Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

It's such a simple problem there is no "best" answer. But it would be very effective at weeding out people who know nothing about coding.

It's really not a question about optimization as writing things out to the console will probably be your biggest bottleneck (literally 10,000 times slower than the rest of the loop).

Possibly. My optimism is not high though.

I can't speak to the quality of the show, although it's hard to go wrong with Mike Judge.

Spaces v tabs seems like a fine thing to joke about. I just couldn't suspend disbelief about how it came up. Here's the sort of thing that really happens:

Bob opens one of Shiela's files, just to read it so he can figure out how something works. He sees gibberish for indentation, and says, "Hey, Shiela, what happened to lose_harder.cc?
The indentation is all wrong."

She doesn't know what he's talking about, and takes offense that lasts for most of the rest of the episode. Eventually she figures out what he's complaining about, and says "What's your tab width? I used 3, to optimize file size with our typical indents". Bob says "How should I know what my tab width is? Why should I care? Are you mental? Three?"

Always good to optimize your pessimism if at all possible.

Many, if not most, that oppose places like Planned Parenthood, and oppose most methods of birth control, oppose it, because they think it encourages promiscuity. Sex is of course limited only to marriage in their world view, which is why heavy red states have abstinence only education... which tends to result in them having the highest teen and repeat teen pregnancy rates. And some would argue that the only function of sex is for procreation. The Bible even forbid pulling out (Gen. 38:8–10), though one could argue that was for one guy in particular. Anyhow, basically they see pregnancy as part of God's design and purpose for sex. The fact it has physical pleasures, is a gift from God for the married couple.

In the case of IUDs, they believe the old myth that the IUD causes abortions, that it lowers the chance that a fertilized egg will implant. The reality is that it doesn't at all, at least for modern, non-copper clad IUDs. Once upon a time, the old copper ones did have a very small impact on the chance a fertilized egg could implant, and even modern ones that have far less copper cladding on a wire around it, can have a very very small chance of decreasing implantation. But those ones aren't really used that often. Basically, the IUD is the most effective form of birth control, but it is opposed to stereotypes and lies. Modern IUDs work to prevent fertilization in the first place, via the hormones in them and design, if an egg is fertilized, it still has the same chance of implantation... however the chance of an egg being fertilized is very low, as sperm mobility is seriously hurt, and of course the woman's body lowers egg release too.

Plan B also doesn't stop implantation, or if it does, it is near modern copper clad wire IUDs (and more recent evidence shows it is likely even far less than that). It prevents the women's body from releasing an egg... if an egg is released already, it won't do any good. However, once again, facts don't matter to those on the right, and they promote it as a morning after abortion pill.

Of course, a healthy young woman, who's optimally fertile, only 30-40% of her fertilized eggs will implant, meaning that God Himself aborts about 60-70% of babies (since they define it as a full baby and human life at conception) in optimally fertile women. Now.. you have to add to that, natural miscarriages for other reasons... and the odds of having a baby really are against you naturally. (There are links to medical journals here: http://ask.metafilter.com/203529/What-of-fertilized-human-eggs-die and in this Healthcare Triage video about IUDs: https://videosift.com/video/IUDs-Are-Pretty-Great-So-Why-Arent-They-More-Popular)

Traffic jams means sub-optimal traffic control system.
As always China copies others only to 90%.

videosift.com is advertising 2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:fe70:f3af as its IPv6 address. However, that address is not listening on 443. So either don't advertise IPv6 or enable ssl on it.

Additionally, your current configuration supports SSLv3 protocol, which is old and insecure and should be disabled. And some other sub-optimal settings.
Check out https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=videosift.com
Consider updating your OpenSSL library and configuring nginx as shown at https://cipherli.st/

And please make sure you have some sort of automated way to renew letsencrypt cert since it's only for 3 months.

Here, have a bit of optimism:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-linked-imam-israel-chief-rabbi-unite-in-call-for-peace/

@newtboy
There's also absolutely no measure of the aquifer itself, how it moves, mixes, flows, etc. The system is mostly unmapped.

Fortunately that's not entirely true. If you go check out the wiki article, it has a lot of links on a lot of mapping that has been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridan_aquifer#Hydrology_and_Geology
Most relevant to trying to analyze things, the graphic below is a mapping of the normal water flow within the aquifer based off of testing from about 1,500 different locations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridan_aquifer#/media/File:Estimated_transmissivity_of_the_Floridan_aquifer_sytem.png

The Mosaic leak occurred somewhere inland from Tampa as close as I can find, if you can narrow that down it'd help. On the map that looks like good news though because that region shows upwards of 100,000 m^3 of water flow per day. So very good mixing for the quantity of leak being discussed if it falls there.

And you didn't address the orange problem.
That's because there isn't one. Radon doesn't work like lead or mercury, it's a gas and doesn't build up in irrigation or the food chain. It bleeds off very fast, irrigation systems bleed it almost instantly into the atmosphere. In animals and meat bags like us, the references I've found suggest the average time from consumption to release is about an hour so we don't hold onto Radon long. Again reason for optimism imo.

If following the always in the middle rule, this should follow, but if you don't want to be a perfect driver, at least when merging, follow what is called the "zipper rule".

The zipper rule looks like it sounds: Allow one person to merge in front of you and one person behind you, like a zipper. If you're merging with one car in front of you and one car behind, allow one car already on the freeway to pass between you and the car merging in front of you. The person behind you should do the same for you and any car behind them.

This is something both cars on the freeway and cars merging onto it have to agree to though, as one asshole spoils it. Of course, if someone is tooooo slow (another problem) the zipper rule doesn't work perfectly either.

But the spirit of the zipper rule remains, despite how it is modified. If someone hogs the road, tailgating the car I should be merging behind, I simply follow the zipper rule after that asshat driver. If I were to fight over my true zipper position, I'd cause an even bigger problem than was already present -- and I gain.. what? One car's distance. That's nothing.

Not even 30 cars distance means a damn (a couple seconds?), so there's zero reasons to constantly weave in and out of a congested road, because you risk your vehicle for mere seconds. A terrible bet to make given the odds, no matter how skilled you are, because the lanes slow down at random intervals based on the random number of idiots weaving through traffic causing phantom intersections. Meanwhile, the lane you weaved out of has cleared and the guy being patient passes you by. Just fucking stay in your goddamn lane until you don't need to be there.

I learned this over time, after deciding to be patient and observe the distance traveled by impatient drivers compared to myself staying in one lane. I find that I will often pass the impatient driver by because they're making so many choices and fewer lane choices are ever more optimal than simply waiting for your lane to clear up, so rather than slowly gaining ground, they make a couple gains and then lane change into a briefly cleared lane that then halt once they zoom up to tailgate the person who has no more distance to travel. If I don't end up passing these impatient lane changers, the minimal distance they gained is only seconds, as when they reach their off ramp, they will be waiting idly by, as I catch up and pass them. If they had simply stayed in the same lane the entire way, they often would have arrived at the same time as if they hadn't changed lanes at all.

All of this left lane-right lane organization of traffic is only needed because people are not very good at driving. In 10 years or so, when most vehicles are self-driving, we will see a perfect ballet of cars and trucks dancing in optimized harmony. Well, that would be great.

I think the argument is not that his behavior is stunning etiquette, but it is understandable and his frustration is relatable. Optimally he would've just sat in silence, or driven around to the other entrance, but all things considered, her behavior was more unacceptable. Or to put it another way - this was three minutes out of their respective days. There may be an infinite number of circumstances on either side that we don't see, that would swing our opinion either way. However, if we ignore their emotional states, and just look at the principle, she was dead wrong.

If a restaurant or movie theatre wants to kick you out in the middle of a meal, you can't stay. If a hotel wants to kick you out at 2 am (and lets you pack and take your stuff), you can't stay. That's why they can call the cops to get you out if you refuse to leave - because they have the presumptive right to decide who stays and goes. You have no right to call the cops and ask them to stop the owner from kicking you out, because you have no fundamental right to stay there.

I am not going to say that you're trolling, and your arguments are not unreasonable or dickish, but you're wrong. (In principle) you have a number of potential recourses that you can choose when a proprietor asks you to leave. (in principle) refusing to leave is not one of the options you have any right to exercise.

We can come up with scenarios where it could be argued that you should be allowed to refuse to leave:

1. You're staying at a ski lodge and you will die if you are kicked out into the cold. Then we're no longer talking consumer rights but emergency / health and safety rights.

2. If you leave the premises, you would lose all your other means of recourse, for example if you don't have contact or identifying information for the business you're at. In that case you can ask for that information, and then leave.

In principle, however, sticking around isn't an option, and there's no sane reason why it should be an option. If the business in question doesn't have a valid reason for kicking you out, you get to sue them afterwards.

Good questions. My family operates farms for wheat and corn, and I've been involved in that process, so I can take a stab at answering the last bit:

Corn stalks get quite tall -- 6 feet / 2 meters or so. Each stalk usually has 1 or 2 ears of corn. On our farm, the experience I had suggests that each plant needs quite a lot of healthy leaves for Photosynthesis as well as quite a lot of available ground water. Irrigated corn often produces 2-3 times as many bushels per acre as compared to "dryland" / non-irrigated corn.

So the issues I can see potentially clashing between corn production and vertical farming are:

1) You'd have a greater space requirement for layers of corn since you'd need probably 8-10 feet per layer, as compared to what looks like 2-3 feet per layer for leafy vegetables in the video. Approximately one story per layer wouldn't allow for the massive footprint savings like in leafy plants without getting extremely tall, which would be expensive for water pumping etc.

2) Corn root systems are pretty deep to support a tall and relatively bulky stalk. Getting that to bite into a thin layer of fabric / recycled plastic to provide structural support for the plant would be difficult. I think you'd need to have a thicker bottom layer *and* to manually place further support lines on the stalks as the plants grow, which would get very labor intensive and therefore expensive.

3) The vertical nature of a corn stalk suggests that the overhead motion of the sun might be pretty important for getting light exposure onto all of the leaves. Fixed overhead lights might mean that the top leaves get plenty of light but the ones lower on the stalk would be shaded by those above and get nothing -- which isn't a problem if the sun progresses through low angles at sunrise/set to overhead at noon throughout a day. So you might have to have lighting that hits from all sides to account for that with corn, which would again add expense.

4) To maximize the output, corn needs a LOT of water. Pumping that up the vertical expanse to get lots of levels could easily get problematic. Corn will grow without optimal / abundant watering, and their misting system would likely be more efficient than irrigating to add ground water, but the main benefit of vertical farming seems to be high output in a small land footprint on the ground. So without LOTS of water, you'd be limiting that benefit.


So basically, my guess is that vertical farms are a fantastic idea for squat, spread out plants like lettuce, but a lot of the advantages disappear when you're talking about something tall like corn. I could easily be wrong about any/all of that though.

@Payback -- The Youtube comments area is not to be considered a potential source of rational discussion.

Assume that one concedes to your point about "terminal velocity" being the wrong phrase to use here. What would be better? And I'll note that there are many potential metrics for "better" -- conveying the correct idea precisely, doing so in a concise manner, etc.

"Neodymium Magnets Reaching a Velocity at Which the Centrifugal Force Upon Them Exceeds the Magnetic Force Holding Them Together" makes for a more accurate title, but might lose brevity points. The "Terminal Velocity" title conveys maybe only 75% of the accuracy of the more precise title, but with a greater than 25% savings in length (5 words vs 19). Although I'm sure a more optimally brief AND accurate title exists.

Not trying to be snarky, and I 100% agree that there are situations where saying something with complete accuracy and careful precision is extremely important. But perhaps an online video about magnets spinning apart can be at least partially excused for opting for brevity over accuracy, especially in something as trivial as the title. Especially when the inaccuracy can be noted and explained in the comments section by well meaning viewers.