I didn't wear cleats until I was almost 14 playing baseball.. I just used tennis shoes.. some of my friends gave me a hard time about it. I could hit dingers all day so no big deal.
But you know what. I wore a helmet at every at bat. Did I really need it for every at bat?? No; But I had it.
There's a long list of dead people who went into the wilderness or hiking under prepared. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean the same outcome for others.. I know this is supposed to be a metaphor for when to buy and upgrade the tools you have. But safety should always come first.
Know how many 9 year olds I’ve seen hit in the head with a baseball, while at bat? (Many. One kid on my sons team was hit in the head for four consecutive tournaments last fall.)
Always wear a helmet when you’ve got a bat in your hand.
Obviously your idea of safety coming first is based on your exact specifications, which are unclear and known only by yourself, which isn’t actually very useful
I agree with you completely. My country has an out-of-control safety culture that has many unintended effects. For example we are one of only a handful of countries on earth with a cycling helmet law. As a result, fewer people cycle and drivers take less care around cyclists. Lots of studies have shown that at a population level it's quite possible helmet laws have a negative impact on health and safety. I am currently travelling Japan and I have seen thousands of cyclists and not a single helmet (and very little in the way of dedicated cycling infrastructure). To my knowledge Japan doesn't have an epidemic of head injuries.
Safety first doesn't mean "don't do anything unsafe," it has a broad meaning. With your interpretation I suppose it could mean if you're going to do something, be sure to consider your safety tradeoffs first.
I think “safety first” generally means that you should put safety first when you’re doing something but that I should consider the safety trade offs first when I’m doing something.
I've never experienced any deaths on hikes, but I have experienced folks suffering the initial stages of hypothermia (and not realizing it) when wearing jeans on a multi-day excursion when the weather went from dry and sunny to rainy, to icey-rain to sleet.
Unwaxed cotton absorbs water, stays wet, and shrinks when wet to make close contact with skin--three properties that one does not want when its wet and cold.
That depends on the specifics of the environment, trail, and your pants.
Indeed, going "pantsless" for short periods can be less risky if your pants are already soaked-through, it's very humid, there's ice build-up, and there's little to no risk of skin abrasion from terrain traversal.
>It's a ratio of inputs to outputs.. even in the example the inputs and outputs are measurable.
So more lines of code is better!
Um, we know this doesn't work that way as a good measure.
This is like comparing algorithms that do the same thing to algorithms that do different things. You're not going to get good valid comparisons. Metrics for one thing may not work at all for another.
The output is measured with dollars, not lines of code. So are the inputs.
It's a perfectly cromulent measure so long as we understand the limitations of the measure. For example, trying to measure the productivity of a day or a sprint? That's silly. Measure the output of a team which does not produce an entire product? Won't work because you'd have to figure out how to apportion the productivity.
"productivity, in economics, the ratio of what is produced to what is required to produce it. Usually this ratio is in the form of an average, expressing the total output of some category of goods divided by the total input of, say, labour or raw materials."
It's implied in the definition. Consider the units: a ratio should not have units. Lines of code per programmer per day would have weird units, for example, and could not be compared against number of windows installed per day for per car window installer. The only way for productivity to be useful is to normalize the inputs and outputs into money.
It's a perfectly good measure except it does not help us at all.
The whole reason for this discussion is situations like Microsoft having 200k employees and making $240B in a year. Which employees, teams, or even departments are more productive? They want to know.
And even if it did not matter, likely the expense of this year influences the income over multiple future years, so you compare the dollars in / dollars out for which periods?
The Peelers have historically not been known for their honesty when interacting with Catholics. Racism serves as an institutional tool for harassment and the justification of power over certain groups. There is no genuine honesty in these practices, even if they are ostensibly used to prevent violence.
