense for me, a 500-600 calorie meal. I't a nice lunch, tastes good (all beef, even MCD, is awesome this side of the world), and even has lettuce and tomato.
A standard McDonalds hamburger does not come with lettuce and tomato. Catsup, mustard, pickle, minced onions. Has 240 calories.
In your example, that double big mac has 700 calories.
A Big Mac has 530 calories. Not sure what a double Big Mac is since it isn't a standard part of McDonald's menu. By itself a Big Mac is fine now and then but people rarely eat just a Big Mac. Usually they have some fries and a sugar loaded soft drink too. This easily can get the meal over 1000 calories as you mention which is about half the daily caloric intake for an adult male.
Not a diet meal, but not that excessive. It even has a lot of lettuce, which is good against blood sugar spikes, esp. a good thing for most fat people.
No burger sold by McDonalds has "a lot of lettuce". It has at most a small piece (possibly shredded) the size of the bun. That is not a lot of lettuce using any reasonable definition of the word "lot". Furthermore to get enough fiber to actually affect blood sugar levels you would have to eat several cups of the stuff, far more than is in any McDonalds burger.
Dangerous smangerous. I don't drink diet because it tastes terrible.
Depends on your taste buds. Once you drink diet for a while the regular stuff tastes a bit weird. I have trouble finishing a regular can of coke.
Plus the amount of sugar in the normal stuff is ridiculous. I think they should start selling a free insulin shot with every case. Basically you are literally picking your poison.
Driverless cars are prime real estate for ads.
That's a bit of a stretch even for Google. I'm not saying you are wrong but it doesn't really explain their investment in the technology. That's just too far off to make a connection to a revenue stream at this time.
Honestly the real revenue stream for that sort of technology will probably be in licensing. Making what amounts to a navigation system for a car could be a very real standalone business if they get far enough ahead of the curve. I could see Google spinning it off or licensing the technology somewhere down the road. Google gets the opportunity to direct the technology in ways beneficial to them (maybe) but they aren't the only ones working on this so any ties to their current business model are hugely premature given that not a single vehicle sold has any of this technology embedded in it yet.
I believe that you have a bias about "ideal teams".
Disagree. The ideal team structure for a situation can vary greatly depending on the task at hand and the personalities involved. I make no judgement about what is ideal for a given situation and I've seen a wide variety of team structures work effectively. But what is VERY clear is that having a single individual, no matter how talented, doing something wildly different than the rest of the organization is almost always a recipe for failure. There are exceptions that prove the rule but they are rather rare.
Thanks to the internet it is easier today to have teams time and location shifted particularly if the task is something like software that can be readily broken up in to manageable pieces. But that is relatively rare. My company is a manufacturer and it would be nearly impossible for us to work effectively at different times of day and in different locations.
The OP described the 2 profiles that you can find:
Side A: collaborative type
Side B: competitive type
That grossly oversimplifies the reality of the situation. Things involving real people rarely fall neatly into one of two buckets no matter how much you might wish it were so.
That said, when someone says an American won't do the job what they mean is, "I'm not willing to pay a living wage for this job"
It's not a matter of not being willing to pay higher wages. The economics of the industry are such that it is impossible to pay substantially higher wages. Profit margins in farming are low in the best of times and labor cost is a very substantial percent of the cost of most agriculture products. Higher wages in crop picking does not result in meaningfully higher productivity. A person has a physical limit on how much work they can accomplish in a given amount of time. Higher wages will not result in better productivity beyond a certain point. There also is no way for a single farm (even large agribusinesses) to set prices high enough to offset paying higher wages. We as consumers demand that food prices be kept low and unless you can remove the labor component from the price equation the only way to keep prices low is to pay low wages.
I would love to pay farm workers better wages for picking crops but I really do not see a way to make it a reality. Has nothing to do with a willingness or not to pay living wages.
For a product or service to unseat a market leader, it's got to be MUCH better than the status quo.
No it does not. In fact most established companies are demonstrably NOT usually unseated by technology that is much better than the status quo at the time they get unseated. Often the technology is actually worse at least at first. This is the core idea behind disruptive innovations. A better mousetrap is helpful but most of the time it isn't what actually unseats a market leader. What does is technology that changes the market itself rather than being a better version of what already exists.
What has to happen is that the new product or service has to provide a new value proposition that that the market leader cannot match until it is too late. Usually they cannot match it because initially the financial value of the new technology isn't enough to be worth the time for the market leader to develop. Often they fight it because it might cannibalize their existing revenue streams.
Fighting a market leader head on almost always results in the market leader winning. Instead they get unseated by technology that changes the game. There are lots of examples. Linux still hasn't made a dent in the desktop operating system market but it dominates mobile. It changed the game and mobile arguably is where all the growth is. Cell phone cameras still aren't better cameras than standalone point and shoots but they were good enough and are integrated with a networked device everyone already carries. Kodak couldn't be bothered to develop a digital camera business even though they pioneered the technology because they were at their core a chemicals company and couldn't make the shift.
Side A: But if you're in the office while everybody else is in, you can work more efficiently, as everybody else is there to answer your questions.
The benefits of having everyone in the office at the same time is that you can be a more effective team. Engineering is (mostly) a team sport. You have to structure the work environment right so distractions and pointless meetings are minimized otherwise you are setting yourself up for failure. But most important is that you need an environment where the team can work effectively together. For most tasks this requires a non-trivial amount of direct interaction with coworkers. While time shifted teams can work in some cases these are rare and remember that we are talking about a time LONG before the internet was a thing so working separately was far more difficult than it is today. If someone doesn't want to work on an engineering team then either they need to be in a (rare) job where that doesn't matter or they simply aren't going to work out.
Side B: Some of the best engineers I've worked with worked nights. Some of them slept under their desks and rarely showered, but none of the 9-5 people came close to their performance.
That's only helpful if you can do your work without involving anyone else which is extremely unusual. Engineering in most cases is a team activity and it's pretty hard to be an effective team if you have one person (even an extremely talented one) who is never present. In the early days of microprocessor development maybe one guy could do the critical work by himself but that doesn't really work as things get more complex. The long run downside of accommodating prima-donna engineers almost always outweighs the upside of their potential contributions.
Basically, if people perform don't mess with their schedule or their appearance.
My guess is that this guy wouldn't have been able to perform given the team requirements. I don't really care how talented he was, eventually the volume of work will overwhelm even the most talented engineer as the business grows and then he had damn well better be able to play nice with others. Sounds like this guy couldn't.
What we are seeing now --- the branching of Google into driverless cars, into Google+, into Youtube (actually they acquired it), and so on --- is but afterthoughts, aka what should we do with all the Billions we got?
You are quite wrong if you think a lot of the things Google is doing are "afterthoughts". They aren't. You just have to look at them from Google's perspective. Youtube isn't an afterthought, it fits very nicely in with their core advertising business - eyeballs on video has a long tradition. Google+? Integrates business lines for better advertising. Maps? Local search and advertising. Gmail? Advertising based on personal communications. Android? Defensive play to keep Apple and Microsoft from shutting them out of the mobile ad market. Almost everything Google does supports their core advertising business either by extending it or protecting it. 95% of their revenue comes from ads (look it up - it's in their financial statements) and that number hasn't budged.
Google seems to live by the "fail fast" mantra. If they don't think something is going to be a home run they close it down fairly quickly. I'm sure they get it wrong sometimes but at least I can wrap my head around what they are doing. Otherwise they would eventually end up with a bunch of small products used by a tiny group of people that cost them far more to maintain than they will ever generate in revenue. I understand the frustration with never being sure if they'll keep a product around but it's not hard to understand why they are doing it.
The driverless car thing is flashy and cool but it gets WAY more press than is justified by the amount of money and effort Google is actually pouring into it. It's genuinely not that big a deal for Google and isn't likely to move the needle on their revenue or costs for many years if ever. Driverless cars is a research project by the closest thing Google has to a basic science research group. Any benefits from it will likely take decades to fully realize.
As for fb, don't worry, it too is on its way down --- as nothing stays up forever
Google is certainly being more sane than Facebook. $2 billion for Occulus? Explain to me how that will ever tie into Facebook's business model or how that price is remotely justifiable given the likely ROI. However I don't see Facebook going away any time soon unless they do something truly moronic. Never underestimate the power of network effects in keeping a user base around. See eBay if you need a good example. Terrible to do business with but everyone goes there because that's where everyone else is.
Well, not every day (or even every month), but that's not impossible at a nice anniversary meal with wine, steaks, and dessert.
(It helps if you live in San Francisco and get used thinking of a $12 burger and fries as a cheap lunch.)
You know the famous quote.
"As a general thing, I have not 'duped the world' nor attempted to do so... I have generally given people the worth of their money twice told."
The one you're likely thinking of is irrelevant here, because I've spent more on dinners than I did on my Sport watch that's due for delivery today. You say "suckers", I say "people who don't mind spending $350 on a watch they'll be using every day and that's easily worth the money in sheer entertainment value".
People are stupid if they don't realize a password is like a key.
They do, and the problem is that they treat it exactly like one. When you buy a lock, do you immediately re-key it? No: you use it as-is. Now maybe if the key looked very suspicious, like say it was a perfect sine or square wave or it was completely smooth, then you might ask the blacksmith whether that's normal. I bet those shopkeepers would be asking the same of their POS installer if the password was "123456" or "111111".
But to their (and my) untrained eye, "166816" looks reasonably random. It looks as random as my Schlage house key does. Maybe there's a locksmith forum where experts are making fun of me for not changing my obviously default lock. After all, they can tell at a glance that I have the standard factory issue! How stupid am I for using it without making my own pattern!
No, I think you're exactly wrong. People think of these passwords as keys. They use the ones manufacturers give them. They hand them out to the same staff that have keys to the front door and cash drawers. They don't routinely change them when people quit. They don't audit their usage. They treat them just like the little medal danglies on the ring in their pocket, no more, no less. We've done a very poor job of telling them why they should think otherwise.
So you're saying I should have to go and pay Microsoft for that Window 8 crap just so my girlfriend can continue to load music on her iPod?
Or you could just buy it directly through the device like everyone else does. I haven't bought music through a desktop iTunes app in a long time.
I hereby present you with today's Indignant Goldberg award for simultaneously finding the most convoluted way possible to perform a common operation and also bitching about its difficulty.
At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.