its not so much 'sussing out tricks' as a blanket ban on anything that can be abused. My parents made roughly 100k when I was going to school but they were terrible with money and have a lot of children. The 'expected contribution' was actually quite high but I never received anything from my parents at all. Thus, I have much in the way of student loans.
Not to take away from your point but the colleges having to work against these sort of tricks has a lot of unintended consequences.
I actually looked into this recently and found some articles(which I have since lost) that explained that it would appear that the delta between blue light in the morning and at night is the mechanism by which our circadian rhythm seems to work.
However, working with the idea that blue light is photo toxic, it is most likely better to reduce your blue light at night rather than increase it in the morning.
I wanted to do this experiment with dosing myself with blue light in the morning but I abandoned that after seeing research on photo toxicity
Perhaps establishing a morning habit of going and standing in front of an east facing window might be a worthy experiment?
> Just looked up blue light photo toxicity, that is some scary stuff! So is staring at blue light computer monitors all day causing corneal cell death?
I think you're going to be OK. There is a very large, strong (stronger than any monitor) source of blue light that your eyes can handle at least 12 hours of exposure per day to
While you are right to ward off this person's paranoia and we really shouldn't be completely freaking out about light exposure from our phones and such.
I think you are minimizing the issue. We wear sunglasses when it is bright (and should as it can be harmful to our eyes), we don't stare directly at the sun, we don't have it anywhere near as close to our faces, and we don't have the sunlight at night which adds another 2-4 hours of exposure to blue light.
There would appear to be more intense blue light in an LED than coming from the sun.
This page while not a particularly good primary source has some comparisons of the intensity of the blue light in LEDs vs sunlight.
https://iristech.co/pwm-flicker/
"The use of blue light is becoming increasingly prominent in our society, and a large segment of the world population is now subjected to daily exposure (from a few minutes to several hours) of artificial light at an unusual time of the day (night). Because light has a cumulative effect and many different characteristics (e.g., wavelength, intensity, duration of the exposure, time of day), it is important to consider the spectral output of the light source to minimize the danger that may be associated with blue light exposure. Thus, LEDs with an emission peak of around 470–480 nm should be preferred to LEDs that have an emission peak below 450 nm. Although we are convinced that exposure to blue light from LEDs in the range 470–480 nm for a short to medium period (days to a few weeks) should not significantly increase the risk of development of ocular pathologies, this conclusion cannot be generalized to a long-term exposure (months to years). Finally, we believe that additional studies on the safety of long-term exposure to low levels of blue light are needed to determine the effects of blue light on the eye."
Basically, we shouldn't go out of our way to expose ourselves to excess blue light if we can help it. We don't know what it does entirely. Its not worth losing your mind over either but its not quite simple as 'the sun is blue. you'll be fine'
> There would appear to be more intense blue light in an LED than coming from the sun.
I was surprised at how intense LEDs are. When I got my eclipse viewing glasses [1] for viewing the 2017-08-21 eclipse I spent some time trying them out on every seemingly bright light source around my house and my office.
The only things that were easily visible through the eclipse glasses were a 3500 lumen 200 watt halogen bulb, and the white LEDs from an iPhone 6 plus flashlight app, a hand cranked emergency flashlight, and an LED head lamp.
Other religions that have kept their popularity and adherents over the centuries(and much in the past century) have, part, reformed and toned down the significance of these violent mythologies especially in their relevance to doctrine.
To assert otherwise seems like arguing in bad faith.
Yes, you are arguing in very bad faith to ignore the millions dead in the middle east in the last 20 years due to sectarian fighting between abrahamic faiths.
I'm arguing that we have no way to tell if religion is simply just the excuse to make war instead of some other tribal us-vs-them mentality, which humans (throughout history, alas) are wont to do
I get pretty irritated with intentional imprecision, as usually it's attempting to obfuscate what's actually happening. Unidirectional violence from exactly one religion should not be then generalized to a family of religions.
Do you not see how there is value in having someone who is trained to your specifications? You're still getting labor out of someone but when they move to being a proper dev you don't have to worry about any training issues because you trained them.
I truly doubt you hire developers who are productive from day one, when your mentees will be productive from day one as a real dev AND will probably have less growing pains from having learned bad habits or a different standard at another company.
if you pay them better they won't leave. But you've basically said that even after training they are worth less than someone you hire in at first. This distinction is why people leave. You trained these people in the way you'd like them to work, Tailor-made to your processes but you still say they aren't worth the same as the people you hire-in. No wonder they leave and go some place where they've now been hired in without needing to be trained. If you don't value your own training highly enough to pay these people the market rate, what reason do you expect them to stay and work for you for?
how does basic physics tells us there is no free will? That is generally an argument about hard determinism which could be argued is invalidated by The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Randomness does not yield freedom. A robot connected to a truly random source (like a decaying radioactive substance) is no more free than a fully deterministic x86 chip.
Sorry but that is exactly what I meant: the world is a) either deterministic or b) partially deterministic and partially random (for example quantum), and in either of these cases there's no way you can construct free will agents.
Arguably the b) version is not simple physics, but that's what I meant.
This post makes the assumption that happiness should be a permanent state rather than a transient state like any other emotion.
Shouldn't we seek to just 'be', and react accordingly to what the moment impresses upon us?
If we seek to be happy at all times, wouldn't that be as much of a sickness as being sad all the time?
Wouldn't happiness become something common place and fall into the background like so much white noise?
Not the parent but:
I would imply exactly such a thing. Just like how, in some/most states you are supposed to pay a tipped employee minimum wage if they don't make the equivalent in tips.
As far as I can tell from having worked in food service: that payout never happens.
I owned two Domino's pizzas for 15 years. I paid every cent in credit card tips to the employee, and never passed along the transaction fees. There were routinely thousands in tips weekly and I never even thought of keeping any of it. I started at the store answering the phones and did years of delivering. I understand tip money is the difference between eating and going hungry.
What you've described is a state crime, a federal crime, and a violation of several different state and federal labor laws. Easily a dime worth of prison time, plus criminal fines, plus civil penalties, plus having to pay out the stolen tips to your employees with treble damages for the intentional tort you've comitted.
Not really worth it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the calculus is so bad that it's extremely rare to happen at scale. Especially if there's a digital trail run by a third party...
I can understand why you might think it never happens if you are completely ignorant of the facts on the ground but nevertheless familiar with the criminal and civil sanctions involved. It's about lack of enforcement.
I see a short article about a few dinner parties this author attended wherein the owners were keeping the tip. Am I missing the real data here? Is the real story somewhere else? That's a far cry from "this happens _all_ the time."
It has been years since I read her series of articles on the topic of tipping, although I remember it being influential at the time. It's possible I linked to the wrong thing, but in my defense I didn't realize that my post would be required to rise to the level of mathematical proof. Ahem.
Obviously, none of these are scientific studies but I don't know if there are any done in the industry.
What I'm trying to point out is: Wage theft of all types happens all the time and I've known people too poor to risk losing their job who suffered under this issue.
I'm sure it doesn't happen often -at scale-, in chain restaurants with big corporate backing but in an industry where most close after their first year and the workers are frequently undocumented or transient. It happens.
When the employers multiply these consequences by the (extremely low) probability of a legal claim, they may just decide that it's worth it to pocket the tips...
This is my personal experience from having worked in a restaurant when I was 17: the owner would "pool" the total tips for the night and then distribute them to the workers before we went home. The owner said pooling would keep the tips distribution "fair" because some workers wouldn't get a chance to wait tables if they had to handle takeouts behind the register for most of a shift.
However, pretty quickly us workers discovered the math wasn't adding up. We would pool $300 of tips for the night and only have $200 equally distributed to us. When we asked the owner, he would say something like "you must have added wrong" or "the receipts only show $200", which was bullshit. After that happened, us workers made it a point to always make up an excuse to the customers why we couldn't handle electronic tips, and then immediately pocket the cash tips and split them ourselves.
Fortunately, most of us left before the owner caught on to the point of becoming confrontational (it was a short job before university). Moral of the story is some guy in his mid-40s, who made enough money to drive a BMW, felt that he could deceive some young kids because he had the chance. In hindsight, now I know more about things like labor laws and enforcement hotlines, but at the time most of us were also being paid under the table (which we didn't even understand because this was our first real job) and were scared of having to face the IRS and lose the money we made.
I was a waiter for years. I personally never made under min, but I knew people who did. They got paid. I also got paid every cent of every cc tip. What are you basing this on?
Sure, and murder is still a thing even though we have laws against it. All laws are broken by some people, but the matter at hand isn't "does this ever happen?", it's "does this happen so often as to constitute a massive and consistent pattern of wage theft?"
Doesn't your own link say that there is a ~2.6 times higher likelihood of violent offenses in schizophrenia compared to the General Population?
Of course, it does say that the effect is significantly more pronounced with a 'substance abuse co-morbidity' but I can't seem to find the likelihood of a substance abuse co-morbidity with schizophrenia in this paper.
"Schizophrenia Patients Report Consistently Higher Rates of Substance Abuse Than the General Population, Notably With Respect to 4 Licit (Nicotine and Alcohol) and Illicit (Cannabis and Cocaine) Substances"
it also says this is not to be used as a baseline for studies but if Schizophrenia is commonly co-morbid with substance abuse then pointing out that mental illness doesn't increase violence by much seems like a red-herring.
> Doesn't your own link say that there is a ~2.6 times higher likelihood of violent offenses in schizophrenia compared to the General Population?
No.
It tells us that people who are mentally ill are about as violent as the general population unless they also have substance abuse.
> it also says this is not to be used as a baseline for studies but if Schizophrenia is commonly co-morbid with substance abuse then pointing out that mental illness doesn't increase violence by much seems like a red-herring
When trying to predict risk of violence knowing that someone has schizophrenia tells you almost nothing. Knowing they have substance misuse tells you a bit more.
And knowing that people with schizophrenia are not more violent than the general population means community treatment is easier to provide.
"In patients with schizophrenia, 1054 (13.2%) had at least 1 violent offense compared with 4276 (5.3%)"
thats a 2.5 difference in patients with schizophrenia compared to the general population
> When trying to predict risk of violence knowing that someone has schizophrenia tells you almost nothing. Knowing they have substance misuse tells you a bit more.
That is simply not true though. Substance abuse changes the rate at which it happens but Substance abuse seems to have a high comorbidity with Schizophrenia and while the rate is significantly lower when there are no substance issues it is still higher.
Substance abuse, per the link you provided, creates a 3rd and fourth population subset (1: schizophrenics 2: neurotypical 3:Schizophrenics with Substance abuse 4: NT with Substance abuse) Which after your response, seems like you're being intentionally misleading in order prove your point.
