I've been writing music for about 10 years, but low output, only about 1 song per year. I mostly write some variation of metal. I love writing, but so far haven't gotten much practice at mixing, so a "professional" sounding mix eludes me.
Here's what it sounds like when I have help with the mixing:
I don't dislike coding interviews either. But if I were asked about a Convex Hull, my response would have to be, "What is a convex hull?" otherwise I'd have to guess. I have a computer science degree, did I miss something? Is that common knowledge? Right now I have the power to look it up, but it's a little strange to me that I could be asked about that in an interview and my pass/fail would potentially depend on it (granted when I am the interviewer, my pass/fail rarely depends on the response to the coding questions).
So the next question is, will interviewers explain the problem if you're unfamiliar and not "fail" you if you can explain how you'd approach a solution?
For NoSQL, I currently use MongoDB and Elasticsearch in production. Elasticsearch was by choice, whereas MongoDB was something I inherited.
For new projects, if I'm picking NoSQL at all, I'm more likely to lean Elasticsearch, but it definitely takes longer to set up and has a much higher learning curve. And as always, it's going to heavily depend on the data and its access patterns. My default continues to be RDBMS unless there's a good reason not to, even though at this point, I actually have more experience managing MongoDB and Elasticsearch clusters.
I'm not particularly informed on the subject, just using some basic understanding here:
1. Can't CO2's "strength" as a greenhouse gas be measured directly? That seems like a relatively simple physics problem. My understanding is that the direct effect of CO2's "heat trapping" is easy to quantify. What scientists continue to disagree on is how significant the cascading effect is, but of course we do know there is one. But even the most conservative estimate (no cascade effect) shows that as we add CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet will continue warming to life-altering levels.
2. I don't think I understand this argument as long as the denier will acknowledge that the planet is warming (which is directly measurable). If the planet is indeed warming, this 2nd argument seems to indicate that CO2 levels are cyclical based on the sun's behavior, but that's not what's happening now. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the implied timeframe over which this is supposed to happen...but this, again, seems directly disprovable.
Let me know if I missed the point, but it seems like the whole argument falls apart as soon as you show that CO2 has a significant warming effect, which is something scientists are confident about.
I recently donated to TeamTrees. I'm looking for other places to donate that will have significant impact. This is a guess, but I think that charities are likely able to make a bigger impact per-dollar than I can by trying to decarbonize my own lifestyle. I found this[0] Vox article recently and the first two organizations look compelling. I need to do more research, but I'm hoping that they're making significant differences and that I can help just by donating regularly.
That said, I'm still considering buying an electric car this year. I at least want to contribute to having fewer ICE cars on the road. I know there's a difference of opinion on whether buying a new EV actually helps...short-term, it may not, but if nothing else I'm supporting the industry's growth, and long-term hopefully it does reduce my own personal emissions. And, locally, I'm just tired of inhaling exhaust...