You can also prefix any WSJ links (among others) with “facebook.com/l.php?u=” to receive content reserved for users arriving from Facebook; that is, if you don't mind Facebook tracking.
Accepting that, you can of course debate what sorts of racism we should allow, and perhaps even encourage. I probably disagree with you, but that's just my opinion.
Observing a bias, quantifying it as best as possible, and deploying countermeasures in corresponding degree to reduce its impact, is not racism.
But if you believe anything which assigns admission/hiring/recruiting scores on any basis other than objectively-measured individual merit is "racist", you cannot plausibly be in favor of current hiring, recruiting or admissions practices, and have far larger fish to fry than the relatively small number of people whose admission/hiring is solely due to affirmative action.
In all seriousness: look up the ratio of "legacy" admits to, say, black students admitted at top colleges, and then remind yourself that "black" is not synonymous with "affirmative action admit", and then ponder which of "legacy" and "affirmative action" would cause the greatest overall change toward fairness if eliminated. Then focus your efforts accordingly.
An extravertedness bias in underclass culture is the main reason people why people don't get into coding, which is historically more something for introverts and a "nerd thing". It's still in peoples minds, nobody in High School wants to be like Steve Urkel, it's a vulnerabilty in certain circles.
This can only be changed by changing the image of coders within mainstream pop culture, which in turn is mainly influenced by lower class culture, especially Hip-Hop culture in the last decades.
And round and round and round we go! Everybody has a convenient finger to point at someone else who's responsible, and if all else fails blame the people discriminated against and say it's their fault for not doing more to overcome the discrimination.
It's not a race or gender thing, but class struggle, dysfunctional families and problems that are passed on through generations. If your social group is basically your family, you can't afford to not fit in. It's a parallel society with its own rules.
In larger sense, if fed birds are more successful, it affects the distribution of species (favouring fed part of the ecosystem). Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, and city environment does that anyway.
I guess I'm at the other end of spectrum by simply following what the manufacturer proposes: I change my oil along with the filter every 18,000 miles, and so far, after 100,000 miles (and then some) have not had any issues. (My car is rather cheap, or in EV sense practically free, so I'm not all too concerned, either.)
The engine does not consume too much oil, either, so a single 4L bottle – about a gallon I think – is easily all that the oil I need between changes. With European prices, that is the equivalent of a single refill (even with my modest tank size), which makes you simply laugh and wonder at all the people that (always) bring up oil changes in the discussion of ICE vs EV. I can't but wonder how many of those actually own and maintain a not-imaginary vehicle.
It's a VW Polo from the early noughties. Petrol, albeit a rather small engine to match the car :)
To clarify my earlier post, I meant of course that a single bottle of oil is enough for the refill (between 3 and 4 litres) and more than enough for any top-ups for the about 30000 km before the car starts to remind of the end of the “Long Life” maintenance cycle. Oil is certainly not up there when it comes to costs of owning a small car, ICE or not.
A cursory look at used oil: it's still rather like the stuff that goes in, albeit black, of course. Without specific tools, I think it's impossible to tell it apart from oil that's used for, say, 10000 km.
thats a pretty standard recommendation from practically all german car manufacturers - to change oil roughly every 30-35k kilometers - which is about 18k miles.
I've never seen that anywhere in the United States. 10k miles is the highest I've seen for BMWs & if it isn't that, people say the typical advice is "once a season" depending on how you drive.
Are you sure you're making a point – because I can't see one. Seems more about unnecessary bitching about C++ being different from [some-different-language].
If they could do anything more stupid as introducing a galling difference and a special case to variable initialisation with auto, it would be to do exactly that, but because “some other languages work more like that”.
I wonder which has a bigger impact on human consumption levels: a person that decides to save his time by driving a car instead of waiting for a bus, or Africa's population increasing from 250 million in 1960 to about 5 billion by 2100.
Let's focus on the selfish car guy, that's the big picture all right in “saving” the world.
Of course politicians should be the one who decide the rules. That's how democracy works...
Keep in mind that the jet fuel that's used to transport all the world's hipsters to “experience the world” is not taxed at all – or does that hit too close to home even for a person who doesn't own a car? A life that's aimed at solely minimising emissions is a bleak one, which is why it's not the will of the majority.
"the jet fuel that's used to transport all the world's hipsters to “experience the world”"
What about the jet fuel that's used for the other 98% of people who fly on a regular basis? Is that less polluting, or are you just jealous of the people who travel internationally for leisure? You're not making any sense, unless you're deluded enough to think that those are the only people who fly.
"does that hit too close to home even for a person who doesn't own a car?"
Again, that makes no sense. Why would car ownership affect the impact of jet fuel pollution? If it's the "hipsters" you're concerned about, wouldn't those be the people who are already offsetting the environmental cost of air travel by using public transport and/or unmotorised travel and thus polluting less than car owners?
In other words, you seem to be more interested at attacking a threadbare strawman than evaluate what's actually happening. It's pretty sad, when the actual reason for taxation is pretty clear (to encourage less polluting methods of transport where one reasonably exists, which may not be the case for many air routes).
You can calculate a number from the resource (over)usage.
Some will, of course, claim that we consume too much – but at that point, it's a matter of opinion. I call it overpopulation for the current level of technology.
That's right. Overpopulation is a function of technology, etc. More people are coming out of poverty, and according to Bill Gates there will be almost no poor countries by 2035:
If we can't figure out how to generate electricity by means other than coal, for example, we will have a problem. However, technology is increasing rapidly and increasing the quality of life for the majority of people is happening on a large scale.
