No it's not. Small businesses are used to paying $5-$15 for remote control, reporting, 3rd party patching, reports, automation, etc. Unless the business has huge margins, you're getting laughed out of the room @60.
Yeah, I think it's fairly normal to have an officer outside of or at the entrance to a polling location. They're not actually in the room with poll watchers, etc., and certainly nowhere near the private voting booths.
It has never felt inappropriate to me – maybe because I typically vote at a public school, where it's normal to see a crossing guard or public safety officer outside.
It's not normal. In fact there was a police officer from Florida if I recall correctly who was reprimanded for voting in their uniform. It's considered potential voter intimidation to have a police officer standing around at a polling place.
I buy a lot of fresh produce, which is way faster with a good cashier who knows all of the codes. I also tend to buy multiples of an item, which is also way faster when the cashier can swipe one and then hit 6x or whatevs.
And that's assuming the self-checkout system is working perfectly, which is rare. They often have some janky anti-theft sensors that freak out if you remove a bag or item from the bagging area. Self-checkout is fine or maybe even better if you have a few items, but for a cart full of groceries, it is inarguably way slower than a decent human cashier.
I drive automatic now, but I miss stick sometimes. One of our family cars was a manual when I was a teen, 20 years ago.
I feel driving manual encourages a deeper focus on the road ahead and deeper connection with how your vehicle operates. You tend to plan ahead a bit more, be more aware of hills and curves, cars slowing down ahead, etc. – anything that'll make you need to switch gears. You could still have distracted driving, especially on highways, but driving stick lessens it, I think, though I have zero evidence to support that feeling.
Very easy to switch, in my experience. It is like muscle memory. It might take a few weeks to get comfortable with manual, but once you do, it doesn't require much thought to switch gears.
It's a sequence that just happens, similar to typing. You still need to think about what you're saying, etc., but you don't have to consciously think, "now I'm typing an S."
I ride a motorcycle. In the motorcycle version of Driver's Ed, they taught us to simply think of changing gears as the same motions you'd make to wring out a wet cloth. Thinking that way automatically improves the timing and flow.
Once you've practiced enough, you simply stop thinking about any part of the gear changing steps. You don't even need the speedometer or tachometer when gearing up or down anymore because you already know how it sounds and feels. It becomes a subconscious process.
But that initial visualization of wringing out a washcloth makes it really easy to figure out. Soon enough, you have muscle memory and don't have to think about it - you just do it.
The OP clearly says, "It’s my fault for not reading the fine print more carefully."
They then further go on to say, "... when upgrading back to a Pro account, any branch protection rules you had before were permanently deleted when you downgraded to the free tier. They will all have to be recreated from scratch."
That is useful information, to me. People write blog posts about all types of things that are obvious to some and useful to others. Why be so nasty about this short post that seems to be useful to a lot of people? I guess that's 2019 for ya.
It's easy to ask snarky questions. That doesn't mean it's helpful or witty.
I admit that my rather sarcastic comment was a bit snarky. I am genuinely surprised though that people find this newsworthy. It's pretty obvious that if you're going to downgrade anything you'll lose something, no? I also find it very surprising that the OP was so astound that the lost triggers had to be re-configured if he was to upgrade again. Maybe it's just me, but this really felt pretty standard and extremely obvious, which is maybe why I wrote this rather snarky comment. Still wrong of me, so I take that feedback.
Amazing. I expected you to double-down and reply aggressively defensive, but that was a sincere, thoughtful reply. Thank you. Maybe 2019 isn't so bad after all. ;)
And I agree it's a fairly obvious risk if you stop and think about it, but it's not necessarily true that losing access to a feature, which is a reversible state, also permanently deletes all configuration data associated with that feature.
Your comment was direct, but fair, so it wasn't difficult to agree with you ;)
Regarding the branch protection feature, I can see it both ways, but I think overall I would have not expected them to be re-instantiated when upgrading to a higher tier again. Branches could have changed since then. I could have added more branches, deleted a branch which previously had the protection, then maybe created a new branch under the same name, etc.
Unless it's an immediate "I accidentally downgraded, revert all changes back again" action I think it's easier for GitHub to just let the user re-create what makes the most sense for them at the point of re-joining the higher tier. But like with most user features it's debatable...
GitHub is likely among the most widely used tools for HN users. Posting on HN, news that is relevant to such a majority of users on this platform, is a rather perfect use of HN as a dissemination platform. I read through GitHub's tiered service documentation after reading this article, and I couldn't find reference to branch controls being permanently deleted; so the OP was giving us very valuable experiential information, that was unattainable from GitHub. I really can't think of a better use for HN.
Full coverage auto insurance still only covers repairs from accidents. It doesn't cover the cost of, say, brake pads needing to be replaced or a window motor going bad.
For covering normal wear and tear maintenance, that would be an auto warranty – or extended warranty, service contract, protection plan, etc.
At least, those are the standard terms in the United States.
Anecdote: last year I was repairing a bumper on my older Ford sedan, this was in Minneapolis mid winter (so tis the season for mild-severe body damage) and one of the body shops I got a quote from was also the only authorized Tesla dealership in several hundred miles. They had an entire lot just for body damaged Tesla's waiting on parts. The owner commented to me that they were getting Tesla's hauled from southern Iowa for repair. Nothing like a 500 mile flatbed ride to really spice up the total cost of repair.
It seems like there's some confusion here with regard to auto insurance, warranties, and regular maintenance.
As far as I'm aware warranties only cover faulty / defective parts (and labour to replace), insurance is intended as accident cover, everything else is regular maintenance.
It does however factor in the likelihood of a crash, and the cost of repairing the vehicle after a crash. So if the 3 is more expensive to repair than other similar vehicles, the insurance would cost more.
Yes, from my very limited to exposure to this (not in SV, but in healthcare), these are two key points:
absurd amount of anomaly detections per day, usually with a 99.9% false positive rate
Adding lots of red tape and restrictions and wasting time investigating employees who've done nothing wrong
What I've seen/heard about is that you end up with some EVP pissed off that IT/SEC is bothering their people – rightly or wrongly, it'll inevitably get used an excuse for why something is late. So the EVP (virtually) marches into the office of the IT/SEC director and issues an edict that everyone in <this super special department> are too important to be bothered and any access restrictions or investigations affecting <the department> must get prior approval from the EVP's office. That's of course a huge pain in the ass, which results in that department effectively being exempt, i.e., a perfect place for an internal spy.
The IT/SEC director, often several rungs down from the angry EVP, usually has the authority to stand up to the EVP, technically, but that is a risky move, can easily start a turf war.
So, for these programs to be effective, they must get buy-in from the absolute highest levels with no exemptions, which is not easy in the highly political world of huge organizations.
As someone who worked in a special unit in a big healthcare company, this hits really close to home. Our BU sponsor got us an outside internet connection in our building so we would have unfettered internet access. That would've been the perfect spot to offload documents because you're using a company computer on a non-monitored internet connection and our department had no oversight.
In hindsight, this is very scary given that I had access to production systems with loads of PHI, PII, etc. with no censoring or filtering in place.
And here I always thought it's EVPs that come up with those ridiculous security measures, not IT/SEC guys, and that's the lower-level managers that have to fight to actually get something done. At one of my previous jobs, it was our direct boss that fought tooth and nail to shield our programming teams from the consequences of the whole corporation deciding to level up some more in ISO standards...
Don't get me wrong. I understand the need for security measures in a company. But there must be some middle ground - some way of securing data and networks without incurring a 1000% penalty on productivity for all your programming teams.
Yeah, I've been in environments where they completely locked down internet access, and we had to "fight tooth and nail" to get an exemption for a handful of sites like StackOverflow. I agree it can be a huge productivity problem.
Again, my experience is very limited compared to many, but the best mix I've seen is programmers had basically wide open internet access BUT everything was still logged. And they must have had some type of automated review. A coworker was planning her wedding, and while sitting on conference calls, browsed around a bunch of wedding sites. She got an email from IT asking about that. (It wasn't a big deal, just embarrassing.) Also, certain categories of data could not be copied to a local computer; they had to be manipulated on a server. Technically you could transfer data from the server (again logged), but it was a firing offense if you were found with sensitive data from on your laptop.
Average ticket price in the US is about $9. If you prefer watching movies at night (non-matinee prices) or prefer IMAX or 3D, your average ticket price would be much higher. But let's just say it's $10 for a nice round number.
So that's 24 movies per year, 2 per month. That's not an insanely high number. I certainly don't come close to that now; with a family and the hassle of getting a babysitter, etc., I'm closer to the national average of 5 movies per year.
But when I was younger, in HS & college, I probably saw around 24: one each weekend during the summer (nice cold theater to get out of the heat), a few around the holidays, and a few scattered throughout the year.
And if you really enjoy IMAX and/or 3D, your average would be at least $16-20 per ticket, which means you'd only need to see 12-15 movies per year for the math to be favorable.
There are about 50 million people in that HS & college age range in the US. So yeah, I agree that this plan does not hold much appeal personally, but that seems like a pretty big market to me. I certainly would have loved this as a birthday/holiday present when I was younger.
I'm sure it's different in different places, but that's not my experience with HR, not at all. In my experience working closely with folks in HR, they are hamstrung by management.
To put it another way, they typically know when they're recruiting for a position where the compensation and job expectations don't align, and they hate it. They hate wasting their time, your time, etc. They argue against it, but at the end of the day, they're not setting the salary benchmarks/pay bands. Those are set by some Director/VP and dictated to HR.
I'm curious how much firsthand knowledge you have of these systems.
1) The electrical shock is not truly painful. It's startling and highly unpleasant, but it's not painful, for short bursts. I can't speak for all systems, but for the ones I tested (albeit holding the collar in my hand, not on my neck), it was no worse than typical electric fencing, which is widely used.
2) These systems have the benefit of not affecting other animals, and dogs and other animals cannot get stuck in them. We had an electric fence around a duck nesting ground growing up, and I'll never forget the morning we found a whimpering fox that had somehow gotten tangled in the wires. I guess it had jumped at the shock and pulled a wire off the fence? I don't know. But it had the electrified wire wrapped around a back paw. At least it was a pulsing fence (rather than constant current); so the fox didn't appear to have a bad burn, though I'm sure being stuck in it for hours was terrible (and truly painful).
2b) They also do not impede the traffic or cut off travel corridors of other wildlife, which can be a real problem in some areas.
3) Ordinary fences are (often) less effective. Given enough time and a large amount of fence that cannot be thoroughly checked & repaired regularly, dogs will find a way to escape. They'll dig under, they'll jump over, they'll climb, they'll chew holes in, etc. We had a super smart lab who figured out how to climb a chain link fence. Depending on the risks of escape, this can be highly dangerous.
4) The risk of shock is typically very low. When these systems are installed, they are typically buried along natural boundaries, and when they aren't, you put temporary flags in the ground to show the dog where the boundary is. So the dog very quickly learns the boundary, learns what the beep means, and rarely gets a shock after the first couple of days.
Overall, I don't think these systems are signficantly less humane than other types of fencing – probably more humane if you're comparing them to traditional electric fencing.
That said, these fences aren't perfect either. I have another friend who installed one to keep his husky from leaving his ~3 acre yard, because the dog was breaking into a neighbor's chicken coop. It worked for a while, but eventually that husky realized she could just get a running start, jump over the boundary, take the brief shock, and then be free. The drive to get those chickens was just too compelling. Of course, the drive to return home was not quite as strong. So she'd sit at the edge of boundary, whining to be let back into the yard.
A traditional fence might have been more effective in that case, though I think that husky would have found a way out. She was relentless and clever. They had to get rid of her eventually, when their neighbor threatened to put out bowls of antifreeze – now that's disgusting! (To be fair, this was in rural Alabama ~15 years go, and that neighbor depended on the chickens/eggs for food. Still disgusting, but the frustration is understandable if a dog is literally taking food out of your kid's mouth.)
