33 is the age hobbits are adults...

'If the employer's plan doesn't include paying a reasonable wage then their plan is crap and they need to go out of business so that someone with a better plan can succeed them.'

That assumes that such a plan can exist. Why do you assume that it does? If a firm in a high wage economy is competing directly with one in a low wage economy in a simple product, there's no reason to believe that the high wage firm can continue in the sector. You're indulging in an act of faith that is quite simply wrong, otherwise known as wishful thinking.

Pebble shat on their users last time around, let's see how the new old owners will do it now. With https://gadgetbridge.org/ supporting more and more hardware, the case for Pebble is a bit unclear.

It's not really a gamble if they have demonstrated the basic technology works. It seems more like a logical an investment. Will they be highly successful or not has yet to be seen but this isn't a company without merit.

Fuckin' truuuuuuuue

Turned out the government actually had working protocols and guardrails to keep people's personal data isolated between departments and Republicans blew that all up in like 45 days.

I meant to write Fuchsia. Zephyr is by Wind River Systems. My bad but you can see how it's hard to keep who's making what straight.

Perhaps you are thinking of MINIX because it was discovered that Intel uses MINIX 3 for their Intel Management Engine.

Is to give access to information that otherwise just wouldn't be there. If you're in a position where you can actually measure academic performance then you probably have a semi-functional public school system and you don't need programs like this.

These programs work well in intensely impoverished areas where the school systems have broken down or just never existed in the first place and information isn't available. Places where you're lucky if the kids are taught to read.

But it's going to be a really shitty two or three years. Eventually though the build-out will be done and will be in bailout territory where we're burrowing out Banks who loaned these idiots money to spend $1,000 on a 64 GB ram kit.

Just wait until you accidentally dd /dev/null to the entire disk.

(Good thing that wouldn't actually work, until our AI overlords can correct "/dev/null" to "/dev/zero")

I wonder what the arguments from the other side are. For instance, I wonder if some of those toxic pesticides aren't present anymore at harvest (so should not cause harm), or whether some pesticides are only harmful during application (so is theoretically safe with PPE). I.e., I'd like to know whether the US is just unhealthy/unsafe as you've implied, or whether we judge risks differently and both sides are reasonable. I bet it's a little from column A, a little from column B.

To make a strong case that the US has unsafe food, I think one would need more specific evidence than "1000 agrochemicals are banned in the EU but not in the US". Why are they banned/not banned?

I'm not saying they shouldn't have abandoned it, I'm saying there is a tendency to make bold proclamations about the future (either by Google or media outlets) that do not reflect reality and thus should not be taken at face value. As such, it's more accurate to say that Google "plans to eventually replace Android" rather than stating it as a fact.

I put mine into a machine once a year and dd the entire disk to /dev/null. So far, so good.

Yes and no.

Based on the article, the fluorochemicals are additives. They are probably spreader stickers, designed to lower the surface tension of the pesticides so they fully coat foliage and even penetrate the stomata (if desired). They may also form a waxy layer upon drying so rain doesn't wash the pesticides off--or they may be part of this general chemistry, allowing the right kind of emulsion to form so the "soapy" spreading action doesn't mean the pesticide just gets washed off (as would happen if you mixed ordinary grease and detergent). The upshot is that you need less pesticide, applied less frequently.

The fluorochemicals also don't increase the toxicity of the pesticide's active ingredients. However they are toxic in their own right. The article says this isn't a bioaccumulative pesticide, but the fluorochemicals do accumulate in the environment. So we can reduce our pesticide usage, but the price is that the environment will slowly accumulate these toxic additives. It seems like a bad bargain, but I wonder how long we could do this and not end up with a permanent problem--how long until we need to figure out other solutions to protect crops? And is the trade-off only money? Does it merely cost more money to use higher doses of pesticides with less effective spreader stickers, or does that have a different negative environmental effects? It's naive to assume this can be solved by banning the bad chemicals. You need to evaluate that with the concomitant increased use of different chemicals.

That is no longer legal in the US. Of course no regulation is perfect or perfectly enforced, but do you have any information on whether this is still happening?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Turning telemetry off is such a nice, rewarding game of whack-a-mole.