My running form improved greatly, and quickly, when I ran barefoot (or wear 5 finger shoes). Doesn't have to be far, could be a few hundred meters as a part of a warmup. If you're overstriding, slamming your forefeet or heels, it'll hurt. When it stops hurting, you're running with good form.
Finasteride, from what I've read, can have side effects that are worse than the hairloss. I'll take a receding hairline over ED.
OP: Cut it short, shave it all if it's thin, get a thicker neck (serious. It's the biggest improvement you can make to your dressed appearance, in terms of muscles, and often overlooked), and you're better off than most guys with Fabio-hair.
I clicked it at work. We're in a temporary space with a few dozen 3 and 4 person offices, all have floor-to-ceiling walls and doors. The acoustics are pretty good. Even the loud talkers are tolerable, for the most part.
When we had an open office... the acoustics were terrible. Conversations at a normal volume could be heard far away, conference calls were (had to be) done on speakerphone with the volume maxed out to hear. It looked great, but it was awful for everyone who didn't enjoy talking very loudly.
Hoping that the new space has head-high partitions, maybe offices for each team with floor-to-ceiling walls, a ceiling with either pockets to reduce echoes or a proper ceiling.
An office built for working with the people we work with, not being able to talk to someone 50 feet away without walking.
uh... "most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown complexion - are armed to cause serious physical harm"
It's a good idea to rephrase that.
edit - yes, a lot of black athletes have lower body fat than whites, hispanics, and asians. No, they're not "especially" armed to cause serious physical harm.
There would need to be some brand research done, checking the fitting and sizing of various brands, so you could know that "with a 31 inch waist, measured around the navel, I would fit in 30 inch Gap jeans and 32 inch Wranglers."
That trip to try on those two pairs of jeans cost you what, an hour? two hours?
There are three types of "good architectural choices"
The first: The ones that can be made after the original, bad ones. The second draft, which is an improvement in the first draft, in every field.
The second: His (or her) own. We all know there are developers out there who think they're the greatest thing to ever write code, and that everyone else's decisions are bad.
The third: The ones that really should have been made, in place of the ones that really shouldn't have been made. As in, "You wrote your own SQL parser using hardcoded strings and no grammar parsers?"
You sound average-sized, if you can confidently say shirts are standard in size. I know a lot of guys who have a hard time finding shirts that fit.
Shirts, jeans, sweaters, anything... they're all over the place in terms of fit.
With shirts, you've got different torso widths, lengths, arm hole sizes (I don't know the word), depths and widths of the neck hole. A slim fit, an athletic fit, a relaxed fit, will all vary from brand to brand.
With jeans, same thing.
Then you've got the fabric and stitching. I'm not sure I'd buy clothes online. Too many variables.
I might be missing what you're not following, but here's a quick explanation (and a reason why it's not a concern)
Correct username, correct password: takes 30ms to execute the code
Correct username, incorrect password: takes 15 ms to execute the code
Incorrect username: Takes 7 ms to execute the code.
You fuzz usernames, you get one that takes 15 ms, you know that's a valid username. You then start working the password.
Not necessary on most systems, because we're working at speeds that are measured in nanoseconds, and since we're using networks for many attacks, the delays are unpredictable and measured in (at least) milliseconds.
Everyone's talking about Terry like he's not able to see this...
Not aiming this message at you, krapp, or anyone, I just realized this while reading your message that Terry's probably read through this thread a few times. Wonder what his thoughts are on the article.
Each company will have desired traits in their managers, whether they go for the servant leader or the authoritarian delegator, their desired traits will limit who they view as suitable for managerial positions. There will be "manager types," and to people who have worked for that company for 10, 15, 20 years, that is the "manager type" for all companies, in their view.
There are also some traits that _are_ required for managerial work, certainly not enough to define a personality type, but without them, people could not function in a delegating, influencing, or persuading position. They're the traits that allow people to perform those functions.
I'd certainly be willing to concede the point that those aren't even personality traits, but skillful applications of personality that could be developed.
TLDR: I agree with you, but there's enough nuance in what "types" could mean that you're looking at a discussion about very subtle things that many people might not consider at first.
Death threats, death wishes... it's over an init daemon on a software project.
I can't imagine "Someone wants to paint the front door RED?! They should die." happening under any circumstances. It's concerning to me, on many levels, that this is happening over systemd, regardless of the technical benefits or issues.
This comment might not float to the top of the thread, but I'll post it anyways.
When dentistry started out, there likely were more than a few dentists who learned this way. There are still, on occasion, unlicensed dentists found practicing dentistry with decently successful businesses.
Software development doesn't have the Software Development Association protecting the practice like dentistry and medicine do, for their respective associations.
I've been thinking about pasting this news into my Facebook. Three times, erased each time.
"Guy gets multiple death threats because of the program he wants to start his computer is different from another program other people want to start their computers."
This isn't a hilarious nerd fight. This is some really misguided people who don't know how to communicate.
Right, in the case of the roomba and the vending machine, the human decision is 'turn on the roomba' and 'push the vending machine button'
The assumption of the roomba creator is that 'anything on the floor can be vacuumed, living or otherwise.' The moral choice, with regards to the life impacted by the roomba, is to disregard the potential value of the life. It's all debris.
The assumption with the vending machine is similar. The only value considered by the creator is in the transaction involving the operator's money and producing the material the operator wants. Anything else is considered without moral value.
Morality can be as much about the lack of value placed on something as it is about the value placed on something. I'm talking about moral agency, the implications of operating a device, and not about how a robot "feels" about doing something, for the lack of more accurate word.
It's a question of morality in a philosophical sense, not as an application of science or engineering.
The roomba is capable of killing. Whether the operator is aware of this or not, when they use the roomba to clean their floor, they're ceding their moral agency to the device and to its creators.
The logic can be abstracted from the roomba to any other device. This creates the need for device operators, whatever the device, to examine the potential outcomes of device operation and potential assumptions and motivations of the device's creators.
Failure to examine the assumptions and motivations is the same as ceding moral agency, deciding not to decide and throwing hands in the air and saying "well, didn't see that coming" when the creator's assumptions and motivations play out in a way contrary to the operator's morality.
So, yeah, it's about a roomba killing a bug, or a vending machine spilling a soda. It's also about a facial recognition device not noticing a black guy on a black background, or a drone killing a dog because it's barking aggressively.
Heads up, limit poker. They've solved a two player game with restricted bets.