Your personal experience does not line up with the empirical evidence at all.

Some people are (much) smarter than others. It sucks, but that's life.

Renting is perfectly fine. NYC has the strongest tenant protection laws in the country.

Renting has to support the mortgage on that. The only difference between being able to afford a house and affording rent is having the capital for a down payment

That’s not really true. Renting is significantly more affordable than buying in NYC right now. I don’t know the exact reasons, but presumably most landlords bought a long time ago and refinanced when rates were low.

There are many teachers, social workers, and bartenders living on the UWS. Hardly the top 0.1%.

Those are social media too

I do use Reddit and YouTube to follow topics related to work. And to some degree Hacker News as well. Come to think of it, these are the apps that make up for most of the screen time usage for me.

Way too much friction. I don't have the luxury of going "off the map" for a week.

I think a middle ground version of this is possible, e.g. instead of letting your battery die, reset the phone to defaults and don’t install anything with the exception of critical communication apps.

Run the rest of the experiment as described for other categories of use.

Some people have jobs that require phone contact.

Some people have family juggling/concerns that requires frequent contact (usually involving children being remote places).

There are many, many, not so strange reasons that someone might need to maintain contact. Thinking it's not possible suggests a very naive perspective.

You answered your own question. IT staff is expensive, a SaaS subscription less-so.

You, sir, obviously have not dealt with enterprise SaaS subscriptions

I’ve never met anyone who has done that, this sounds like the kind of thing someone would say just to put people down.

You are saying this in a thread full of people who are telling everybody else in it that they've read it. And these people should be put down

Could you clarify what you’re saying? It sounds like you’re saying that you have some kind of moral obligation to insult people who say that they have read Ulysses.

That’s my first reading of your comment, but I don’t think it’s correct, because it’s just such a dumb thing to say.

It’s a thread about the book Ulysses. You don’t like the book, go to a different thread.

Incorrect, its a book for people that like farts.

> Instead of writing better software, which might slow down development, just spend more money.

Except this is unironically a great value proposition.

We are throwing everything under the bus, including the user's battery, CPU, memory, bandwidth, the company's cloud costs and energy usage, just so developers can crap out software slightly faster.

We are providing users with valuable features at a faster rate, saving them and us time, which is a far more valuable asset than "the user's battery, CPU, memory, bandwidth, the company's cloud costs and energy usage".

You must be younger than 31 to qualify for training as an ATC: https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-are-age-requirements-individual...

Does seem odd to me - why restrict it this low? People are living longer and healthier than ever into older years (and better vision)

The job requires 20/20 uncorrected vision near and far. After 50, that starts to become pretty darn rare. The mental load required to keep all of these moving parts in your head and recall both what you have instructed them to do and what needs to still be instructed in the very near future requires a mental acuity that is not a young person's game. It can also take years for an ATC to have the experience required to meet the most pressing needs. I can see why they don't want to waste their efforts on people likely to be unqualified soon after reaching a useful level of experience.

> The job requires 20/20 uncorrected vision near and far.

Isn't it 20/20 corrected vision?

> A comment I read about the study suggested the conclusion that men take more risks while women take bigger risks.

Or women's weaker musculoskeletal systems provide less protection against blunt force trauma?

Or, like medicine and a whole variety of other fields, “male” is assumed default and anyone who isn’t the default has worse outcomes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/27/business/car-safety-women...

Guess what year the NHTSA started using female crash dummies?

2003, thirty years after they started using male crash dummies. And the NHTSA's female dummies were essentially male dummies shrunk to 4'11" and lightened to 97/108lbs.

What year do you think they mandated a crash dummy that was actually based on the female body?

Just guess. I think you might be surprised that they haven't done this yet. It's in the works (see THOR-5F), but it's crazy it's taken so long.

Now guess when they first put the 2003 female crash dummy in the drivers seat for the frontal collision crash test. They still haven't!

>And the NHTSA's female dummies were essentially male dummies shrunk to 4'11" and lightened to 97/108lbs.

Lol. Lmao even: "According to a 2021 report from the National Center for Health Statistics, the average weight of women in the U.S. over the age of 20 was 170.8 pounds."

https://www.forbes.com/health/womens-health/average-weight-f...

If you look into car safety testing and design, they haven't used "Woman sized" crash test dummies until very very recently.

Cars were less safe for women because they were not designed to be safe for women.