It doesn’t sound to me like the boat actually sank. In the article it mentioned that they heard the rescue helicopter from within. Wouldn’t that imply that the pressure inside would be one atmosphere? Am I thinking about the physics of this wrong?
The pressure of any trapped gas will be equivalent to the depth of the lowest level containing air - so if the bottom of your air bubble is a meter below sea level, your pressure will be 1.1 atm.
Makes sense if the glass is perfectly vertical, air can’t escape and force is applied from the top. But if you capsize a glass by slightly turning it on its side such that most of it sinks and the air escapes by water displacement you would get some compression on the remaining air but its unclear how much.
During COVID times the Australian government pressured all local media to censor criticism of the government's COVID measures. Regardless of how valid or invalid you consider the dissent, it was still dissent being suppressed.
At least until such 'food and drug' agency was inevitably overwhelmed by lobbyists, patent royalties, and a revolving door between industry and government. Then it'd be worse than nothing at all.
> About 80% of teens who use social media say they see content about conspiracy theories in their online feeds
Where conspiracy theory means what, exactly? Did they define this term for the teens (or even just for the survey)? Why is 'disinformation' (itself undefined) conflated with the hilariously ambiguous 'conspiracy theory'?
It's really just a terribly weak article, and the source "study" doesn't look much better. It really looks like it is a study set forth to push a particular agenda with "numbers".
Too many people confuse data with science, and perhaps that is what schools should actually be teaching; probably when they teach statistics, which all students should take. Pseudo-science like "critical thinking" can't really be taught, but actual science can.
Agreed that the author doesn't seem to understand what is and is not a conspiracy theory. The article starts off by calling the ancient alien astronauts "theory" a conspiracy theory. Who are the conspirators? I don't mean Tsoukalos, he just spreads the myth. But if it's a conspiracy theory, there had to be conspirators. And there weren't, because there is no conspiracy. A conspiracy is not the same thing as a myth.
> Pseudo-science like "critical thinking" can't really be taught, but actual science can.
Arguably critical thinking is the express purpose of English and Language-Arts. Media literacy falls into that, too. People often discredit schools, but they already teach a lot of this stuff, it's just that Billy Bob was blowing snot bubbles.
I mean, a huge part of school is just reading pieces of text and trying to formulate an understanding, as well as gauging the Author's intent and the larger social context. That, to me, is just critical thinking.
Most of the garbage you see on TikTok is not data, unless you consider disinformation valuable, I personally do not. It seems on TikTok and twitter when I dare venture there is pure competition to get clicks and have the most outlandish stories to get there. I know legacy media has its issues, but there is no comparison to the drivel that is firehose’d on twitter and TikTok (amongst the worst on the internet) short of right-wing cesspool channels on telegram and discord.
> So you saved the company $10k a month and got a $200 meal in gratitude? Awesome.
You seem to be assuming that a $200 meal was the only compensation the person received, and they weren't just getting a nice meal as a little something extra on top of getting paid for doing their job competently and efficiently.
But that's the kind of deal I make when I take a job: I do the work (pretty well most of the time), and I get paid. If I stop doing the work, I stop getting paid. If they stop paying, I stop doing the work. (And bonus, literally, if I get a perk once in a while like a free steak dinner that I wasn't expecting)
Depends. There are people who put in the absolute minimum work they can get away with, and there are people who have pride in their profession.
That's independent of pay scale.
Granted, if you pay way below expectations, you'll lose the professionals over time. But if you pay lavishly no matter what, you get the 2021/2022 big tech hiring cycle instead. Neither one is a great outcome.
There is no single mechanism that does. Paying well is always a component in attracting talent (see my original comment)
It is not a guarantor of quality/motivation. That's ongoing leadership work. And part of that is maintaining/kindling pride in people's work (and firing the ones who are just there for the money)
It creates a perverse incentive to deliberately do things a more expensive way at the beginning and then be a hero 6 months down the line by refactoring it to be less expensive.
Ha ha, software developers already have this incentive. Viz: "superhero 10x programmer" writing unmaintainable code to provide some desirable features, whose work later turns out to be much less awesome than originally billed.
Of course the truth is more complicated than the sound bite, but still...
This is not just California. I live in Washington and wouldn't have been able to afford my house if I was buying today. Inflation + interest rates + price jumps.
I mean - generally speaking the US taxpayer did. If you're curious - you can see this funding here: https://fundingmap.fcc.gov/home
The most recent of which was BEAD (The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program) which allocated 42.45 BILLION in broadband rollout funding.
If you think those companies are paying for the lines out of their pocket... you are very confused about the economics of broadband rollout.
The best case is that they are loans at sweetheart rates that translate into additional subscriber fees tacked onto the customers. Most times it's just literal grant cash, though.
---
So to recap - you and I paid for those lines. Sure as fuck wasn't ATT.
You're wrong, and your wrongness is heavily colored by your Keynesian government-centric worldview.
For example, in my local (semi-rural) area, private companies are exclusively doing it, along with other things like wifi. If government dollars are available, they always have strings attached and take decades to roll out and are typically really only issued to large companies with substantial ability to roll out large programs (with the exception of a few co-ops that have made the news).
And this completely ignores Starlink, which was repeatedly denied government funding because the government hates the viewpoints of the guy who runs it, but nevertheless offers the best opportunity for high-speed Internet in rural areas. It's just like when Cornelius Vanderbilt completely beat the Post Office's own selected "winner" to connect the two coasts via steamships.
And the total boondoggle that is your best example -- BEAD -- has, by its own admission, connected ZERO people since it was enacted in 2021! It's another ridiculous example of picking winners and losers, but mostly losers.
Please feel free to read the sad story at the government's own websites (the .gov's below) as well as a DC thinktank:
It should not the government's job to fund things that have a definitive and obvious competitive advantage for private industry, because they're just terrible at it.
Look back at the almost literally trillions of dollars that the government wasted in the solar or wind industry for other examples of where taxpayers' dollars might just as well be shipped on pallets to China or flushed down the drain.
Private industry beats government investment every single time, because the government doesn't actually have enough skin in the game and is so easily corrupted and influenced by lobbyists. When government dollars get involved, it distorts the incentives and then we end up with terrible things like AT&T controlling a monopoly that they didn't even pay for (like Ma Bell in the land before time).
... unless you want to send a body with your HTTP GET. There is tons of utility value in this! For example, let's say you want to GET some data but also provide some client request statistics along with the request -- happens all the time in the real world.
Fetch will reject your GET if it contains a body (a deliberate maintainer decision), even though it's entirely permissible by HTTP and done by many real-world AJAX APIs. Real AJAX will do what it's supposed to. (The HTTP 1.1 2014 Spec says that including a request body in a GET "might cause some implementations to reject the request." Guess which one!)
Also, advanced features like progress are completely absent from Fetch as well.
However, there are some fantastic libraries like Axios[1], SuperAgent (requires npm), and, yes, jQuery[2], that have really excellent API's (far superior to Fetch), or you could just write your own (or use an LLM) short wrapper around modern AJAX and call it a day. h/t to Claude:
This gives you xhr methods with a fetch-style API and you can still do all the things that fetch can't (but this won't do real streaming or cache control like Fetch, but it'll do 95% of all common use cases in a tiny bit of code.)
Each method listed above returns a Promise that resolves with the XMLHttpRequest object or rejects with the error. So you get both the Promise functionality and full access to the XHR object in the resolution.
For more advanced AJAX stuff, check out the very powerful and flexible Axios library[1].
And, if you don't need AJAX but do want some of the features from jQuery (like some of the more unusual selectors) that aren't in Cash (to save bytes!), AJAX (and special effects) is excluded from jQuery Slim which brings the code down to only 69KB[3].
Caching is the most important reason to consider GET for a non-hypertext API. Vary headers tell the server which header diffs should cause cache misses, but there's no way to do that for an encoded body.
In standard HTTP/1.1, any method can have a request body. In Representational State Transfer (REST) as defined by Dr. Fielding, HTTP doesn't even come up, let alone "methods" per se, so there is no distinction between DELETE, POST, or GET from a REST standpoint, only within HTTP as an engine for hypertext. Further, in HTTP, any of these requests can contain a request body.
But, because of this behavior by the WhatWG for Fetch, the IETF has added this paragraph to the specification for HTTP/1.1:
"A payload within a GET request message has no defined semantics; sending a payload body on a GET request might cause some existing implementations to reject the request."
"Some existing implementations" really just means fetch. The p*ing contest between two groups resulted in a neutered and prescriptive fetch.
In other words, it's fetch that is non-standard, and the actual HTTP standard had to be updated to let you know that.
You've got the chronology and causality wrong. The Fetch API came after the RFC 7230 advice. Due to arguably dubious interpretation of arguably poor wording in RFC 2616 (from 1999) that suggested you SHOULD ignore GET bodies, various caching and proxy servers would ignore or reject GET request bodies, so that it became dangerous to use them.
Since then, each iteration of the HTTP specs has strengthened the advice. The most recent 9110 family says you SHOULD NOT use GET request bodies unless you have confirmed in some way that they'll work, because otherwise you can't trust they'll work.
Fetch was going along with this consensus, not causing the problem.
The pool was muddied; nay, poisoned. And so the solution is the QUERY method. That's how things tend to work in such a space. See also 307 because of 302 being misimplemented.
reply