Is it progress that the South Carolina Senate voted 37-3 to remove the Confederate battle flag, or an embarrassment to classify such an act as progress in the year 2015?
As consolation, at least we know who the three biggest assholes are in the South Carolina Senate: Lee Bright, Danny Verdin, and Harvey Peeler
Marco Arment on the new Retina MacBook:
Instead, we have major compromises on previous invariants. Until now, since I started buying Macs 11 years ago, Apple had never shipped a laptop with a keyboard or trackpad that was less than great. They recognized that a laptop without a good keyboard wasn’t a good laptop, even if a lot of people would be OK with it and buy it anyway.
Now, Apple’s priorities have changed. Rather than make really great products that are mostly thin, they now make really thin products that are mostly great.
This concerns me more than you probably think it should. Not only does it represent compromised standards in areas I believe are important, but it suggests that they don’t have many better ideas to advance the products beyond making them thinner, and they’re willing to sacrifice anything to keep that going.
I couldn’t agree more. Now that Apple is such a dominant player, they have the power to say “stop with this thinness nonsense.” I’m all for making things thinner, but not at the costs and compromises Apple is currently making.
This thinking has also infected Apple’s software development. OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard was the best, most stable operating system I’ve ever used. (Admittedly, I joined the Mac club late, with OS X 10.4 Tiger in 2006. So I only have experience with 7 major OS X updates). Even though new features have been introduced ((and some have been really great– making phone calls from my Mac, in particular)) each new update has been riddled with additional bugs and instability: the most glaring and inexcusable has been the “discoveryd clusterfuck”.
I don’t think I’m alone when I say: Apple, I’m okay waiting another six months for an OS X update. Just ship it when it’s ready.
I hate eating underbaked bread and I hate using undercooked software.
Earlier this week, the Huffington Post reported that, when searching Google Maps for a certain racial epithet, the White House is displayed (this behavior has since been rectified).
Disappointment and disgust aside, I think the more important question to ask is: why the hell is someone at the Huffington Post searching Google Maps with racially charged keywords? That’s not even remotely close to journalism.
It’s cute that Sen. Feinstein still thinks things can be deleted from the Internet.
In June of 2014, the EPA drafted new regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Environmentalists complained the EPA didn’t go far enough, while the fossil fuel industry derided the rules as a “war on coal.” As a show of bipartisanship, both sides agree that these new proposals are the most ambitious steps the Obama Administration has taken to curb the threats of climate change. Using the year 2005 as a baseline, the regulations require that the US reduce its carbon emissions by roughly 30% by 2030. Unfortunately, the EPA missed a perfect opportunity to spur water conservation with these new proposals.
When the President announced these new regulations last year, California was in the third year of one of its most significant droughts on record. Dire still was the report released earlier this month warning that California has only one year’s worth of stored water remaining. Considering that California’s Central valley is responsible for a majority of the country’s tomato, almond, grape, asparagus and apricot crops, this is very much a national problem.
Included among the EPA’s suggestions for meeting emission targets is the increased adoption of natural gas. Compared to coal, natural gas emits about 50% less carbon dioxide. Consequently, the EPA sees natural gas as the best alternative for many coal dependent states. But methane leaks aside, natural gas extraction requires a hell of a lot of water. So much so that it prompts asking: is reducing C02 emissions worth significantly depleting the country’s water supply? I’d much rather watch The Dust Bowl than live it.
Instead, the EPA should incentivize water conservation as part of its emission reduction targets. Penalizing electricity generation methods that consume lots of water would encourage the widespread adoption of alternative energy sources. As an example, one of the most under touted advantages of wind energy is its minimal use of water. Once operational, wind farms require very little maintenance, produce no carbon emissions and, most importantly, consume no water. The same is true for the solar photovoltaic industry.
Penalizing water consumption would discourage states like Kentucky from supplanting coal with natural gas. Such a replacement is akin to giving up alcohol for cigarettes: it would’ve been better to stick with the first one. At the very least, incentivizing water conservation would force the natural gas industry (and other water-thirsty industries for that matter) to develop techniques for recycling (currently) unusable wastewater. As it stands, the EPA sees no difference between a fleet of natural gas wells in Kentucky and a solar panel farm in Arizona, even though the former is far more detrimental to the environment. This needs to be corrected.
Rather than a simple emissions reduction percentage, the EPA could measure each state’s progress on a points scale. The water usage of each state’s generation methods would be incorporated with the original 2005 emissions baseline. The EPA would then calculate realistic emissions goals for each state via this “conservation metric” (CM). Each state-submitted proposal for meeting its emissions target would be scored according to the plan’s CM. Generation methods that require little or no water (e.g. wind and solar) would have higher CMs than generation methods that use lots of water (e.g. natural gas). Accordingly, each metric ton of C02 would have a CM value.
For example, the EPA’s C02 2030 reduction target for Kentucky is 18%. Using the CM method, let’s say Kentucky’s baseline is 500 CM with a target of 950 CM by 2030. Kentucky’s plan must include generation methods that achieve that 450 CM increase. Ideally, this CM target is unachievable by displacing coal with only natural gas. Though highly simplified, this illustrates how integrating water conservation into emission targets is possible.
It’s undeniable that climate change looms as this century’s biggest threat. As a silver, albeit morbid, lining to this, the widespread effects of climate change won’t be felt for decades to come. More pressing is the water shortage that is wreaking havoc in California. And with a slight tweak, the EPA could tackle both issues simultaneously. Penalizing water consumption and rewarding C02 reduction would spur the energy sector to develop new and innovative methods of generating electricity that would have minimal impact on the water supply.
Water shortages and climate change, two inherently linked problems, force us to consider both our short and long term actions. Focusing our efforts solely on one issue at the expense of the other, would be catastrophic. To put things in terms the average American would understand: our tires are bald and we’re running out of gas. If we refill the tank but ignore our tires, we’ll crash. If we don’t refill the tank, it won’t matter if we’ve replaced the tires.
Or maybe it’s time to find an entirely new kind of transportation, altogether.
In light of the reprehensible SB101: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act that Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed into law on Thursday, I’m calling on the Church of Pastafarianism, more commonly known as The Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, to adopt one Mike Pence as its anthropomorphized version of the Anti-Pirate ((Pastafarianism teaches that Pirates were the original divine and peaceful explorers, an image later tarnished by a disinformation campaign of lies and propaganda initiated by Christianity.)) (Devil, to the layman).
Furthermore, I encourage all Hoosier businesses, particularly those in the Indianapolis metro area, to join The Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Should Governor Pence find himself unable to be seated at a restaurant or denied admission to a movie theater, he must ask himself: how can it be considered discrimination when a business refuses to serve Lucifer himself? From the Pastafarianist’s perspective, why should the state force a peace-loving, law-abiding citizen to cater to what the business owner considers to be the embodiment of pure and total evil?
I’ve noticed that some journalism bios contain the phrase “finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.” That reminds me of “Academy Award nominated actor…”
Since when have people started bragging about awards they didn’t win?
I can extend this same logic and say that I’ve been the finalist for over 100 jobs in the environmental sector. Or that I was a finalist for admission at Stanford, Princeton and Columbia.
“Why should I hire you for this position?”
“Because I almost got into Stanford. And I almost won this award. Twice.”
Rather than The Glass Is Half Full vs The Glass Is Half Empty, it’s I Almost Filled Up The Entire Glass.
That’s almost impressive.
H+R Block is back on the airwaves with their “Get Your Billions Back America” ad campaign. If you’re lucky enough to not know what I’m talking about, let me fill you in: a stereotypically looking ((I’ll let you decide what that looks like– hint: it rhymes with cold and bite)) accountant claims that H+R Block will maximize your tax refund (assuming you file with them). At best, this is disingenuous. At worst, it’s anti-American.
Why?
Like it or not Republicans, but American is basically a big union. And taxes are the equivalent of union dues. By not paying your fair share of taxes, you’re shirking your union responsibility.
What pays for roads and bridges that we drive on? Taxes. What pays for the wires delivering electricity to our houses? Taxes. What pays to ensure that the food, water and drugs we ingest into our bodies aren’t toxic? Taxes. Get my drift?
Here’s another way to look at it. H+R Block bragging that it can get you the biggest tax refund is like not tipping at a restaurant and only paying the bill. Technically that’s legal, but doing so totally screws over the waiter. Those not paying their fair share are screwing over us, the majority who do pay our fair share.
That’s why the sentiment this H+R Block ad campaign perpetuates is so worrisome: paying the absolute, “yeah-technically-that’s-legal-but-you’re-being-a-dick-about-it,” bare minimum in taxes fosters an undemocratic, “somebody-else-will-take-care-of-it-so-why-should-I-give-a-crap” mentality.
I don’t want America to get its billions back, because America will just blow it on saltines and DVDs. ((and not even bluray DVDs because America is like “The picture quality looks fine to me.”))
First there was the “too many people have said ‘I don’t know you’ and now you can’t connect with them unless you provide their date of birth or mother’s maiden name” LinkedIn fiasco and now this:
Turns out, “commercial” (aka “bitch”) LinkedIn users have a finite number of searches they can perform every month.
Really?
That’s the entire point, the raison d’être, the singular function of LinkedIn: searching for people and companies. And now LinkedIn’s saying that I can only do that x number of times?
In addition to generating revenue via advertising, LinkedIn’s already selling my data to god-knows how many other companies. And, not unlike the deal we have with the pigeons, I thought that was the deal we have with the Internet: I have a free account with some service and in exchange, the service runs ads and gets to know every single thing there is to know about me.
LinkedIn is reneging on this deal. Not to mention the fact that LinkedIn doesn’t stop mining your data after you cough up for a “Premium” account.
Imagine if Google only allowed you to send 25 emails a month, else you pay for a “Google Pro” account: the Internet would collectively shit an adorably kitten-shaped brick.
I’d prefer not to even be on the site, but begging looking for work demands that I use it to reach out to recruiters and the like.
My disdain, scorn and contempt for you, LinkedIn, continues to burn with the fire of a thousand supernovae.
After canceling my New Yorker subscription, (Condé Nast: it’s me, not you. Honest.) I’ve found myself on the receiving end of Vogue magazine every month. I don’t know how it happened, but I’m sure as hell not paying for them. This month’s issue proved resoundingly ludicrous: it’s over 600 pages long and the table of contents is on, wait for it, page 92!
The good news is that now I have enough cologne samples to last through 2018.
This past Friday, the Times published a wonderfully creative obituary for one Bernice Gordon, a 101-year-old cruciverbalist.
Quite a remarkable woman, considering:
[i]n the 1960s, she caused a small sensation by introducing the rebus puzzle. Such a puzzle might require solvers to replace the sequence “a-n-d” with an ampersand, for instance, as in SC&INAVIA and CARMENMIR&A. One ampers&-laden puzzle by Mrs. Gordon, published in The New York Times in 1965, split the crossword community in ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ (Clemens cognomen), leaving some readers spellbound and others scandalized.
To those not versed in crossword puzzles, that’s quite an accomplishment. Almost akin to being the computer hardware engineer who says “Hey, why don’t we put two buttons on the mouse?”
Sadly, Mrs. Gordon’s passing has made the puzzling world a little less cryptic.
