Grape Nuts are actually pretty low on the nutrition scale (don't read the ingredients/nutrition box if you don't want to be depressed). Upgrade to Ezekiel 4:9 which is similar in concept but 100x more healthful.
The banana is adding so much sugar that isn’t really that healthy. Fruit on cereal is sorta like loading up a salad with dressing, croutons and bacon bits.
Bananas in particular are pretty high in sugar, and other than potassium their nutrient density is nothing special.
Jesus, please stop spreading this kind of nonsense. It’s totally fine for people to eat a banana 7 days a week, 365 days a year as part of their breakfast.
Also, their nutrient density is perfectly fine. It’s high in fiber, potassium, vitamin C, and vitamin B6.
that sugar comes with fiber though so it's okay. the problem is the sheer amount of just sugar, which eg frosted flakes has an overabundance of. A banana is fine.
OTOOH, I have worked in SF for 24 years. Back then I don't think I ever saw anyone shoplift. I'm sure it happened, but I never personally witnessed it. In the last year or so, I have personally witnessed people shoplifting in various SF retail establishments probably more than 30 times. On only two occasions have I seen anyone attempt do anything to try to stop the perpetrator. In my opinion, I think the CNN article is incorrect in its assertions. Based on my personal experiences, I would say it's happening a lot and with increasing regularity. I think the people who do it should be punished.
There’s second order effects as well. When the law abiding witnesses theft, particularly repeated theft, they associate the location with a lack of law and order. If they’re going to steal, what other laws are they willing to break? Do I feel physically safe here?
This has a cascading effect where the law abiding will consciously avoid the locations where these thefts happen, causing even more of them relative to the legitimate customers entering the store. It’s a vicious cycle.
> I think the people who do it should be punished.
Agree. Plus companies have an interest in downplaying the theft rates when it suits them (to encourage shoppers without fear of being surrounded by thieves etc), and other times it’s in their interest to play it up (esp when security costs are too high).
Walgreens made $32 billion in profit last year and they announced all of these store closings about 4 years ago. They're looking to change business models, but it's easier to blame store closures on shoplifting to save face for leaving communities. They have acknowledged this in city council hearings.
That article is playing a bunch of statistical games, like comparing 2022 to 2023 instead of to prior to the mass mob looting incidents, using national data to hide effects of primarily regional issues, citing figures with obvious reporting bias by only counting incidents reported to the police that could do nothing without caring about their severity as a way to cast doubt on the idea that they actually needed to close the stores in the problem areas.
And even then it was forced to admit that shoplifting is up even if one retailer's shrinkage numbers (which includes a lot more than just shoplifting) went down. Never mind their other interventions, like closing stores in problem areas or spending more on security.
You're right to believe your lying eyes here. There were a lot of statistical errors in the article and they all went in the same direction, working to downplay the kind of problems you witnessed first hand.
Umm, I'm sorry sweaty, but since I didn't read this on CNN or the Huffington Post, your lying eyes are guilty of spreading dangerous far-right misinformation.
That's an odd way to frame it when you're citing corporate reports and an executive's statements as evidence that the many videos of groups of people ransacking stores in broad daylight are overblown.
They play with stats a lot, comparing 2022 to 2023, instead of to prior to the problem, using national figures to hide a regional problem, ignoring interventions, etc.
I mean there is a point that a lot of crime is done by a few people, such as the 327 people in New York who were responsible for about 1/3rd of the shoplifting arrests. But I don't think the usual answer to this is going to be "it's okay to do crime, actually."
Maybe the answer should be to incapacitate those 327 people so they don't keep hurting people continually, since it sure looks doubtful that reform is even possible.
IIRC it's something to do with the account being permanently locked due to too many failed password attempts, so windows basically throws up its hands and lets you log in anyway.
(This is just a vague recollection from last time I installed Windows, might be wrong)
Last time I checked you could log in locally if the install process never detected an internet connection. A terrible work around but (at the time) a functional one.
I’ve also heard that the following trick still works: enter the email address no@thankyou.com with any password, this account has been tried so many times that it’s been locked out, so the installer will let you continue with a local account
Windows 11 Home requires you to get a working internet connection to continue. Windows 11 Pro doesn't as of the 22H2 version but it still has dark patterns. For Office you can still use other licensing methods, even for O365, but as a typical consumer getting it legitimately you'll de facto need a Microsoft account.
Using "no@thankyou.com" for your Microsoft account (and any made up value for the password) allows you to skip this requirement in any version of 10/11 as someone got that account banned and the Microsoft workflow bails out since they naturally don't want to force onboard a banned user to a new account. This still requires internet during install though, it just works around needing to make an actual account.
It's a shame how much of a dance the install process has become.
This is the kind of HN comment I come for in these kinds of threads.
One person saying one thing (CSS Grid is the one thing keeping me sane!)
Another person coming in to say the exact opposite.
I'll be a little more helpful since I wrote a one liner without really explaining anything...
One explanation people like to give is:
CSS Grid is for layouts in 2 dimensions, Flexbox is for layouts along one dimension.
Which can be confusing because you absolutely can use Grid for layouts along one dimension too.
Here is my stupid sounding rule of thumb that I think is more useful: If you want a grid layout use grid, if you want a flexible layout use flexbox.
Grid quite literally splits the area into a grid but what if you want to just say "I want these two elements to be as far apart as possible within the container they are in" (ie a navbar, you want the logo on the left about 20 pixels away from the left of the viewpoert and you want the actual navigation to be on the right with the rightmost element 20px away from the right of the viewport). Flexbox is better for that.
I do often end up using Flexbox for 1-dimensional layouts, but IMO Grid's fr units are a lot more intuitive than Flexbox's combination of flex-basis/flex-grow/flex-shrink. If CSS added a 1-dimensional layout mode based on these principles then I'd switch to it in a heartbeat.
What bugs me the most is Flex centering absolutely sucks at handling overflow. Have a flex box with content that is supposed to be centered? Great, looks perfect for the first few items. But then try it on a smaller window or with more items and the content overflowing to the left of the border will be entirely inaccessible.
Allowing scrolling both ways would have been perfect. Switching to left-aligned when content overflows would be acceptable. But completely prohibiting access to half the content when an overflow occurs? Absolutely asinine.
I believe there may be ways to get around this with layers of inner divs and weird `overflow: ` incantations, but that's exactly the kind of bullshit flex was supposed to solve.
Come on, naming is table stakes. It’s nothing like the usual “please sort this red-black tree” that comes up during stupid interviews but never on the job. Naming comes up on the job all the time and if you routinely get it wrong then over time you’re likely to create more problems for your colleagues than you solve yourself, because they can’t easily understand or refactor what you built. Ie you’ll have negative productivity.
When you’re an interviewer you have to make a decision based on way too little signal. This means you zoom in on the things you do see, and you accept the chance that you might reject a great candidate. I can completely imagine a company rejecting a candidate because they didn’t care about naming.
Now if you think “worried that candidate might have negative productivity due to careless attitude, soft reject” is obnoxious then fine but I think that makes you spoiled. You’re not entitled to a job, even a junior position, simply because you can write a loop or center a div. Real world engineering has more going on. Interviewers look for those signals, so better work on getting them right.
Naming is also something that the team needs to decide on. As an interviewee applying for a position in an existing team, I would not expect to get dinged on my naming of variables for a piece of demo code. I would expect to conform to the team's existing naming standards, so bringing and displaying my own preconceptions would be completely useless.
I’m not talking about capitalization, I’m talking descriptiveness, meaning, precision etc. You know, naming.
The idea that naming is about someMethod vs Some_Method is nuts to me. Just choose a thing and do it. Naming is about words and meaning. It’s hard, and it’s important.
So was I. Maybe next time respond to my actual words, not your slimmed-down interpretation of them? Some teams are perfectly ok with single-letter local variables, some are not. Some teams are perfectly ok with single-letter parameter names, some are not. Some APIs I've worked on even specified the units in quantity parameters (e.g. HeightInMeter, WeightInMilligram), others would only specify that in the documentation (if you're lucky).
Naming is about words and meaning. It’s hard, and it’s important.
When working on a piece of throwaway pseudo-code, no it's not important.
Every interviewer seems to have their own idiosyncratic version of what they consider "table stakes". So table stakes ends up being everything and nothing.
> I can completely imagine a company rejecting a candidate because they didn’t care about naming.
Didn't "care" about naming, or didn't focus on naming in some little throwaway sample code for a job interview?
It's honestly nice that such a relic of 2010s geekdom is making a return (yes, I know it started in the aughts, but I'm associating it with the 2010s).
