Diggity

For land rights issues it is easy enough to create stations that are sufficiently distanced from the city centers but close enough to tap into local Bus/Uber-ish/car rental options. Most Californian metropolis' have an area distanced enough but accessible where land is still relatively cheap, the exception being LA which has sprawled into Orange County and completely enveloped other regions.

However going through mountain in an environmentally conscious way gets radically expensive in very short order. Additionally this style of construction tends to have its own legally contentious issues. (Dam construction for water management being comparative)

That region is flat and has few physical obstacles to a rail line (like mountains, major inclines, major declines etc)

Getting a rail line between a major city (LA/San Jose/San Diego/SF etc) requires going through pretty serious mountain ranges. There is already rail line between them in their own geographical pockets (LA-San Diego, SF-San Jose-Oakland)

I am going to take the controversial stance and say BS to this one.

With Americans marrying later and often times dual income even then this has left most individuals doing 1.5 jobs (house work and their actual job)

Additionally the time required to access to the basics has also gone up. Super markets are more crowded. Traffic is much worse.

This has left Americans with a drastic reduction in time and created large amounts of time pressure stress.

The major advantage of eating out is a massive reduction in stress related to food prep, particularly around time savings and mental energy expenditure.

Now eating out is not on average healthy, but not all meals that are prepared at home are either. When faced with equivalently unhealthy meals, dining out has the advantage of automatic portion control.

The REAL reason American's are broke is cost of living. Rent and housing costs have skyrocketed and wages have stagnated.

Coupled with a reduction in time and increased time-stress taking care of every day chores, health goes out the window.

In short, there is a direct correlation between health and wealth. Specifically, if one partner earns enough to support a relatively unstressed house mom/dad, the family unit is healthy.

Otherwise if an individual earns a large sum of money with sufficient few hours, they have compound time benefits in other aspects of their lives allow for health considerations.

Are there any crowd funding efforts out there for carbon removal?

> but the US seems to be dealing with it just fine

I don't think we have seen the full consequences as of yet.

> This is generally viewed as "bad" because if government simply prints money to finance itself then it suffers none of the short term negative political or practical consequences of doing so via taxation. This means it also faces comparatively little pressure to spend efficiently, which results in serious misallocation of resources over time.

If you proxy government for companies in this sentence I would argue that is what is happening now. A large number of companies borrowed as much money as they possibly could during QE because they viewed it as "free money" with the low interest rate.

The impact being "money is cheap" and a large number of ventures have been engaged in that do not have real value.

Ultimately the "price of money" is always going to have a counter-balance of inelastic goods aka raw assets. While I agree that QE is not the sole cause (low interest rates are also to blame), I do believe it has had a net negative impact, particularly by inflating the price of assets among those who had access to excess (often times QE involved) funds to acquire them.

Speaking from this space, everyone I see on my end is paying higher rents but it is eating into their ability to save and forcing them to consume less. Wage increases exist but are coupled with moves to riskier companies.

I want to tack on this comment by adding that everyone seems to ignore the fact that QE is essentially just printing money.

Historically this is usually coupled with run-away inflation, however since it was isolated to the wealthy sectors of the economy (rather than the typical economy as a whole) there is only inflation among goods in that sector (housing etc). The big red flag is that stocks and VC are in that pool as well.

So while there was 20 trillion dollars of growth over the last 10 years, there was also 21 trillion dollars of debt generated.

The way I see it, QE successfully generated economic growth, however none of that economic growth was "real" growth. There were new innovations, particularly in the tech space, but a huge swath of them have no method to generate real sustainable profit.

All this means we should see a MASSIVE correction in markets. Due to financial rules, banks likely won't exit the market like 2008, but the massive number of companies that took out cheap debt will be at risk.

Basically we have a potential repeat of 2008, but swap out sub-prime homeowners with corporations.

One major undocumented problem that I did not see in the patch notes involves openldap.

Specifically there is some error in generating a PID file in the system-d service call.

I solved the problem by removing/commenting out the run PID line in /usr/lib/systemd/system/slapd.service

This may be related to having an older machine that doesn't support EFI boot.

To solve the problem: 1) Create a partition that is of type bios boot (I believe it needs to be 2K) 2) Create a regular boot partition /boot (I recommend ext4 or 3) 3) Create your other partitions per normal.

I would not be surprised if Zuckerberg were given a script of certain senators questions prior to this hearing.

A majority of the questioning seems targeted at inspiring consumer confidence in facebook.

This isn't about serving the American people, this is about protecting corporation's ability to sell citizens personal data.

Yes precisely

If bone marrow donations for all caucasians were mandatory I would agree.

HIV is notable for its ability to create "hidden reservoirs". Some recent cure attempts have been aimed at intentionally "kicking" the hidden reservoirs in order to flush them out. For this reason I mentioned inducing leukemia as it would replicate the circumstances of the Berlin Patient.

For additional follow up, there have been additional bone marrow transplant attempts in somewhat similar circumstances with bone marrow that did not contain the mutation.

Further reading:

Hidden reservoirs: https://www.nature.com/news/hidden-hiv-reservoirs-exposed-by...

The "Boston Patients": https://www.nature.com/news/hopes-of-hiv-cure-in-boston-pati...

1% of Caucasian population

(http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news13)

The Berlin Patient was an extremely unique case.

1) The patient had leukemia and HIV

2) The bone marrow donor had the extremely rare delta 32 mutation (which provides resistance to HIV)

Bone marrow donors are in high demand. The delta 32 mutation is extremely rare.

Assuming there were not limitations on delta 32 bone marrow donors, it is not ethically sound to intentionally induce leukemia and/or perform transplants when there are already tested treatment methods (Antiretroviral drugs/tenofovir) that make HIV a manageable disease.