Friday, October 28, 2016

Exercises to Reduce Back Pain

I just finished a round of physical therapy for back related pain. I switched from an active lifestyle to a "desk job" and that murdered my back. Sure I got some occasional pain from a long spin of gaming, but nothing bad enough to send me to the doctor until I was doing 10+ hours a day on my ass.
While I have been a daily stretcher for years to keep some pains at bay, I left PT with 6 new stretches that took me from literally having moaning in pain by the end of the day (I have felt organ failure, so that's no small amount of pain) and could neither sleep nor get frisky without being completely blinded by the back pain.
While most of them were ones I have been doing for years, I needed to make some adjustments and to learn to use more of my core muscles than rely on my limbs and joins for stabilization.
Here's what's added to my routine which might help others:
Obligatory: Everyone's body is different. Listen to your body if it hurts too much. Don't push yourself too hard. If you can I would highly recommend a few visits with a Physical Therapist to set yourself up with something you can do a few times a week. I only needed three visits in order to make additions and adjustments that made a world of difference. 15-30 minutes of your week to stretch is worth being able to work and play in front of your computer with pain-free focus.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Donald Trump v. Bill of Rights: a Megalist of his Unconstitutional Positions

All of the unconstitutional opinions Trump has spouted:

First Amendment: Freedoms, petitions and Assembly
Amendment PronouncementTrump’s Unconstitutional Opinion
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;Trump Promises for Nation ‘Under One God” if he’s President
""Trump calls for Blanket Ban on Muslims entering the US, Pence agrees
""Trump says there’s “absolutely no choice” but to close mosques
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;Trump suggests ‘Freedom of Expression” hurts fight against terrorism
""Trump vows to ‘open up’ libel laws to make suing the press easier
""Trump sends many threats to press with bad coverage of him
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Trump on rally protester: “Maybe he should have been roughed up"
""Trump says renewed call for’ law and order’ can deal with situations such as Charlotte protests, says they ‘must end now’
""Trump’s plan to ban lobbyists would stop them from exercising right to petition the gov’t for a redress of grievances

Second Amendment: Right to Bear Arms
Amendment PronouncementTrump’s Unconstitutional Opinion
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedTrump says inner-city stop-and-frisk programs would allow officers to take guns away from “people who they think may have a gun”



Third Amendment: Quartering of Soldiers
Donald Trump has not yet said anything that suggests he would break the third amendment.

Fourth Amendment: Search and Arrest Rights
Amendment PronouncementTrump’s Unconstitutional Opinion
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Trump wants to reinstate unconstitutional stop-and-frisk programs, which constitute as unreasonable search and seizures


Fifth Amendment: Rights in Criminal Cases
Amendment PronouncementTrump’s Unconstitutional Opinion
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand JuryTrump says he will unilaterally impose a mandatory death sentence for anyone who kills a police officer
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;Trump takes exception to the limit and beyond, saying we need to “take out the families’ of terrorists
nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of lawIn 1989 Trump called for the death penalty on Central Park Five even with conclusive DNA evidence showing they’re innocent. In 2016, doubles down on Central Park Five and still says they’re guilty.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Trump has a long history of eminent domain abuse for personal gain

Sixth Amendment: Right to a Fair Trial
Amendment PronouncementTrump’s Unconstitutional Opinion
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;Trump would send US citizens accused of terrorism to Guantanamo for Military Tribunal trial, take away right of jury
to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to [have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.Trump is upset that terrorism suspect will be “represented by an outstanding lawyer”, and will have a case that will “go through the various court system for years”, two basic 5th amendment rights


Seventh Amendment: Rights in Civil Cases
Trump has not yet said anything against the seventh amendment, which would be expected from someone who deals with civil lawsuits so frequently.

Eighth Amendment Rights related to Bail, Fines and Punishment
Amendment PronouncementTrump’s Unconstitutional Opinion
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, [nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.Trump calls for even worse torture methods, says “we must do the Unthinkable” when it comes to prisoner interrogation
""Trump on waterboarding: it works, but even “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway”


Ninth Amendment: Unenumerated Rights
Amendment PronouncementTrump's Unconstitutional Opinion
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the peopleTrump has shown a history of making promises of executive overreach, including a specific tax on Ford if they didn’t move plants back to US, and forcing Apple to make products in the US, both out of executive power's reach.
""Trump Calls Obama’s use of executive orders “irresponsible,” but he sees that as “[leading] the way” and he won’t refuse to use them at will, just for “the right things”.
Sidenote:Furthermore- Trump lacks basic knowledge of the Constitution (saying he wants to protect a non-existent ‘Article XII’), how can he understand the concept of unenumerated rights?



Tenth Amendment: State’s Rights
Amendment PronouncementTrump's Unconstitutional Opinion
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peopleTrump says he’s strongly for ‘state’s rights’, but flip-flops between opinion of states’ rights in some cases: with pot legalization, Trump has said both “ I think it’s bad and I feel strongly about it” due to “big problems” in Colorado, but he’s also said “if they vote for it, they vote for it” on states’ right to legalize
""Trump has also flip-flopped between states and federal rights on the handling of abortion rights, minimum wage, healthcare, and so on.

AmendmentPronouncementTrump's Unconstitutional Opinion
11thThe Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.This amendment lays the basis for sovereign immunity, a concept that allows the US to not be sued by other countries. Trump recently criticized Obama for vetoing the 9/11 Lawsuit Bill- a bill that may upset that longstanding principle I was incorrect, the 11th amendment is for sovereign immunity between states, not nations
14thAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Along with re-starting unconstitutional stop-and-frisk programs, Trump has also called for heavy profiling such as limiting travel and immigration of Muslims based on their religion, even calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.". Additionally, Trump believes his mass immigrant deportations should deport birthright citizens who are guaranteed citizenship by this amendment.
15thThe right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Trump’s talk of observing polling locations in “certain areas” (i.e. predominantly black neighborhoods) harkens back to 1870’s anti-black voter intimidation white militia groups such as the White League and Red Shirts
19thThe right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Nothing from Trump directly, but his supporters coined the hashtag #Repealthe19th when a only-male-voters map showed Trump winning, which was retweeted by Trump’s son to show momentum

Monday, October 24, 2016

The Thought Process of a Baby Boomer

Be a Baby Boomer

Go to a land grant state university that gets massive research funding from the government for almost no tuition

Be able to afford it with a part-time job and graduate with zero debt.

Get a high-paying job in manufacturing as the industrial world still rebuilds but before the developing world develops.

Put your money in a savings acount that actually generates interest.

Get a mortgage from heavily-regulated lenders (regulations put in place by the Greatest Generation to prevent a new Depression).

Pay taxes that actually pay for services.

Get a house and kids. Decide you're sick of paying taxes.

Vote for Reagan.

Eliminate the finance regulations designed to prevent a depression (and the inequality of the Gilded Age).

Decide colleges are turning out too many smug liberals, vote for reps and governors who promise to cut their funding. Besides, this whole affirmative action thing is reverse racism.

Decide you're sick of smug academics and TV personalities telling you everyone is equal. Call your representative and ask them to repeal the Fairness Doctrine.

Decide you don't like that UN-loving Ted Turner and his CNN. Turn on this new thing called Fox News from Roger Ailes, the Nixon political hack who helped build the Republicans' racist Southern Strategy and helped Lee Atwater make the Willie Horton ad.

Make a fuck-ton off the Clinton economy while calling Clinton the worst president ever.

Celebrate the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the final vestiges of the protections your parents and grandparents' generations set up to prevent another Depression.

Respond to news stories about skyrocketing college costs with smug diatribe about how you worked your way through your $500/year college.

Blame NAFTA for the fact that Europe & Japan rebuilt after WWII, sapping US manufacturing jobs, while the former USSR joins the world economy, as does China and to some extent India. Ignore the fact that the world manufacturing base is now gigantic and America has competition it never had. Also ignore robots, which means rich countries need a fraction of the # of humans to run the same size factory as before. Blame it on immigrants, too, for reasons.

Make money off the tech bubble while Gen X loses its first savings account. laugh.

Vote for George W. Bush because he promises to give the federal surplus (yes, there was a surplus) to you instead of paying down the national debt.

Inequality reaches 1890s levels but who cares? greed is good.

Support Iraq after protesting Vietnam because fuck it, you're not going this time.

Somehow decide the 2007-08 financial crash was because things are too regulated.

Incoherently argue that the center-left Democrat Barack Obama (but you always say his middle name), who wants to accomplish an agenda item the democrats have pushed for 70 years, is a radical. For some reason.

Cheer on smug turtle Mitch McConnell as he prevents the government from doing anything.

Call Obama a dictator for trying to work around Mitch McConnell.

Read about how whites will be a minority in 2040

Talk about how Trump is "our last chance" to "take back America." Ask what's wrong with saying black people are more criminal. Ask what's wrong with saying latino immigrants will ruin our culture.

Insist to your kids, who are crippled by student debt, but whom you chastise for not having a home or kids yet, that they just don't understand how money works.

Be completely ignorant that every generation before you and every generation after you has always considered the Baby Boomers to be the most titanically selfish group of humans to ever live and die on this earth.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Republican Hypocrisy

Trump isn't the problem, voters are. Some examples of Republican hypocrisy:
  • If we win the presidency, our Supreme Court nominees should be confirmed. When you win the presidency, we will block you at every turn.
  • If Trump wins, the election is legitimate and the people have SPOKEN. If Hillary wins, it must be RIGGED.
  • Donald Trump is accused of forcing himself on over ten women. STICK TO THE ISSUES. Bill Clinton accused of misconduct by four women. His wife should be disqualified from office and imprisoned.
  • Hillary Clinton has not directly mentioned any of Trump's accusers. She needs to stop distracting from real issues. Trump has a press conference with four of Bill Clinton's accusers, gives them front row seats to the debate, and mentions them during debate. Great job taking the gloves off, president Trump.
  • Bill Clinton cheats on his wife. Impeach him. Trump proudly brags about sexual assault (has 5 kids with 3 wives and has cheated on his wives). Elect him.
  • Hillary oversaw the Department of State while four people died in an embassy attack. JAIL HER. Two Republicans were in office while over 200 people died in embassy attacks. No problem.
  • Immigrants don't pay taxes. Round them up and kick them out. Trump doesn't pay taxes. He's a business genius.
  • Independent fact checkers found Trump is likely the least truthful candidate in the history of modern politics. He tells it like it is. Hillary is statistically more truthful than most politicians according to fact checkers. She is the most untrustworthy, lying liar who has ever run for political office.
  • The Clinton Foundation only spent 87% of their donations helping people (average amount is 75%). CROOKED. Trump's foundation paid off his debts, bought paintings of him, and made political donations to avoid investigations for a fake university while giving less than 5% of funds to charity (and he got shut down by NY State). So savvy...put him in the White House.
  • Trump made 4 billion dollars in 40 years, when an index fund started at the same time with the same "small loans" he received would be worth $12 billion today... without a trail of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits and burned small business owners. He's a real business whiz. Hillary took a loss of $700k. She's a criminal.
  • Trump is the first candidate in the modern era to not release his tax returns, and he took a almost billion-dollar loss in one year. Genius. Hillary releases 40 years of taxes. Corrupt. Trump denies saying things (on the record) he actually said (on the record). He's just telling it like it is.
Their arguments are nonsensical and their willful ignorance of facts is disturbing. The double standards and eagerness to blindly support and recycle misleading rhetoric is frightening. Opinion and memes are not fact. Hypocrisy does not make for responsible governance. Eisenhower is rolling over in his grave over what they have done to the once-great Republican party.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Why Trump is a Facist

1. He's ultra-nationalistic.

2, He promises a sort of total national rebirth, re-invigoration and regaining of honor ("Make America Great Again").

3. He's running on a "stab in the back" narrative involving weak and feckless internationalist "elites" and scheming, advantage-taking "allies". Just look at his words on NATO and trade deals.

4. He has a weird, semi-incoherent corporatism philosophy which involves giving lots of benefits and free rein to businesses, but is also heavy on things like tariffs and promises lots of social and monetary benefits to his preferred class of people.

5. He's running as a strongman. He doesn't care for or understand the lawmaking process laid out in the nation's constitution, nor does he seem to care about his own party, federalism, separation of powers, etc. etc., yet he still claims he will fix all of America's problems unilaterally. Oh, and he wants to throw his main political opponent in jail and thinks he can personally force business employees to say "Merry Christmas".

6. He's an obvious authoritarian. He casually suggests torture, killing the innocent family members of terrorists, pillage and plunder in war, nuclear first use and "unpredictability", revoking the rights of suspected terrorists (even denying them emergency medical care), making it legally harder for the press to criticize the powerful, and so on. Further, he worships and fetishizes police and excuses even their most flagrant abuses.

7. He blames the country's problems on oft-disliked minorities with little political power: Muslims, immigrants (particularly Mexicans), blacks etc., and has blatantly authoritarian plans for all of them (mass deportations, a bigger police state, monitoring of religious minorities, etc.).

8. Oh, and as the historical cherry on top of the ideological cake: his campaign is supported by and associated with prominent anti-Semite, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist activists/communities, all of whom have connections to the last major fascist movement the whole world banded together to destroy.

It's textbook.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Legal Creep, or Why Privacy Matters

It's the legal creep of many, many laws like this. Pass a law that circumvents the law to break up the Mob back in the 40s, used to go after anti-Vietnam War protestors in the 60s and low-level drug offenders in the 80s and beyond.

Hell, even the smallest example works:

When Mandatory Seatbelt laws were put into effect the public were promised they were only for Insurance purposes (insurance wouldn't cover you if you weren't wearing one). They called people who brought up the idea of "Seat Belt Checkpoints" "Fear mongers." Within 5 years of the law passing the police started setting up Seat Belt Checkpoints to ensure motorists were wearing their seatbelt. Today we have "Click it or Ticket" and cops will pull you over if they see you driving without one. No one questions it because a Seatbelt does make you safer. And perhaps you agree with the law as is, but that's beyond the point. The point was promises were made about how the law "would never be used" when it was initially passed, and it's used exactly that way today.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a logical fallacy called "Reductio ad absurdum" or "Reduced to the absurd". Whenever someone raises a fear about how the law could potentially be used those proposing it accuse them of Reductio ad absurdum. Using the absurdly dramatized versions of how authorities could do something, but never would waste their time.

IE if you told those proposing the use of military style weapons, tactics, and vehicles against "hardcore drug kingpins and traffickers" back in the 1990s that one day those laws would be used to send a military chopper and a SWAT team with assault rifles after a 90 year old woman with a single marijuana plant... you'd be told you were using a reductio ad absurdum argument. That that characterization of what the laws could potentially be used for was absurd, and you were a frivolous person to make such an argument.

However (as those who were on Reddit yesterday saw) that's exactly what happened. And it happens with frequency now, military level force against low-level drug users.

Legal creep always always always happens. Its impossible to prevent future lawmakers and authorities from abusing a law passed with good intentions if it makes their abusive actions legal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

So authorities pass a law to reduce privacy rights and go after Pedophiles, Child Pornographers, Terrorists, and Human Traffickers. They say that those privacy reductions will never be used for other things, and promise to monitor themselves. And they say anyone who argues against the privacy reductions is protecting terrorists and pedophiles. Then a few years later we have this, the Government Computers logging and reading every email sent regardless of content and it is perfectly legal for them to do so. And even still if you argue against it the argument is "so you want to protect terrorists and pedophiles?! Do you really think the government cares what your email to grandma said? Don't be a cook man, it's a small sacrifice of privacy in order to make sure terrorists and pedophiles are caught."

SOURCE

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Why Medical Care in Hospitals is so Expensive in the US

That really means very little to me. The fact that they charge $16,000+ to deliver a baby in the first place is the problem. And let's face it, on top of that, they probably get another $200 in parking fees from people coming to see the baby/mom, another $300 from the gift shop, another $500 from the cafeteria, etc.
Then, in three months, the insurance company will reject part of the bill and they will recalculate it and forward it on at a higher rate to the patient, as they always do.
The reason everything is so expensive, of course, is that a hospital used to be a singular organism--even in the US just 25 years ago. But now it's like a fucking Portuguese Man-O-War.
See, it goes like this:

  • First there's the REIT or Real Estate Company that owns the actual hospital building and land it sits on.
  • Then there's the Custodial company that manages the building and keeps it clean.
  • Then there's the Landscaping company that manages the grounds. - Then there's the Parking company that manages the parking lot / garage.
  • Then there's the Housekeeping company that manages all the linens and sanitation stuff that is not part of the building.
  • Then there is the Catering company that manages the cafeteria.
  • Then there is the Dunkin Donuts franchisee that owns the coffee shop.
  • Then there is the Hallmark franchisee that owns the gift shop.
  • Then there's the Pharmaceutical company that runs the on-site pharmacy and hires the pharmacist.
  • Then there's the Pharmaceutical procurement and delivery company, which is actually separate and way more expensive than you'd think.
  • Then there's also a separate Medical Goods Procurement and delivery company that might bring blood and organs and other materials necessary along with parts for machines or just regular old IV bags, etc.
  • Then there's at least one separate Ambulance company.
  • Then there's the Nursing Staffing Company (there may be two or more of these) that hires the nurses and purchases the medical equipment to provide the care.
  • Then there's the Security company that hires the guard out front and installs cameras and creates logs and routes to protect the drugs etc
  • Then there's the Temporary Staffing Agency that provides daily personnel support so that everyone else on this list can run as lean as possible.
  • Then there's the Insurance Companies, who will have onsite staff to protect their interests who must be paid.
  • Then there's the Hospital Network that negotiates against the insurance companies and functions as the marketing arm of the hospital.
  • Then there's the Medical Billings, Coding and Records company. They probably carry whatever in-house IT staff there is, but they will only help these people, they are not typically supposed to support the nurses, for example.
  • Then there's the Rehabilitation Company who hires the physical therapists and others who are there to help people recover.
  • Then there's the Laboratory and Radiology work, which often can also be outsourced to separate companies.
  • Then there are the Doctors, who are each usually acting and billing as independent for-profit corporations in-and-of-themselves.
  • Finally, there's the Hospital Administration, whose job it now is to manage this big fucking mess to try to make the whole thing work together as best they can.

Every single one of these steps comes complete with its own separate shareholders and its own separate CEOs and other C-officers and their own separate branding and marketing and HR office and hiring practices and payroll systems with its own separate boards of directors and Vice Presidents and everyone else in a corporate tower downtown somewhere who also have to be paid and supported.
It wasn't terribly long ago that a city hospital downtown, or a non-profit religious hospital might have offered full services with all of these functions integrated under one roof with not a single shareholder or CEO earning a penny. These still were not the only or most common types of hospitals 25, 30 years ago, but they were way more common than today.
Now hospitals operate like shopping malls, and it's one big pile of business leaches jammed into a building that tries desperately to maintain the façade that it is a single functioning entity that exists to serve sick people...when in fact, it's nothing of the sort. It's actually a colony of dozens of for-profit companies each attempting to maximize the money they can extract from patients and their visitors for providing the most narrow of services possible. This has the bonus effect of confusing the living hell out of liability claims too...

Monday, October 3, 2016

Republican Newspapers Endorsing a Democrat for the First Time

Dallas Morning News Endorses: Clinton *First Democrat in 76 years
We don't come to this decision easily.
Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.
Hillary Clinton has spent years in the trenches doing the hard work needed to prepare herself to lead our nation. In this race, at this time, she deserves your vote.

The Cincinnati Enquirer Endorses: Clinton *First Democrat in 100+ years
We have been traditionally considered a conservative newspaper, having endorsed Republicans for the last hundred years. While Clinton has been relentlessly challenged about her honesty, Trump was the primary propagator of arguably the biggest lie of the past eight years: that Obama wasn't born in the United States. Trump has played fast and loose with the support of white supremacist groups. He has praised some of our country's most dangerous enemies – see Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Saddam Hussein – while insulting a sitting president, our military generals, a Gold Star family and prisoners of war like Sen. John McCain.
Our country needs calm, thoughtful leadership to deal with the challenges we face at home and abroad. We need a leader who will bring out the best in all Americans, not the worst.
That’s why there is only one choice when we elect a president in November: Hillary Clinton.

The San Diego Union-Tribune Endorses: Clinton *First Democrat in 148 years
Trump is "vengeful, dishonest and impulsive". Terrible leaders can knock nations off course. Venezuela is falling apart because of the obstinance and delusions of Hugo Chávez and his successor. Argentina is finally coming out of the chaos created by Cristina Kirchner and several of her predecessors.
Trump could be our Chávez, our Kirchner. We cannot take that risk.
This paper has not endorsed a Democrat for president in its 148-year history. But we endorse Clinton.

The Arizona Republic Endorses: Clinton *First Democrat in 126 years
Trump’s inability to control himself or be controlled by others represents a real threat to our national security. The president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can’t command his own rhetoric.
Were he to become president, his casual remarks — such as saying he wouldn’t defend NATO partners from invasion — could have devastating consequences. In a global economy, he offers protectionism and a false promise to bring back jobs that no longer exist.
Trump’s long history of objectifying women and his demeaning comments about women during the campaign are not just good-old-boy gaffes. They are evidence of deep character flaws. They are part of a pattern.
Trump mocked a reporter’s physical handicap. Picked a fight with a Gold Star family. Insulted POWs. Suggested a Latino judge can’t be fair because of his heritage. Proposed banning Muslim immigration.
Each of those comments show a stunning lack of human decency, empathy and respect. Taken together they reveal a candidate who doesn’t grasp our national ideals.
The Arizona Republic endorses Hillary Clinton for president.

USA Today Endorses: Voting against Trump *First endorsement in 34 years
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences.
This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

The Desert Sun Endorses: Clinton *First Democrat in 90 years
Trump has struggled to demonstrate a “presidential” temperament despite efforts by various campaign chiefs to add polish to the erratic, boorish, belittling candidate who blustered his way through the GOP primaries.
History will not forget that Trump avoided deep policy debate through deflection, demeaning rivals in childish fashion: “Little Marco” Rubio, “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz, “Low Energy” Jeb Bush, “Crooked” Hillary Clinton.
Name-calling demeans the office he seeks, yet it’s just one unsettling aspect of the xenophobic, nativist campaign Trump has waged. He has pricked the worst impulses of a frustrated American electorate.
While Trump’s misogyny and demonization of Hispanics and Muslims has ushered him to the threshold of the White House, a coalition built on “us vs. them” bodes ill for the nation’s future. The world will be a much more dangerous place if our next president is motivated by personal vendettas conveyed through vile, monosyllabic utterances
Great leaders tap our better angels.
By these measures, there is no other choice for president this year than Hillary Clinton.

The Houston Chronicle Endorses: Clinton *Third Democrat in 70 years
The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.
Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance - is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, "I alone can fix it," should make every American shudder.
He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.

The Detroit News Endorses: Johnson *First Non-Republican in 143 years
We abandon that long and estimable tradition this year for one reason: Donald J. Trump.
Trump is not a conservative. Except, of course, of those who wrongly e­quate conservatism with racism, sexism and xenophobia. Trump has attracted support from too many of those who represent the worst of human nature.
We have seen no hint that Trump has a guiding set of principles. He changes positions hour to hour.
But the most worrisome thing about Trump is that he is willing to stir the populace by stoking their fears of sinister forces at work from within and without to tear down their traditions, values and families. He has found profit in dividing Americans from each other, and from the rest of the world.
His sort of populism has led to some of history’s great tragedies. Donald Trump is unprincipled, unstable and quite possibly dangerous. He can not be president.

The Harvard Republican Club No endorsement *First Non-endorsement in 128 years
Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans. The rhetoric he espouses –from racist slander to misogynistic taunts– is not consistent with our conservative principles, and his repeated mocking of the disabled and belittling of the sacrifices made by prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and Purple Heart recipients is not only bad politics, but absurdly cruel.
If enacted, Donald Trump’s platform would endanger our security both at home and abroad.
Perhaps most importantly, however, Donald Trump simply does not possess the temperament and character necessary to lead the United States through an increasingly perilous world.
We call on our party’s elected leaders to renounce their support of Donald Trump, and urge our fellow College Republicans to join us in condemning and withholding their endorsement from this dangerous man.

WIRED Magazine Endorses: Clinton *First endorsement in 25 years
Perhaps you feel like this is a low bar: Support a candidate because she believes in science? Get behind a politician because she approaches policymaking like a professional?
The country can go one of two ways, right now: toward a future where working together in good faith has a chance, or toward nihilism.
Trump’s campaign started out like something from The Onion. Now it has moved into George Orwell.
Ultimately, it’s impossible to judge Trump’s claims as actual statements of belief or intention. We don’t know if President Trump would totally renege on that Paris commitment or actually pursue his policy of Muslim exclusion; but we have to assume he’ll try. We have no way of knowing if he actually believes that vaccines cause autism, as he claimed in a debate, but they don’t. Does he really think that wind power kills “all your birds”? Who knows. But it doesn’t; cats kill all your birds.
Here’s the thing about Donald Trump: In his 14 months as a political candidate, he has demonstrated an utter indifference to the truth and to reality itself. He appears to seek only his own validation from the most revanchist, xenophobic crowds in America. He is trolling, hard.
Through five election cycles ...we’ve avoided telling you, our readers, who WIRED viewed as the best choice.
Today we will. WIRED sees only one person running for president who can do the job: Hillary Clinton.

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board member Dorothy Rabinowitz Endorses: Clinton
Trump would be the most unstable, profoundly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House.

SOURCE

Why Modern Software is Buggy

There are several factors that have led to Microsoft (and other large companies) releasing software that is buggy:

1) The internet makes updates easy.
Ahh, the delicious irony. Because software can be updated at any moment, the desire to fix any individual bug has gone down dramatically. In the days before 0-day patches software was shipped on physical media. If there was a bug in your product, that bug would likely live forever since the internet wasn't a thing. We'd go into ship room and argue passionately about whether or not bugs needed to be fixed and the decision was "Will we fix this bug now, or never?".
Thus, even a bug that affected only a small number of users gained a certain level of gravity because that bug would never be fixed, except for a small glimmer of hope that it was addressed in the next release (unlikely, since we'd just say "well, we shipped this before - why is it important now?").
Now in theory you can fix a bug at 10am, push it into code review, and people can see the fix literally hours later. Why sit in a room and have big arguments over a bug that will go away soon?
Except in reality bugs don't get fixed that fast. And bugs create more bugs. And sometimes bugs are one-way doors. But never mind all that. We can fix it in the next sprint!

2) People don't want to pay for software.
More and more programs are being created by communities for free or being given away by large companies for free to help monetize ad traffic. Competition for eyeballs is fierce, fierce, fierce.
But software is very expensive to develop. In order to hire the best talent you have to pay top dollar. An average software engineer with ~5 years at a big-four company is level 61 or 62 (SDE2) and earning $120-140k a year in base salary. That's before their $20k bonus and $15k of stock, not to mention health benefits, 401k, and other assorted perks. Folks who have hit principal and above are clearing $250k easily in total compensation before benefits.
Now you're in a situation where you want to give your software aware for free. And you're in a situation where bugs don't matter as much. So how do you save a couple of million dollars a year? Get rid of (half of) your testing staff.
Why pay someone to test your software when you can convince the public to test it for you? Call it a preview program and... boom! free resources! People will file bug reports for you, and by adding instrumentation into the build you can also find bugs programmatically. You also get a ton more diversity in hardware, better app compat testing, better/more globalization and localization testing, etc. And it's FREE!
This is a fantastic theory, until the bug reports start coming in. They are largely terrible. Most of the useful info in bug reports is unstructured data that requires some hefty natural language parsing or a human eyeball to read and interpret. Some bugs reports are literally things like 'clikeed the botton and nottthing'. WTF? What do you do with that?
You ignore it, that's what you do. You start paying much more attention to the bugs that are being filed internally by people who are (forcibly) dogfooding the product. The result is that you've distributed the testing from a small group of experts to a wide group of tech-savvy non-experts. You've also randomized your dev staff because they need to stop what they're doing and file bugs a goodly amount of their day.

3) Everyone is metric-based, nobody knows what the metrics are or what they mean
Managers are in love with measuring things. Much telemetry. So data. Except the ability to get data has vastly outpaced the ability to understand the data. Even sampling at 1% or less, Microsoft gets petabytes of data on a constant basis about what's happening with Windows users. No human can grok that data in its raw form. Someone needs to enrich that data, visualize it, provide context into it, and determine how that data should be acted upon. Those people, by and large, don't exist at Microsoft.
We're hiring for it as fast as we can, and the QE staff (bless their hearts) are trying to become data scientists. But no.
You get into a room and someone puts up a chart. Then everyone spends 30 minutes doing an interpretive discussion about what the chart means. Everyone attacks the data and wants undeniable evidence the numbers are correct. Rightfully so, because often the numbers have turned out to be wrong due to bad SQL, bad assumptions, events in the wrong place, event sample mismatch, or a host of reasons.
Even if the data is assumed to be correct, what does it mean? We released a patch last week and usage went up. Yay! Oh, well last week was also back-to-school week, so maybe usage went up because more machines were coming online. Can we see this data normalized for number of machines? No, that's another slice of data that we'd have to go off and produce.
Our crashes-per-million-sessions numbers are down, that's good. Well, no. That's bad because we think it means people who are crashing are just using the product less, therefore the people that are left aren't the people that are crashing. We didn't get more stable, we just lost users. Maybe.
How does this translate to buggier software though? Well, in order to fix a bug you need to provide data that fixing the bug will make the product better (slight simplification). We have all this data, so surely if a bug is important you'll be able to provide strong data-backed justification. Except, no, for all the reasons above.
So now you have a situation where managers want data before they'll fix a bug. And they correctly state that the data exists. But nobody really knows how to get them that data, so nobody can make a strong case for a bug. Thus anyone that wants to punt a bug can do so trivially by simply asking the developer to prove the bug is important. That should be easy, right?

There are a myriad of other, smaller, reasons I could speak to ('Everyone does it this way', 'The data shows that customers don't actually care about quality, they care about the perception of quality' (this is true, by the way), 'We need to be fast') but the three bullets above capture the heart of the issue.

SOURCE

Sorry Dumb-asses, Climate Change is Real

"...are any on these anti-global warming points at all valid?"

Answer: No. Every single one is wrong. We can take them one at a time.

"1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual."
A: Wrong. The Marcott reconstruction probably makes the point best; it also shows the extraordinary recent acceleration. Temps today are almost certainly higher than the Holocene Climate Optimum ~6-8K yrs ago, which means they're the highest since the Eemian ~120K years ago (when the Milankovitch cycles made it warmer than now).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

"2. Satellite temperature data does [sic] not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly..."
A: Evidently this "former professor" can't speak English. He's also dead wrong. Yes, there was a very strong El Niño in 1997-98 with a lot of warming. But the 2015-16 EN was almost as strong, & 2016 has been very warm on both main satellite datasets (UAH & RSS), significantly warmer than 1998. The RSS dataset was also adjusted upward to show more warming when orbital decay was factored in. This link even includes a vid of Carl Mears, who puts the RSS data together, where he says flat-out that the surface data are more accurate.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-surface-and-satellite-temperature-records-compare?utm_content=bufferde258&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Quoting, "The trend in the satellite data is 0.11C per decade since 1979, compared to 0.16C per decade in the surface record."

Spencer's UAH dataset shows clear warming, with the recent EN causing warmer temps than the 1998 event. That's despite his HUGE v6 adjustment that subtracts almost 0.2° C of warming since 2000 (roughly 10 times the size of the Karl et al NOAA data warming adjustments that put Congress in a tizzy in the summer of 2015).

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html

It's also important to remember that the main two satellite datasets significantly understate warming. They can be compared to the RATPAC radiosonde data, where actual thermometers are placed on actual balloons to measure actual temperatures of actual air.

The result? The satellites understate warming.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/new-rss-and-balloons/

"3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years..."
A: Wrong, wrong & wrong. Current temps are compared to the entire thermometer record, & thru proxies, to much earlier times. And you CAN'T SAY "MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD"!!! You can't cherry pick certain areas & say they haven't warmed.

The 1930s were warm in the US. So what? Even now, Iceland & southern Greenland are cooler than they were a century ago, but that's because of ICE MELTING & is HORRENDOUS news. You don't get to cherry-pick certain areas if you're an honest scientist; your professor is not an honest scientist.

"4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980..."

F: Not exactly. There was a strong El Niño in 1942, & 1943 was very warm. Following that, we had slight cooling till around 1977.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

We had more pronounced cooling from ~1879-1911 (the 1879 date is uncertain give sparse data at the time). These are the only statistically significant, prolonged "pauses" in warming in the temperature record. It is UTTERLY HILARIOUS that deniers call the ~1999-2013 slowdown in warming "THE" pause!!!!! Statistically, it didn't exist; it wasn't long or pronounced enough to reach statistical significance.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png

The causes of these periods are not mysterious. When the oceanic cycles are negative, La Niñas predominate & we "normally" get cooling. When these cycles are positive, El Niños predominate & we get warming.

The PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) is probably referenced more often, but it was originally detected in patterns of salmon catches & its focus is the northern Pacific. The IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) references the whole Pacific, so it more accurately reflects these changes.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2341.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084002;jsessionid=C040B56251C251FB11D142FF3B602B4D.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org

If you look at the record, these cycles used to be ~30-33 years long. The POINT is that the ~1977-1998 warming cycle was only ~22 years long, & the ~1999-2013 slowdown was only ~15 years long. The latter reflected the fact that CO2-induced warming is now SO strong that we got NO COOLING AT ALL, just slower warming. (Each cooling cycle in the record has shown slower cooling, while each warming cycle has shown faster warming.) These shorter cycles may be one of the reflections of the profound disturbance ACC is already having on our world.

"5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations..."

A: Wrong. This has been evaluated extensively by multiple independent groups. In fact, the Berkeley Earth project was formed partly to address this question. They tried very hard to find errors by NASA but ended up affirming NASA's results & extending them to the mid-1700s, not to mention saying humans were responsible for 99+% of the warming since then. All of their data & analyses are available at their website

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/converted-contrarian-argues-humans-to-blame-for-climate-change/

http://berkeleyearth.org/

"6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels..."

A: Once again, your "pretty smart" professor shows he can't speak English; he evidently doesn't know the difference between inverse & converse. There is NOT an inverse relationship between temps & CO2!!!!! It's a positive relationship.

The fact is that warming raises CO2, AND higher CO2 causes warming. It's a positive feedback cycle. Higher CO2 causes warming, & the CONVERSE is also true.

If CO2 rises, so do temps. This causes further CO2 rise (e.g. from the oceans; warm water holds less CO2, as with a warm soda), which causes more warming until they reach semi-equilibrium. Warming from another cause (e.g. Milankovitch cycle changes at the start of an interglacial) causes CO2 to come out of the oceans, which then causes more warming.

"7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes..."

A: Wrong again. CO2 has been the principal control knob on temps over the entire Phanerozoic. The vid is of the respected Penn State climatologist Richard Alley from a few years ago; he's very watchable.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

Your professor spouts a lot more nonsense about frequencies absorbed by CO2 & H2O. Water vapor is a feedback on CO2 because warm air holds more H2O, roughly doubling the effect of CO2. But it passes very quickly in & out of the atmosphere in precipitation or evaporation, while CO2 stays there for many millennia. That's why CO2 is a forcing on temps while H2O vapor is a feedback.

"8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution..."

A: Nonsense. There is controversy about whether the MCA (Medieval Climate Anomaly) was warmer than the mid-20th century (~1950), but there is NO doubt that we're warmer now. This has been shown by multiple proxies, including tree rings, ice cores, sediments & speleothems. Look at my previous links, or at this:

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/the-hockey-stick

"9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years..."

A: More nonsense. Look no further than Glacier National Park, where they're vanishing virtually before our eyes.

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/151021-glacier-national-park-melting-vin

There is no doubt that we had cooling during the LIA (Little Ice Age). In fact, we were cooling for some 6K yrs before the Industrial Revolution (as my previous links have shown).

Consider Ötzi the Iceman, who was murdered & buried in snow ~5300 years ago. He thawed out in 1991. Why then? Because it was warmer in 1991 than it had been for ~5300 years! (OK, that's an over-simplification, but it makes some sense, doesn't it?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi

"10. 'Data adjustment' is used to continue the perception of global warming..."

A: Wrong yet again. In any dataset that includes sea surface temps (>70% of the Earth's surface; more than 90% of warming goes into the ocean, so global warming IS ocean warming), the biggest adjustment is ALWAYS to SSTs before 1940. That's when thermometers were moved to engine water intakes; before that, temps were taken by dropping buckets over the sides of ships, which were ~0.5-0.7° C cooler.

The biggest adjustment to these temps is to adjust pre-1940 water temps upward, & this ALWAYS shows less warming. Always.

If you want to understand it, watch this vid from Phil Jones of HadCRU. He's a bit soporific, but he's very, very knowledgeable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuRU10ocuds

Your professor is lying thru his teeth. To be generous, he's probably lying to himself. But in any case, he's profoundly, desperately wrong, on every single point.