My dealer pulls up within half an hour of texting them, with a full ounce they grew themselves. They know everything about the plant, and breed it for high THC. No delivery fee. Friendly. Great weed. No packaging. No bullshit. And great deals. Most dealer you buy from you won't be paying $280 ($10/h per O). Why would I ever go the "legal" route?
Sure. I've had some excellent homegrown weed. Most parts of the US don't have access to this though. Even in the Bay Area there are places where the homegrown stuff is pretty low quality. If I go to a dispensary I can get a much greater selection, is consistent quality, and isn't grown in some destructive "farm" in a state park. The dispensary I go to takes online orders and has them ready in 10 minutes.
I'm mostly into edibles these days. It was a bit disappointing when California capped the max THC per package (100 mg) -- but upside is pretty awesome. I can get a consistent product that's been tested to be a certain potency and free of pesticides and whatnot.
>Am I crazy, and the world has just moved on to be horrible?
Lol I got fired for making a joke after-hours over beers to a guy that wasn't politically aligned. It's wild. To mess with someones livlihood because of a political opinion.
Not in absolute terms, but it's closer when you compare housing cost vs compensation, I think.
The cost of rental housing has jumped up quite a bit recently, too. When I was looking for a place to live in 2015, I saw quite a few condos for rent right downtown for $1700-1800 a month. Now I see units in those same buildings renting for $2300 a month and up.
Still cheaper than SV, I suppose? And if you don't mind a bit of a commute, you can find more affordable accommodation.
Yup, all the new building (buildings built after 1992) weren't under rent-control. Since last year, they now are under rent-control which means landlord can only increase rent by 1.7% every year, which is why you saw that jump in rent. Not leaving my condo until i manage to buy my own place, which is going to be very difficult as well.
I'll give you that a man and a woman of the same physical size can each generally perform the same physical tasks. I'll also agree they should be paid the same.
However, saying the average sized woman can perform the same physical tasks as the average sized man is easily shown to be false using simple physics.
This is the wrong way to go about things; I'm a very strong beleiver in the principle of equality, that is, the equality in all social dealings of men and women, between races, abled and disabled, those of different nationalities, of different professions etc. But it must be stressed that asserting people have the same capabilities isn't the right way to go about it. Your principle will fail the second that we get to some imbalance which can't be whisked away as you're doing now - for example, you wouldn't make the same claim about someone with Down's syndrome being compared to someone without.
Your failing is that you predicate the idea of equality on utilitarian grounds, that is to say, you believe people should be treated equally, and so you try to justify this by saying they're actually the same in mental and physical tasks. This doesn't work, and it can't be generalised. There are differences, but we should be saying: those differences shouldn't matter to the worth of a person (if we really must go about considering people in the economic sense of having value, which I think is a concept worth repudiating).
The claim you're making seems much more like a strawman, so I'd be inclined to say you're trolling; a strawman very similar to yours was made by Tugan more than 100 years ago, and quickly put down by V.I. Lenin[0]:
>It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes.
> we're built differently both mentally and physically
You're incredibly sexist. You undoubtedly are part of the reason women are paid 60% what men are. I hope you are fired from wherever you work as you're part of the problem.
This is not Reddit. You first need to show evidence that women are paid 60% of what men are paid for the same jobs. Once you can’t (because the evidence says the opposite) you then need to show evidence that women choose jobs and make career choices different from men because of cultural reasons. Once you can’t do that either because the evidence shows the opposite then you’ll need to adjust your beliefs in light of the evidence like a proper reasonable person. After which you can stop telling all women their decisions to live life differently from men makes them inferior to men. It’s both hateful to men and women when you do that.
Hm, how much energy DOES it take (how would I compare? not sure) to produce equivalent number of dollars? Is there maintenance cost? Interesting line of thought to me.
Most dollars are virtual, so the energy cost is just sending some small messages around. It’s orders of magnitude less than needed for a bitcoin transaction.
Physical currency probably takes more energy, but printing is an old and cheap technology, so I doubt it’s comparable.
One should read the correspondances between Glenn Gould and Bernstein, they are very deep. There's a book I recommend that is a compilation of most of Glenn Goulds letters, they are incredibly beautifully worded.
Bernstein helped motivate me towards classical piano more than anyone. Watch his "The Unanswered Question" series as well.
>with React, I'd spend the first couple of days just fiddling around with build scripts.
Yeah a long time ago now. Since July 2016 create-react-app has been available, there are many other scaffolding tools as well.
>Sure, there are now react boilerplates that do this, but there are too many out there to properly evaluate what to use.
Use the one provided by the creators, facebook.
Why not just make it a part of the framework?
React is small (ok, "small"), you can use it out of the box without any build scripts. It doesn't make sense to package it up.
And speaking as someone who's done React for a couple years now and had to port old rails codebases to api-only / react views... yuck, never again. Rails is cluncky and most of the devs I worked with didn't know how anything works 'under the hood'.
Working on an SMS crypto trading bot where you can text it trading commands according to whatever exchange you connected to. I've been in many situations where I needed to trade and logging into the exchange on my phone is cumbersome and could sometimes take 3+ minutes, and by then the opportunity is gone.
