What about the intricate cellular dynamics of tissue growth? Wouldn't the "proprietary formula of salt, water, and fibers" fail to replicate a set of some [at least observable] macroscopic effects, thus limiting the overall experience deepness for the practioner?
Do you really think, that general populace's misuse of antibiotics could cause the development of resistant bacterial strains en masse?
I might be wrong, and if so, please don't hesitate to provide some factual paper, yet my intuition suggests that in order to obtain solely by selection (under the pressure of a _single_ bioactive substance), a bacterial strain, that is, simultaneously:
- resistant to the aforementioned substance
- stable: resistance is not lost after the generation or so, past the moment when exposure is over
- contagious: strain is resistant to different immune systems (w/o losing its resistance to the substance, of course),
one either needs to perform a directed selection (eg. like that for apple-trees), or to create an environment, where really _huge_ bacterial population could thrive and persist for a long time: like that in hospitals or farms, - where not only frequent turnover of living organisms along with the regular exposure to antibacterial substances do happen, but also some intermediate vessels (medical instruments, ground, water supply, etc.) are available for bacteria to flourish in-between living hosts.
> Do you really think, that general populace's misuse of antibiotics could cause the development of resistant bacterial strains en masse?
Of course not. There's 7 billion people, and just a tiny percentage uses antibiotics.
There's around 60 billion land mammals raised by humans every year, throughout their life most of them use the strongest antibiotics. It speeds up growth, it prevents silly deaths, increases profit.
Diseases, plagues will come from livestock, as they always did, not from humans.
In the absence of antibiotics, there is selective pressure to eliminate the genes or mutations that confer resistance. However, there are opposing factors - antibiotic resistance genes are often carried on plasmids, independent genetic elements that can be exchanged between bacteria. Plasmids that contain antibiotic resistance genes frequently also contain heavy metal resistance genes[1]. This allows for co-selection, where the presence of, for example, mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants will maintain antibiotic resistance in antibiotic-free environments[2,3]. Plasmids can act as parasites on their bacterial hosts - many carry pairs of genes that encode both a toxin and a less stable antitoxin. If the plasmid is lost, the bacterium will die[4]. All of these mechanisms can maintain antibiotic resistance without antibiotic exposure.
I think bad policy leads to bad outcomes. When people are given good information, they make good decisions, on the whole.
As a parent, I was pretty pissed off when I learned that over use of antibiotics harms my child, my society.
As a citizen, I'm pretty pissed off that (one aspect) of the opioid epidemic is because doctors changed pain management protocols, without any followup testing, assessment.
“We started it”: Atul Gawande on doctors’ role in the opioid epidemic
- natural content quality metric, if people do bother to download&run TBB or at least use some public www->onion gateway, not to mention writing down/remembering the address
It is not that rigorous in Russian, though. "First name + patronymic" combination is often used among equals (supposedly equally qualifed/approx. same age group) as a matter of style or tradition, which engineering or research bureaus are especially known for. I've personally encountered such usage in university and in a factory IT departments; my friend, working as mechanical engineer in a big industrial complex, has the same observation. However, despite the inclusion of patronymic, personal pronouns tend to be singular in that case. Such style of referencing perhaps lies between full-blown formal interaction and a joking context as in a casual speech.
Another subtlety is an explicit and implicit addressing style unification among unequal participants.
I. [explicit] When you are referring to superior, using the aforementioned "f.n.+patronymic", he is expected to return you in the same way, even (or especially...) in the case of student-professor interaction.
II. [implicit] You are still expected to use formal addressing, when addressed informally by superior - but when that expectation holds, it is actually considered unacceptable, or bad style at least, for superior to use such addressing; unless you're in the student-professor relationship with the superior, or you're working in some shitty-unwitty paperstocking dogfood reselling organization, or you're unskilled/simple-skilled labour in a government institution.
Rephrasing, superior should make sure that you both use the same addressing style (ie. as in I.).
Just a side-note: the attitude expressed in the Russian version of the website is nowhere that mild and neutral as in the English one. I personally do find it not only alarming, but disgusting to the very least (esp. the "torrent-tracker users deanonymization" part).
Screenshot: http://imgur.com/a/PTiDT (under the title "Сотрудничество", which means "Cooperation").
Here is my crude translation:
...
Cooperation
============
We are ready to share data on an automated basis, in a different cross-sections and formats.
Besides we do have the technical means for "catching" users, who do participate in the torrent-file seeding.
By means of connecting to the user's device and subsequent downloading of one tiny piece
from the torrent-file, it is possible to collect a TCP-dump of the data exchanged for that piece.
There is a unique fingerprint associated with both those data exchanged and the torrent-file itself [0].
That allows to prove the fact that torrent distribution had been taken place from the particular IP address [1].
Everything mentioned above will be potentially actual/useful in Russia [2].
If interested in cooperation, you could let us know: <cooperation-email-address>
P.S. We also have means/possibilities to build recommendation systems, to de-anonymize torrent-trackers users and much, much more.
"The company informed us that the site helps to showcase their abilities to the various outfits they work with, including copyright holders.
“We’ve set up the site for promotional purposes and as a demonstration of our capabilities,” Marketing director Andrey Rogov says.
“We are engaged in the distribution of information relating to torrent downloading activity to rightsholders, advertising platforms, law-enforcement and international organizations.”
The company offers API access to its data for interested parties and can also provide TCP dumps as extra proof that downloaded content is linked to a certain IP-address."
I guess the intersection of peer IP addresses for all the infohashes listed above (better, for the whole 192.168.0.0/24), from the DHT network, will be tremendously interesting... for someone... :)
I could call that list deliberately malicious from user experience standpoint:
>Are password entropy checks done during user sign-up, using, say AUTH_PASSWORD_VALIDATORS?
No. It's my information to be stolen, not yours. So then it is my choice, whether to use 123 as password or not. Why should I care to manage the complex password, when I use your service eg. twice an year and have no important information there? (if you really believe that people are eager to fill website with their authentic personal info unless they do not have other options, you are probably fooling yourself).
The better alternative is just no registration at all :)
>Are failed login attempts throttled and IP addresses banned after a number of unsuccessful attempts
So, you hadn't listened the previous piece of advice and forced me to create password that would've passed through the password checker. Six months passed and now I have to remember (I really don't want to bother with managing and storing password to your service anyway) it. As you could imagine, it takes several tries, dozen or two, maybe even three - depending on that cool password validator of yours. Do you say, that I need to use tor or have some pool of spare IP adresses just to login to your service?
>Are all form fields (with the exception of password fields) validated with a restrictive regex?
Aha, start with an email and surname, polish with an address;) Then your service will make it straight to the oblivion even faster!
>Do you have an account recovery flow? Delete it immediately.
Quite appropriate actually: when all tor exit nodes are banned by your login attempt throttler, that retards with severe memory impairment (whom you sometimes by mistake call "clients" in your marketing bullshit) still must not have a glimpse of a chance to use their account!
And when the site gets broken into years later, irresponsible users (or "morons" as you put it) will pillory them publicly even though it's their own damn fault for using a crappy password or using the same password for their email.
The number of people who will stop using a site because they can't meet basic password strength requirements is minimal and not worth caring about.
Me?! God is my witness, I do not. Rather, it is creators of that "checklist", who suggest that your users are idiots, who should be punished even for being unable to remember their password. IMHO, the really bad thing about the list is the fact that technically legit (I am not a webdev though) points are casually mixed with statements implying derogatory stance towards target users. I do not want you to control the ways I manage my information, that's the point of my rant.
After all, it is not a big deal if some crappy SV startups whose ultimate fate is to die silently after an year or two anyways, will adopt the practice. Problem arises when thing would go in the wild, bringing only headache and distraction to those who is able to control their information flow.
Many computer logins protect information other than the password-bearer's- for example, any business or government. As a result it's best to consider it, then discard as your use case may require.
I absolutely agree on the account recovery point - it WILL happen, your choice as designer is just whether it happens within a designed process or without.
>Many computer logins protect information other than the password-bearer's
That is my problem, as the user, not yours. If you'd like to help, then just put some warning or notification on the form, and I'll appreciate that. Just don't prohibit registration if password of my choice is eg. '1'.
Most of the time, your bussiness - is your service, not the access to it.
Does one deemed to be always percepted as an underdog, if he intentionally avoids any eye contact?
For example, even a glimpse into the interlocutor's eye while having a conversation (esp. a constructive/technical one) completely shatters my thought process, feels like my mental resources are drained towards some unconscious "computation". Almost the same effect with the facial features alone, yet not that strong. As a result, when I interact with someone, I do not look at that person, even when handshaking, just unconsciously focus on some static object: cup of coffee, crack on the wall, etc.
People who stoutly seeks an eye contact, despite all the avoidance, literaly derange me. Blood is just freaking boils in my veins, like I am going to punish it in its weasel face right now (never happend though, just state of mind).
On contrary, I have no such problem with babies (hard to estimate, but probably up to age of 6 or sth like that) or domestic animals.
Has anyone encountered something like that? Do you consider that a problem? As for me, I feel that such trait constrains my ability to effectively (eg. being treated as an equal) engage in communication in non-technical social environments.
It probably does; you really should work on that. (I say that as a fellow introvert.) Eye contact is one of those things where moderation is definitely key; too little and people think you're shifty or withdrawn, too much and they think you're a psychopath or something. A good amount shows confidence, but too much is intimidating. The way you act is going to severely limit your ability to socialize and get good employment, a girlfriend, etc.
As for animals and babies, that makes perfect sense too: those things aren't usually a threat to you in any way, either physically or socially, except maybe for large and aggressive dogs in which case strong eye contact is useful because it shows the dog that you're the "alpha dog".
While avoiding eye contact can be because of many things, it might we worth looking into this autism test: http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/autism-quiz.htm, and if you score sufficiently high and if it's available to you, to make an appointment with a psychologist.
It's not so much that a potential diagnosis solves your problems, but it can provide valuable insights (and some help as well).
>I heard rumors that in russian prisons people make this condensed coffee drink that acts as a sort of meta-amphetamine replacement.
Probably, you are referring to the "chifir": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chifir'
It is prepared by boiling tea leaves, rather than coffee beans.
Chifir is indeed a stimulant, although totally unrelated to methamphetamine (which, by itself, is not popular or easily obtained in Russia at all).
