There's more lead allowed in a liter of drinking water in the US than a serving of any of the chocolates being reported, as far as I can find. (15 micrograms per liter.) Provided nobody's eating a few dozen bars of chocolate in a single sitting I can't imagine accumulating enough to cause acute harm from the chocolate alone. Chasing down Hershey, Nestle et al to hold them accountable is great, but in terms of toxic metals we'd have more success and greater impact lighting up the news about water supplies.
Just mildly frustrated that I continue to see talk about chocolate while drinking water is a necessity and consumed in greater amounts daily but rarely gets reported outside of extreme cases like Flint.
Is the complaint legitimate? Especially hard to make the case for Sanders considering how much of a firebrand he is. Not going to get Sleepy Joe memes out of that.
Zero percent and govt covers operating costs with a stipend per loan. Granted figuring out the rate to pay would be a task, and keeping that from being a gouge itself... but better than passing it along to borrowers.
Depends on if it coincides with raises for working class staff, or there was enough transparency in operating costs and expenditures to be confident it's not just being done for additional profit margins. If the cost of serving video has actually gone up by $2 * subscription count every month, then no problem. I suspect that isn't the case, though.
If you remove mspaint.exe then Windows will refuse to boot. It's true, I knew a guy!
Plenty of homes in rural NE that (while not as small as this) are still well within the 60% mark for garage ratio. They tend to double as workshops or large enough space for farm vehicle maintenance.
Considering the amount of rural settlements and farmlands / ranches around the US, I'd say it's not necessarily unreasonable. Can even find them in suburbia, albeit more rarely (have in-laws with the living space lofted over a full garage, which would put it at ~50% minimum before accounting for interior walls.)
The software is probably better tested than a good percentage of human drivers on the road in America, and definitely a better driver than some subset of that group. Good 'nuff, right?
(But seriously, get this crap off the streets along with the people who shouldn't have licenses.)
The hard part of app development is identifying and translating all of the nuances of human desires and unanticipated needs into a working application. ChatGPT is on par with junior programmers - it can produce simple programs, help contribute to complex ones, but will struggle (for now) with the complexities of dealing with the major hurdles of software dev.
Eventually it will reach a point where it can reason about human needs and motivation autonomously (probably stacking multiple specialized LLMs or similar together for each area of reasoning, unless something new comes about) but we're a ways away from that yet.
I think the big disruption that ChatGPT will cause near-term is the same as that of generative AI art - the low specialization portion of labor will be replaced, eg stock photo producers and basic CRUD/site apps. For the rest, it will be a tool that gives those that adopt it alongside skill a serious leg up.
In ten years I think the conversation will be different, but two years to learn means 8 years of good salary and time to adapt to that future. Better than $15/hr* with no healthcare in rural US.
Depends. I've had plenty of tough calls with management laying out the impossibility of desired schedules only to have the Jira board estimates fudged in their favor, or similar, which puts pressure on the team to deliver on timelines they never would have estimated for themselves.
Ultimately it's a question of who's working by whose estimates.
Vocalized support in favor of it and asked for it to be passed, so it seems. About as far as he can go until it's on his desk, so it's understandable to expect he would sign it if it does.
Usually the issue would be that these places cost large sums up front to acquire, and there is inherent risk in lending money or selling something for payment over time.
The most equitable solution under those circumstances IMO would be a pay-towards-ownership rental model with an agreed stewardship rate for routine maintenance and if they terminate lease early, the accrued funds towards the ownership are disbursed. This allows the "renter" (future owner) the ability to eventually accrue the value of the home without risk of loss of investment, while also allowing the "owner" (steward) to ensure that maintenance can be performed. Would have to work out how to pay for incidental maintenance like a failed water heater or storm damage, but splitting cost across owned percentage may be fair, or based on fault, etc.
It's a lot of hassle for something that we should instead fix at the systemic level, but so long as we're looking at the current system then this ought to do well by both parties and would be accessible for those fortunate/lucky enough to be pulling significant salaries to help those less fortunate.
Cooperatives are also a good option long-term but I'm thinking in terms of folks that are living hand-to-mouth being able to earn towards a permanent home right away rather than a group of people with enough surplus money to pool for shared home(s). A well-established coop would be a better support network and may be able to grow faster (help more folks) than the alternatives.
Right. Fructose in moderation is typically no issue, but I feel for all the folks that switched to 100% agave syrup and kept a sugar-rich diet. Liver and kidney failure due to fat buildup if they were unlucky. Don't remember where I read the study but it's out there somewhere for those that want to search it up. Made me rethink what sugar replacements I use.
Keep calling it Twitter but add @Deprecated so future users know to avoid it?