We could apply the principle of least astonishment to get a feel for correct behaviour without resorting to sterile arguments about what proportion of users understand the difference between a web site and a web browser.
If they looked at a slightly risque URL on their phone, would the average user expect Chrome on their laptop to autocomplete that URL?
The current behavior does not activate syncing by default in spite of the slippery slope arguments being made here. Furthermore i think most users would in fact expect syncing like that to work with minimal configuration in this day and age.
Please be civil with people who have a different perspective. The implication that the opposing position is outmoded is not a logical argument, it's an insulting one. "In this day and age," I'd think we could learn to be less dismissive of people.
Well he was replying to me and I didn't read him as uncivil at all.
His response ("syncing is expected") is completely on-point when talking about the PoLS. I disagree, obviously, and think syncing is scary voodoo magic. I don't see how you can say "users are unsophisticated and don't understand the difference between web sites and web browsers" and also say "users are sophisticated and expected config syncing".
Unfortunately, to get any further we have to test users.
There's got to be something that grows faster, and is easier to sequestrate, than trees. Bamboo, maybe? Seaweed? Algae? Dry it off in salt pans and dump it in the deep, cold ocean?
That's just dumping more carbon into one of our natural sinks, I think, rather than trying to create a new artificial sink. Even just using it as fertilizer has got to be an improvement over using inorganic fertilizers.
Cool idea, I'd never heard of this. TL-DR is that there are huge portions of the ocean that are nutrient-rich but have little life, and one hypothesis is that iron is the limiting factor here. Since various phytoplankton need iron to survive, why not dump iron in these places, watch the phytoplankton now thrive, and enjoy their carbon sequestration?
The answer seems to be "well, we don't really know what the effect would be". Some algae blooms are not good (red tide), deliberately altering an ecosystem is generally dangerous, it's not clear whether the positive local effect on carbon has some side effect elsewhere (maybe we're just moving phytoplankton around the ocean). Even doing experiments on this is difficult (the world's oceans are weirdly regulated), and current financial incentives don't make it all that enticing either.
I think there are at least two separate issues here; some countries have health and safety laws requiring natural light, while others require natural light in newly-built offices (as a condition of planning etc). Can you build an office in London these days that doesn't have natural light in the main spaces? I'd be sceptical.
Is it an old building? There are some basement offices in London, and presumably other countries, with either no windows or pointlessly small/ineffective ones (like those little glass blocks you see on the pavement occasionally). I wonder if light regulations would have to have exclusions for old buildings that are impractical to change (a bit like minimum platform widths at train stations don't apply to some old stations).
Teaching skills are the bridge. That's what servant leadership is to me - not teaching in the "stand in front of the classroom" sense, but teaching in the "lets pair on this and figure it out together" sense.
It was a technique used by poachers, not Gentlemen. Laws around hunting in the UK have a strong scent of class about them (Eg hunting with a bow is illegal, hunting with dogs was legal far longer than it should have been). My grandfather had a loose coat with a slit in the lining that would take a salmon.
Apart from wind moving it to the side, it would not be a fundamental problem to fly a tethered blimp with a pair of single mode fiber and a thin aluminum wire that is driven in resonance [0] with the surface capacitance the blimp has, relative to earth, up to about 20-50 km.
The breaking length of the fiber comes out at ~120 km, and you have to spare some tensile strength to hold the aluminum wire.
This is not hard, and for 8km height you could manufacture them for under $2k/piece. Even if they'd be made to work with hydrogen, as that raises the demands on the construction.
If you'd find the FCC to be willing to allow something like this and are able to handle both thunderstorms and just the general wind load on the tether, this should not be hard.
Lightning + aluminium wire is a problem. I suspect an electrical current will form in the wire even w/o lightning because of static electricity. Also the wire is a hazard if it breaks and falls down. It will probably cut everything in its path.
Yes, probably. Maybe you'd have to fly it at a place where you don't need to worry about lightning.
But that seems rather restricting. Though, for high-bandwidth applications, it might then be necessary to fly local power, and have the whole system sit over the cloud layer, at about 50km.
Regarding the damage from it when falling down, you have to remember that each fiber weighs 50g/km, and the wire is also below 1kg/km, even for rather low heights. This should not be a problem, considering the ease of breaking an optical fiber optic at any remotely sharp edge. A small bird (the size your cat can catch) could probably snap it if he hit's it with some force.
I use a variation on inbox-zero: if it's unread, it still has to be dealt with. Sort email unread-first. Works well enough for me (I have lots of "automatically mark read" filters for noise emails).
Instructional content from passionate hobbyists is where YT shines, I think. My recommendations are full of great content from niche channels, plus some music videos.
If they looked at a slightly risque URL on their phone, would the average user expect Chrome on their laptop to autocomplete that URL?