The naming is not consistent. As Wikipedia puts it,

This article follows usage in the United States. Readers in most other countries should read “two-way” or “SPDT” for the United States “three-way”; and “intermediate”, “crossover” or “DPDT” switch for the United States “four-way”.

The switches I’m using are marked with cute “ON/ON” labels which I suppose could be a metaphor for something.

printer ink was somehow related to breakfast

For when you want your coffee really, really black.

This seems like the thread to ask. I am wiring up a two-way switch so that a person on either side of my bed can turn the bedside light on or off without having to roll over to the side that the light is on. Is… Is that gay?

Although the law does not define what a reasonable policy should look like, it says the companies should not deactivate drivers for failing to drive enough hours, falling below a minimum customer rating or turning down ride offers and deactivation should not be based on the results of a background check or driver record, except in egregious circumstances.

Source.

Wait what? This sounds rather extreme. I suppose Uber could have some sort of mechanism for evaluating driver performance other than customer ratings, but I’m not sure what that could be in practice.

Separating the trimmings from the rest of the waste isn’t the only thing that requires effort. I presume that the management doesn’t want to give ordinary employees the authority to just give stuff away, which makes sense. Even if it isn’t a problem in this specific case, it can be a problem because employees won’t always be knowledgeable or honest. Having management review what is being given away involves overhead, and deciding how much to charge you because of that overhead involves more overhead. I probably wouldn’t bother with all that if I ran the supermarket unless I really hated throwing things out, because I would assume you won’t be willing to pay enough to make it worth my time.

One time on Reddit, a mod of /r/askhistorians described some of the content of this sort that he had seen, and he wasn’t as dispassionate about it as this article is. Just his verbal description is both disturbing and difficult to forget, so I can believe that these employees are traumatized.

With that said, what about other careers that expose people to disturbing things? I used to know a pathologist who once told me that she had a bad day because two infants died during childbirth at the hospital where she worked. She had to autopsy them. I didn’t know her well at the time so of course I assumed that she was upset for the same reason that such direct exposure to the death of babies would upset most people, but I was wrong. She was upset because she had to work late.

Why can pathologists do their job without being traumatized? Maybe the difference is that pathology isn’t something that a guy off the street just gets hired to do one day. The people who end up being pathologists usually have other options, and they choose pathology because it doesn’t particularly bother them for whatever reason. Meanwhile these moderators are immediately dumped into the deep end, so to speak, and they may not be financially secure enough to leave the job even after they experience what it is.

Can content moderation be done without traumatizing people? It isn’t a high-skilled, well-paid job so I don’t think filtering candidates the way that pathologist are filtered is practical. Not having content moderators also isn’t practical.

(I’m using pathology as an example because that’s what I know a little about, but I think my statements are probably valid for other careers, like homicide detective, which also involve regular exposure to disturbing things.)

My point is that if you give your dog some of your human food and there turns out to be a little bit of garlic in it, your dog is in no danger. Many people don’t know that. I’m not challenging basic principles of toxicology or claiming that a dog can’t possibly eat enough of these foods to be poisoned. If your small dog eats a chocolate bar or a whole bag of onion rings, you should probably do something about that.

Also, the following isn’t a reply to what you said but I just remembered it and I thought it might be useful information for some dog owners. Swallowing even a little bit of dilute hydrogen peroxide from the pharmacy will quickly make a dog vomit. It took less than a teaspoon for my 30-pound dog. I would start with a teaspoon and then he spilled a lot while I was trying to make him swallow it. I had to resort to this several times when he ate something dangerous.

IMO this is generally safe (but do your own reading and take your own dog’s specific issues into account) and even if it’s not ideal, it’s something useful for those dog owners who would have difficulty spending hundreds of dollars on surprise vet bills. Some vets will tell you not to do it, but in my experience, many vets will recommend way too much medical treatment for dogs, often to the point that it is a waste of money and sometimes even to the point that it harms the dog.

I think “an entire large onion” or “one chocolate bar” are surprisingly large amounts, because my default assumption when something is called poisonous is that any amount is dangerous.

Note that a dog would need to eat a surprisingly large amount of onions, garlic, or chocolate in order to get sick. According to the AKC:

Onion powder is in a surprisingly wide range of foods, from soups to baby food. It only takes 100 grams of onion (about the size of a medium onion) per 20 kilograms of a dog’s weight to cause toxic effects, which means that a 45-pound dog would only have to eat one medium-to-large onion to experience dangerous toxicity levels. Since most dogs would happily devour a bag of unattended onion rings or an onion casserole given the opportunity, this is a serious concern.

Scientific studies have found it takes approximately 15 to 30 grams of garlic per kilogram of body weight to produce harmful changes in a dog’s blood. To put that into perspective, the average clove of supermarket garlic weighs between 3 and 7 grams, so your dog would have to eat a lot to get really sick. However, some dogs are more sensitive to garlic toxicity than others, and consumption of a toxic dose spread out over a few days could also cause problems.

In simpler terms, that means a very concerning dose of chocolate is approximately one ounce of milk chocolate per pound of body weight. Since an average milk chocolate bar may be around 1.55 ounces, consuming even one chocolate bar can have serious consequences, especially for small dogs. Eating a crumb of chocolate cake or a very small piece of a chocolate bar, on the other hand, probably won’t kill your dog, especially if it is a larger breed.

One time my dog ate some chocolate and I was worried until I calculated that a dog his size (and he wasn’t a big dog) would have to eat an entire full-sized bar of dark chocolate before experiencing any symptoms at all. It’s probably best not to give dogs food containing small amounts of onions, garlic, or chocolate just in case, but there’s no need to worry if a dog eats human food containing small amounts of these ingredients.

I didn’t mean to imply anything to the contrary of what you’re saying. I’m just reminded of the Simpsons episode where Smithers says

If Mr. Burns ever wants to see a stranger, he will observe him through a powerful telescope.

People are hidden from each other in plain sight.

Posts like this are so weird to me. Clearly this is a common thing that a lot of people are going through, but in real life most people I know have succeeded through integrity (similar to kindness) and hard work. Not just kids from middle-class families, but immigrants, first-generation college students, etc. There must be some sort of filter creating a social bubble around me, like how I have met very few Trump voters (and don’t know any of them well) despite the fact that there are actually quite many of them.

heteronormative assumptions

You could still have a wife yourself, with whichever licensing agreement the two of you negotiate.

Insurance company profits are already capped by law. I don’t think your ideal insurance company can possibly be that much better for the customer than the already-available options are.

The companies must spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums from small businesses and individuals on health care, and 85 cents per dollar for large employers. The remaining 15 to 20 percent is all they are allowed under the Affordable Care Act to spend on administrative costs like overhead and marketing and to keep as profit. Any additional revenues are to be returned to consumers in the form of rebates.

Note that the remaining 15 to 20 percent has to cover all the costs of actually running the company. It isn’t just profit.

Furthermore, insurance companies do have to compete with each other on price. Denying a lot of claims helps them offer cheaper policies. Employers who provide insurance want the cheapest policy that their employees will tolerate and healthy people want the cheapest policy that they expect to protect them from sudden, catastrophic expenses. (I’m relatively young and healthy and I have never even seriously considered picking a policy other than the cheapest one whenever I had a choice.)

In this context, if your business plan is to spend more money per customer than the existing insurance companies do, and your target market is people unhappy with their current insurance companies (these people probably have expensive problems) then you’re not going to do too well…

The current era of excess is unprecedented in the history of the world. For most of human history, starvation was a serious threat and hungry people would go anywhere where there was food that wasn’t already claimed by someone stronger than them.

(The people in very cold climates would fight to defend their resources too! Ultimately there was no unclaimed land that people could survive in, except shortly after major catastrophes.)

I’m not a doctor but as far as weight loss goes: ADHD medication gives me the option of just not eating. I still enjoy eating but hunger becomes a mild sensation that is easy to ignore, to the extent that sometimes I forget to eat all day if I’m doing something interesting. I lose weight without even trying when I’m taking medication, I don’t feel the lethargy that I would if I were dieting normally, and the slow-release pills have no unpleasant side effects for me. Maybe this is something you could look into with the assistance of a sympathetic doctor - Ritalin was originally intended for weight loss…

It’s not just the posts. The neighbor used nails that are way too long. IMO that’s a safety hazard.

I don’t see why I would be in any more danger than a native-born American citizen.

1. I don’t expect anything catastrophic to happen so suddenly that I won’t have time to flee.

2. Everyone I know is here, including people who depend on me.

3. I don’t want to learn another language.

4. I feel a lot less connected to the USA than I did before, but I don’t feel more connected to any other country than I do to the USA. The one my family and I came from is a huge mess and I certainly don’t want to return to it.

I’m taking the idea of leaving the country much more seriously than I had before, but it still seems unlikely.

Man, this hits close to home. Just yesterday I decided to get in touch with an old friend from college and I found out that she had died in a car accident years ago, not long after I lost touch with her. Don’t put things off, folks.

What fraction is under 18? It’s hard to tell by looking at the graph. I want to calculate what ratio of combatants to civilians killed a number of 70% implies.