> PGP is still uncracked, if I'd become a criminal then public PGP with at least 8k bits key would be my choice.
It's not PGP that is uncracked, PGP is a set of tools built on top of RSA. RSA is still secure (other than brute force factoring) with appropriately sized keys.
The biggest problem with PGP isn't PGP itself, it's your opsec approach to everything else. Example... after decrypting a PGP payload - did you save it to disk unencrypted? Did the recipients to your messages save it unencrypted? Are any machines infected with keyloggers? PGP is a great tool, but still requires good opsec overall.
Denying that 10x <anything> exists is usually a shallow defense mechanism for our own egos. We aren't that good at <skill>, so we convince ourselves that no one else is either.
I don't have(and never have had) any social media accounts...ie facebook, twitter, instagram, tiktok, etc. The closest would be an HN account.
That said, could someone tell me what I might be missing? Ignorance is bliss, but it's also ignorance - is there any critical information or happiness that everyone else [who uses social media] enjoys that I do not?
Do you have any friends that you've lost touch with?
All my best friends from high school live all over the country. Some of us have grown apart and that's okay, but I do enjoy passively keeping up with what they're doing on Facebook.
How about family members who you grew up with but now live on other sides of the country?
I have some older cousins that moved to California as soon as they graduated college. I was probably 8 or 9 at the time so it's not like I had any real way of keeping in touch with them. Now we're friends on Facebook and I can see what they're doing.
Ever wanted to go on a hike in the mountains in the spring and see if there's snow on the trail you're about to do? Someone probably tried already and posted a photo on Instagram.
Ever see some new construction in a building and wonder "What's moving in to this space?" There's probably a hyper local Facebook group where someone has already posted that information.
If you're watching a football game and want to get live commentary by people other than the announcers. Twitter is great for that.
I also use Facebook for organizing events like ski weekends or camping trips. I haven't found anything that even comes close for event planning.
I detest talking on the phone. I also accept that there are some people who I'm just not going to get around to arranging a meetup with, as there are too many demands on my time. I don't look at Facebook any more but I follow a lot of illustrators and animators on instagram so my feed is usually full of their interesting stuff. There are few enough people that I can catch up easily if I don't check for a day or two. I also follow friends who've moved to different part of the country and can see how their kids are doing, although I have never posted a pic of my boy on social media (and never will until he can give informed consent).
No. People (like myself) are ultimately using it for a distraction from something more important or a dopamine rush when someone "likes" something you post. You're better off.
I dunno if this counts. I use reddit/r/funny together whenever we feel a bit bored or just want to kill time. Other things include finding like minded people on facebook groups which you can use to meet other people too.
That depends on you. Social media should be a way to better connect to your friends and family. In particular distant ones that you don't see daily but still want to be in contact with. I haven't seen my 7th grade crush since high school, but I'm glad to see pictures of her kid's first day of college - as one example.
Most people use social media instead for harmful things that do not help society. Left and Right wing conspiracy theorys abound. Pictures of some cat that you don't own.
Try intraday stock/futures/forex trading... it will quickly break the "scrub" mentality the author talks about. You either play to win, or you run out of money and can't play anymore.
> Students should be able to enter med school straight out of HS. This is how it's done in Europe
I had no idea about this, but it seems brilliant. Immediately immersing them in medicine instead of all the non-medical education you would be forced to complete(and pay for) in the US sounds like a win.
It's not just any degree, though. In addition to that, there is a set of classes that you have to complete (each med school has their own requirements, but practically speaking, they're roughly the same: http://www.georgetowncollege.edu/four-year-plan-medical-scho...).
So, sure, you can enter med school with a BA in English, but you still have to have taken undergraduate level organic chemistry.
Practically speaking, that means at each school there's 1 or 2 majors that will hit the typical premed requirements in the course of completing the undergraduate degree and a handful of other majors where a minor or even less than that will allow you to complete the premed requirements.
But all that said, yeah, they engage in blatant credentialism because they use it as a way to filter students out, because there's a much smaller supply of available medical school positions than there is demand for medical school positions. It's so blatant that it's usually better to go to a school with grade inflation or a less rigorous school where you know you can max out the GPA, than to go to the toughest undergraduate school you can because admissions doesn't do a great job of leveling different schools, so a 4.0 from University of Grade Inflation can still beat out a 3.5 from a more-renowned university.
There’s no good reason for those prerequisites to be shoehorned into a random bachelor’s degree. Medical schools can add another year or eighteen months and teach their students those subjects themselves.
It's usually not a random degree. Usually it's like biology or molecular and cellular biology or maybe biochemistry or something like that, where the major itself is applicable to more than just medical school, it just happens to perfectly or nearly so overlap with medical school requirements.
An MD post-secondary degree is like 6 years, right? An undergrad and MD in the US is 8 years, so the difference isn't that much. That's basically just the general education requirements for an undergraduate degree, which as far as I can understand is just a general difference of the US vs european systems. US bachelors include a generality component absent in European degrees so the typical US undergrad takes a year or so longer than the typical European undergraduate degree.
I don't know if I would go that far. University education usually involves a ton of general-education classes for the first two years: English, science, history, math, basic science, etc. High school quality is quite uneven in the US, so these classes are largely necessary, imho.
Also, that's not to mention the many "pre-med" classes that medical schools require for applicants. Are high school kids going to take the organic chemistry, biochem, etc. necessary for med school?
> Are high school kids going to take the organic chemistry, biochem, etc. necessary for med school?
Due to the competitiveness of getting a place on a medicine course, it's pretty much impossible to get into a medicine degree here in the UK without having taken Physics, Chemistry and Biology at A-level, and maybe maths too. So... yes.
Note also: medical degrees are longer than other degrees in Europe (5 years instead of the standard 3 here in the UK). But you go directly into a specialised medicine course. I think you can do a graduate medicine degree in 4 years if you have an undergraduate degree in a related field, but that's relatively uncommon.
1. Med school is a lot more expensive than undergraduate education.
2. Making a decent grade in those classes at an accredited school is a good filter.
3. MDs aren’t just technicians. They are leaders, managers, and ethicists. They have a higher level of legally protected autonomy than nearly any other profession. Given that, I think that 2 years of general education is appropriate. For the same reasons I think general education is appropriate for other professions with a high degree of autonomy, authority, and impact, e.g., civil engineers, lawyers, and teachers (all the teachers reading this are laughing at the autonomy part).
Topics build on each other. The average working engineer designing circuit boards isn’t calculating the nth derivative of a function on a daily basis.
That doesn’t mean that they didn’t need to understand calculus as a prerequisite to other classes where they did learn skills they use frequently.
MDs also aren’t technicians, they are a self regulating group of professionals with a high degree of legally protected autonomy and authority. Individually they make life or death decisions more frequently than anyone else. And as a group they make up regulatory bodies that impact everyone’s medical care. Like lawyers they have a very disproportionate impact on society. I think some amount of general education and general science background is appropriate.
The 3x income rule is usually mentioned by your loan officer, and your real estate agent. They will present you with houses costing 3x your income as a baseline of what you can afford.
That is a link to the banker's manifesto. The ideal scenario [in the manifesto] is for home prices to far eclipse yearly income, and for houses to be owned by banks instead of occupants. Everything old is new again...
> This would be about as useless underwater as one of those little one-liter bottles with integrated mouthpiece that scams show being inflated with a bicycle pump...
These irk me too! The pictures never mention that the hand pump in them, isn't a bike pump at all, it's a high-pressure pump that you will have to pump for nearly an hour. I see these constantly in the "suggested products" when shopping for any diving kit on amazon.
Devil's advocate here. The article mentions imminent "massive loss of lives and livelihoods". Wouldn't that lower emissions? ie, we aren't likely to need to keep smog factories pumping out pollution 24/7 when the population is slashed in half. I realize that's not an ideal scenario, but it's a fail-safe of sorts.
IMO this is the buried lede of the whole topic, any solution we come up with is going to look like a "controlled crash" in the sense that nature will force us to crash at some point
I like your "Costco car" phrase! When I read the article, I saw a car under $5000 that fits the needs of many US citizens automotive needs and thought "why can't we have that over here?"... instead we're pushed $50,000 pickup trucks and cars capable of reaching 150+ mph with price tags to match. We need the "Costco car" you speak of!
> why can't we have that over here?" (snip) We need the "Costco car" you speak of!
We already have them. A "Costco Car" built to meet all minimum US safety standards is how you get stuff like the 2021 Chevy Spark (retail out-the-door price of about $14,000 brand new - https://www.chevrolet.com/cars/spark . It's cheap enough that a working fresh graduate could buy one brand new, off-the-lot. (approx $240/month or so on a 60 month loan)
Most people don't like "Costco Cars". Stuff like the Chevy Spark, or Mitsubishi Mirage, or the Nissan Versa -- they generally aren't as comfortable in seats or interior trim or interior features, they aren't as fun to drive, they tend to be louder and lighter which can make them feel unsafe (even though they aren't), they aren't very big or roomy, they generally won't impress anybody, etc.
But you can buy a "Costco Car" from any Chevy dealership anywhere in the US today, if you really want one.
The above commenter was saying we needed a "Costco Car" that was actually an EV to increase EV sales. Despite it's EV sounding name the Chevy Spark to date has never been an EV.
Chevy's Bolt, their current closest to an entry model EV, still starts at $36,500.
According to your link that was a limited production run from 2013 to 2016 and $31,000 is a far cry from the Chery QQ's $5000 price tag.
You may be technically correct about the previous poster's claims, but that says nothing to the fact that we simply don't have a low cost, low expectation electric vehicle in the USA.
One reason unfortunately is you have to share the road with those $50k pickup trucks and I would not want to be in a $5000 box anywhere near those things. I've seen a video once of a lifted pickup hitting a small economy hatchback. It was horrific.
Absolutely, but successfully enacting such measures would mean political violence, which is a whole different thing from traffic deaths, and even attempting it would probably lead to a wave of elections going toward the party promising not to do it (and likely to do a bunch of other things that are the governance equivalent of punching yourself in the face—god, our politics are dumb in this country). You think people get upset about any hint of gun regulation, look out if you go after big trucks. No-one's going to be crazy enough to try it, though yes, we definitely should take measures to drastically reduce the number of large personal vehicles on the road, in an ideal world.
Nobody in the USA will buy it. Anyone who claims they will, and doesn't own a Mitsubishi Mirage or first-gen Nissan Versa is lying. These cars stayed under $10k new for a while, and yet never really sold well in the USA. It was even possible to get a Ford Fiesta for <$10k new after discounts up until they stopped selling them in the USA. They seriously sat on lots for 2-3 years before being auctioned off (and probably sold at used car dealerships for more than they sold for new).
Americans don't buy cheap new cars, and it's not because they don't exist. Manufactures would love to get Americans buying cheap new cars, but Americans stubbornly refuse to. They claim to want cheap new cars, but they take one look at an actually cheap car and decide that a 10 year old <nice car> is a better buy.
It's not PGP that is uncracked, PGP is a set of tools built on top of RSA. RSA is still secure (other than brute force factoring) with appropriately sized keys.
The biggest problem with PGP isn't PGP itself, it's your opsec approach to everything else. Example... after decrypting a PGP payload - did you save it to disk unencrypted? Did the recipients to your messages save it unencrypted? Are any machines infected with keyloggers? PGP is a great tool, but still requires good opsec overall.