A point is 0-dimensional, but in a space-time diagram the time dimension is added, which makes it 1-dimensional. Penrose diagrams for black holes assume spherical symmetry, so all of space is represented by a single radial coordinate, which makes it possible to display such diagrams in 1+1=2 dimensions.
A singularity doesn't have a dimension. It is a portion of spacetime that is missing, not a point or set of points. We can't define its dimensionality, either.(×) What we can say is that the singularity in Schwarzschild black holes is spacelike.
×) Counterexample: Consider the manifold M := R³\B, where B is the closed unit ball, equipped with the standard Euclidean metric. This manifold is certainly not Cauchy-complete and we can reach the singularity at r=1 in finite time. Now, if we had to define the dimension of the singularity, what dimension n should it have? n=2 (a sphere)? Maybe. At least we could extend M by the unit sphere to make it complete. But could the singularity also be a point (i.e. n=1)? Yes, certainly. By diffeomorphism invariance, we could simply find new coordinates and map R³\B to R³\{0}, so the singularity would suddenly become a point. So, as you can see, interpreting the singularity as a point or set of points that have a topological dimension doesn't work.
But DNA needs to be copied to be analyzed. So we could invent a law that makes each person owner of the copyright to their own DNA. There could be legal penalties for anyone who copies the DNA without permission. Twins will need some special consideration though since they share the same DNA.
It does not need to be copied to be analyzed. You can feed it through a nanopore without any copying, and do an analysis in current flux space without ever instantiating the original sequence. But I am just being semantic. Really, we are all copies of each other, remixed and so forth. If Joe's body makes sperm that includes a haplotype in Sally's genome, is he violating her copyright? We quickly get to an absurd place. We no more own our genome than we own our great grandmother, or she owns us.
The first paragraph of the article mentions that Camacho was traumatized by a kidnapping that involved torture and a mock execution. That made him a victim of PTSD that made him put on weight. It's not clear how relevant this is to the rest of the story, but to an amateur like me it seems obvious that treating the PTSD directly would be a better approach than solving the problem by counting calories. Of course it's still trivially true that calorie balance completely determines weight stability, so it would be stupid to dismiss calorie counting if you have trouble with keeping your weight stable, whether it's too high or too low.
A famous anecdote for all egg-lovers: Albert Hofmann (inventor of LSD) claimed that he owed his health to eating two raw eggs for breakfast everyday. He lived to the impressive age of 102.
There are two kinds of deadlines: the ones imposed by objective facts (like for example the Y2K deadline), and the ones imposed by arbitrary decisions (like for example a milestone in a project plan). I think it is important to distinguish the two.
There's also a 3rd kind of deadline and they're the worst kind. It's the "our sales team have already told the customer it will be ready by then so you need to tell me how you're going to achieve that" deadline.
I can deal with hard technical deadlines and project milestones - the former is a fact of life and the latter is often required to help focus larger projects. What I emphatically dislike is sales guys making business decisions before checking with the engineering teams to determine how much effort is required to deliver a project.
I used to dislike this too, mainly because they put the problem in your bucket.
The solution is to not let this problem end up on your side. "We will see what we can do, but since we didn't make any estimate on this, the risk of failing the deadline is on you. If you want to set a proper deadline next time for my team, consult me first so we can do a proper estimation. I hope it works out for you this time."
I also had plenty of cases where we had to reach an imposed deadline. Then 2 weeks later you ask "did they find issues?". "No, they didn't deploy it yet"
This isn't something you can get away with in many businesses (at least not in terms of the kind of businesses that would put you in that position to begin with) - and the few you can do this, it's not something you'd want to do frequently because you can end up being seen as an obstruction and that ultimately works against your interests.
I've found it's better to work with them on a compromised phased released / MVP so the customer still gets what they asked for and you are still seen a miracle worker albeit without actually having to do anything unrealistic in the end.
Unfortunately though, there are some businesses that place their sales team too far ahead of the health of their engineers for any compromise to happen and there isn't really much you can do aside taking the overtime pay and move on shortly afterwards.
> you can end up being seen as an obstruction and that ultimately works against your interests.
I always worked in small companies < 200 people, so this might be different in bigger ones.
If you are the competent software engineer that always delivers quality software, and is always pushing the company towards a better and more progessional way of working, you will not easily be seen as an obstruction. I never was, and always had good to excellent reviews.
A sales person that sucks a deadline out of their thumb is in no way to be seen as professional. Questions such as "who estimated this? Was anyone from software development involved? Did you account for testing? Do you expect the custommer to find all our bugs?" Etc, should reveal that there is another way of working.
I had a sales guy respond to me "I've been doing this for 30 years, so I know". This guy was fired half a year later
Sales people setting deadlines without consulting the people that need to do the work, is very unprofessional, and there is no way that anyone can defend that. You just have to make this very clear, in a diplomatic but clear way.
It sounds like we’ve had very different experiences but from what I’ve seen I think it depends more on the management / CEO than the company size. Some of the smaller companies I’ve worked for have been worse than any of the larger companies and that was entirely down to the fact that the CEO saw the sales team as the money bringers because they scored the lucrative deals, where as the engineering team were seen as replaceable work horses.
But as I said, the best thing you can do in those sort of places is take the money and move on because you aren’t going to change the CEO’s attitude.
Changing the CEO's attitude is indeed impossible, even with multiple people that he respects.
If you are seen as a replaceable work horse, you lose a lot of leverage indeed.
Here in Belgium there is a huge shortage of software developers, which places the programmers in a stronger position than the companies.
I can leave a company and instantly get the same or a higher pay somewhere else.
A company on the other hand, first has to find somebody, and then still overpay the first few months before the new employee becomes productive. From that point it's a bad position to be in.
There's definitely a shortage here as well. But that doesn't mean that a CEO has respect for the trade.
My thinking is if a CEO comes from a sales background then they will run their company in that mindset. Much like how some CEOs who are developers sometimes struggle to release products because they're focused on the technology rather than the product (gross exaggeration there - but I hope you understand the point I'm making)
Usually when you set an arbitrary deadline, it quickly becomes less arbitrary. See OP's example of the finance team depending on a certain timing that they were promised.
Natural Resources comprise of less than 1% of Sweden's GDP.
Here is a map [1] where you can see the % GDP comprising of Natural Resources by nation.
Notice that the wealthiest nations tend to derive almost no value from the export of natural resources. They are creating value added products and services, which is what intelligently organized people do.
It's immoral if you steal your prospective (non-customer) client data without their consent. Actually it's immoral even when the client actually is a customer, if you steal their data without their consent.
That is wholly distinct from ad customization. Collecting customer data is sometimes used for ad customization, but there are varying degrees of ethicality in collection.
I regularly delete all cookies for sites that don't require login (i.e. most content sites I visit), so for me such popup annoyances keep recurring. And I often leave the window before I come back later to finish the article, which is even more annoying and makes the popup look like a desperate scream for attention. Sometimes I actually do sign up for newsletters, but in those rare situations I first look for the contact details on the page, and then I create a specific new email address for that subscription, so it's nothing I do on a whim. I am amazed that people submit their email address to a random popup.
But thanks for removing it for this page, it's a step in the right direction!
Note: I have no problems with non-popup info about newsletters or other engagement offerings (e.g. end-of-page banners), those are much less intrusive than popups.
I use it too. I like to self-host my commercial projects, and when I decided to move away from Subversion about seven years ago I did consider Git, but the ease of self-hosting Fossil made the choice for me. Just plug it into apache httpd and off you go. Some time later GitLab became available, so now I'm also running a GitLab instance. But the Fossil server has much smaller footprint and is easier to manage.
The ease of use/management is a big deal, and to an extent I think it falls out of technical design decisions (proper database for repo storage that fully, easily, obviously allows first class multiple checkouts of a single repo instance). Others are philosophical design decisions, most of which I think I like, some I think I don’t, and others that just aren’t in place yet. Key is it’s nice to work with, and if I’m doing development/management, as much as possible I want it to be an enjoyable experience.
