One weird trick: sit at the very front of your chair with your thighs pitched down, weight resting on your butt. That will angle your pelvis forward, closer to a standing position. You should find it easier to sit upright with your spine straight.
Per Neuroskeptic's due diligence, human effects don't look promising.
>>> This is a citation to one of their own papers, from 2012. There’s just one problem – as far as I can see that paper didn’t find the correlation that Zanos et al. say it did.
I like to explain it with a wager: pick a star from the night's sky. If you pick the star I'm thinking of, I'll give you a dollar. After you've made your selection, I'll give you the opportunity to switch to one other star, guaranteeing that either your star or this one alternative will be the star I had in mind. Do you want to switch?
MS backend dev here. Are you referring to the Mighty Spring position?
We are automagically matching new signups to our own open positions to both dogfood our product and give users a sense of how the job match process works when they don't have good organic matches.
Mighty Spring backend dev here. The short answer is yes, but there are not many remote-only jobs right now (beta and what-have-you). That will hopefully soon change.
Candidate affordances let you indicate a willingness to work remotely, and a requirement for remote work only. If your skill set and desires don't overlap, we won't recommend you a remote-only job just because it is remote.
I think a useful conversation to have is, "how quickly we can replace politicians with robots?" A political discourse addressing the topic would necessarily acknowledge the radical changes most technology enthousiasts expect to take place in our lifetimes.
The most common response to hearing that a machine can do your job is disbelief (http://kk.org/thetechnium/2011/09/the-7-stages-of/). Fertile ground for dismissing the imminently possible as science fiction.
Coming from an investment management background, it has been hilarious to see people espousing all manner of foolish nostrums about tech hiring, showcasing biases that have proper names in the investment community,
My favorites are of the "never hire Xs" variety, as a manifestation of the snake bite effect. Woah... what happened between you and someone with a dual CS/Art History major?
I would reframe the suggestion as two ideas. 1) "hire for your culture" and 2) conditioning on a cultural expectation of individuals putting up with lots of problems on their own, "make sure new hires can cope."
The latter is an important point, but the idea that all startups have this attitude towards employees and crisis management is not accurate.
How important is it for potential candidates to know if the culture at a startup they are considering working for has these values? I'm guessing a blog like this turns off a lot of people, but to the author's point, not anyone they would hire. Effective :D
FD: back end dev at Mighty Spring, we do startup hiring. (mightyspring.com)
An interesting thought experiment that should be informing more of the discussion is to take inevitability for granted.
If mass surveillance does exist, the concern becomes equality of access. Information asymmetry is now the problem. Fear of blackmail is moot when everyone already has access to the information. If we must have technology intruding on our privacy, I would personally prefer a world where everyone can intrude, instead of a select few.
Fully public, mass surveillance is logical extension and conclusion of if-you-have-nothing-to-hide rhetoric.
I find Terrence McKenna's argument that consciousness is demonstrably entangled in the material world at a quantum mechanical, atomic level convincing. To summarize, it is known that two similar chemical compounds, differing only in the placement of a single atom on the carbon ring structure of a molecule, when administered in doses at the order of micrograms will either be psychoactive and result in a massive disruption to the human subject's baseline consciousness or be inert beyond our ability to measure an effect.
Given the asymmetry in the difficulty market participants have with selling (and withdrawal in fiat, in a timely manner) or shorting bitcoin, as compared to the effort involved in buying bitcoin, any news is bullish news. This should hold generally and is not specific to publicity about the attack.
Assuming equal reach for would-be-sellers and would-be-buyers, more buyers are capable of expressing their opinion in the market than are sellers.
If you suppress prices, you reduce supply. Demand remains high, supply is now artificially low.
One unspoken benefit of this history of wage suppression is the dearth of engineering talent today. Rather than high prices signaling an opportunity to invest in an engineering education, labor market participants should have rationally chosen different skills and disciplines given the relatively low perceived market pay.
It stands to reason that engineers are getting paid more now than they otherwise would be thanks to temporal lags and education costs. If an unrigged market had been signaling prices that conformed to job market participant's real demands, the students of yesterday could have recognized better job opportunities today.