This is to solve such issues that I am using and running StableBuild.
It is a managed service that keeps a cached copy of your dependencies at a specific time.
You can pin your dependencies within a Dockerfile and have reproducible docker images.
It should be noted that only Modern Standard Arabic (the modern common Arabic language based on the language used in the Qur'an) still has dual.
Most (if not all?) spoken dialects, which evolved from this form of Arabic have already lost dual.
It's interesting that we notice a similar pattern of losing the dual in many languages. And it would be very interesting to find the opposite pattern: a language where the dual newly develops out of nowhere. However, I do not know of such language.
This is exactly to avoid this kind of issue that I decided to work on StableBuild.
StableBuild pins and hosts a copy of your dependencies at a specific freeze date, so that your supply chain is never contaminated.
This way, a compromised version published after your freeze date (even with the same version number!) would never reach your build.
Such issues is what brought us to keep native honeybee species where I live, and not the domestic Western bees.
The productivity may not be as high as the domestic bee, but we still get honey and it's very good!
You would also notice the difference in taste. Apis mellifera honey is usually sweeter than the Asian honeybee, and not as prone to fermentation. A slightly fermented honey is also super good!
I did not know the existence of this manual. It was a very interesting read! Especially after page 28 (General Interference with Organizations and Production).
I encountered a similar situation in my career.
The work looked good, the team looked good, money was good.
Then when the work contract came up, there were some unusual clauses about my salary that I was not comfortable with. They first said that it was OK to ignore the clause as they would pay my salary as explained orally. I insisted that they write the work contract as they plan to pay me.
After about 1 week of back and forth, they admitted that the clause was indeed unusual, was there for historical reasons and that they plan to change it in the future. However, they said no clause in the contract could be changed as of now, as it was the same contract for every employee, and no past had employee ever complained about it.
Unfortunately, I ended up declining the offer, as I considered the risk was not worth it.
If I remember correctly, the properties mentioned in this document are well-known and commonly found in mushroom field guides or scientific literature written in the Chinese language.
I've been to Yunnan and have eaten that mushroom too (properly cooked!).
We can find closely related species to this one in the wild in Japan too, but documentation for those Lanmaoa species found outside China is currently lacking, I believe.
EDIT: Found the field guide I was thinking about on my shelf. It's "中国真菌志 牛肝菌科(III)" [1], which is only about boletes!
I've never smelled cannabis before in my life and don't know what it's supposed to smell like. I live in an area of the world where it's illegal and I guess not many people are smoking it. I may also have had a quite sheltered education.
This year, I went to British Columbia, and there was this weird scent everywhere that I could not describe. My wife said it was cannabis. I'm still not used to it so I don't know if I'll be able to recognize it next time I travel to North America.
In my experience, weed smells like a skunk. Which makes it really annoying to be around people who smoke, that stuff is really unpleasant to have to smell. Honestly I don't know how people can stand to smoke it with how bad it smells.
I never smelled a skunk, but the first time I smelled this weed smell I immediately loved it and still love it to this day when I occasionally smell it on the street. Even though I don't smoke. I even bought cannabis scent incense few days ago.
I guess perception of this smell, like many others is genetic.
Am I the only one that doesn't find skunk smell not so horrid as it's generally made out to be? It's very strong, yes, but between skunk and asa foetida, it would be hard to choose ;)
I’ve never smoked it or been around anyone smoking it. It’s more of a lower class thing in the U.S.: https://news.gallup.com/poll/642851/cannabis-greatest-among-... (16% of households making under $24k smoke cannibis regularly, versus 5% of households making over $180k/year).
This 100% matches my experience in Washington. I know a lot of upper middle class who use cannabis. I think the consumption of edibles might be higher in the upper middle class vs smoked. But that’s very anecdotal.
Explaining why I never encountered it. Even today usage is quite unevenly distributed. I’m from an affluent, WASPy town in Virginia. By contrast it was common even in the 1990s in the lower class parts of Oregon where my wife grew up.
Interesting. In my experience, the self-described affluent WASP-y types are exactly the kind of people that should probably smoke a joint and chill the fuck out every once in a while, lest they end up as close-minded conservatives.
You’re more likely to find tattoos and marijuana smokers at a Trump rally than in the congressional district where I grew up. It was solidly red when I was growing up, but today is the orderly and industrious wing of the democratic party (Biden +18).
Is that because strong Republican-voting states are such bastions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Last time I checked, places like Texas are using traffic cameras to track down women who get healthcare out of state, bragging about killing people, and posting State Troopers outside of bathrooms.
Or maybe you're talking about Arkansas, where they recently deregulated the employment of children under 16.
Or maybe you meant Florida, which led the nation in banned books for 2025.
Or maybe Tennessee where they allow for the refusal to solemnize gay marriage after the passage of HB 878.
Maybe you're alluding to states like Louisiana and Mississippi, which have the highest per capita incarceration rates in the US.
Seriously, humor me here - what in your opinion has become more "entropic" in VA since they started voting more consistently blue?
I know companies that are posting vacancies that currently don't exist in order to keep good candidates on the hook. They tell the candidate that we should keep in touch for when the company is ready to hire them.
I am not sure if it's bad or not. It's true that it kinda wastes the candidate's time. In some cases though, the candidate is so good that the company will create a position just for them.
No... it's worse than that; it's THEFT, and monumentally offensive. It's time that everyone, EVERYONE stop giving entities a free pass on stealing from us by deliberately wasting our time.
In every aspect of life, every hour of our day, we're being ripped off. From the assholes blocking the passing lane, to "ghost jobs," to non-functioning subscription-cancellation phone numbers and Web forms... people should be going apeshit about the despicable and unpunished theft of our time.
I feel like if it’s clear from the listing that it’s a catch-all that might not correspond to any real vacancies, it’s fine. Otherwise I think it’s bad, since it’s lying.
Is there anything I can do at a small scale on my own to sequestrate carbon dioxide?
For example, I could install solar panels and use them to power a machine that sequestrate carbon dioxide. Does such technology exist?
After trying to reduce our emissions as much as possible, what kind of "best" choice to we have next?
Individually, reducing the carbon emissions you are directly responsible for (either by using greener tech or just reducing consumption) and planting some trees is basically the best you can do directly. This kind of tech, if it does become a good solution, will be a large industrial process, not something it makes sense to operate individually. And of course the best thing to do is continue to advocate for action politically, even though it may be hard to count exactly how much of a difference you are making there.
I think the best way to sequester carbon out of the air is to plant a sapling, let it grow into a big tree, and then keep the tree around (or at least keep the wood in some form). If you know anyone with a chunk of land, try to convince them to plant a lot of trees.
That is indeed the best you can do, as an individual, for carbon capture. It is also entirely useless, as the amount of carbon a tree sequesters are completely irrelevant at the scale of the problem. The largest tree in the world weighs less than 600 tonnes. That means it captured at best 2200 tons of CO2 - and that is the lifetime total, over 2200-2700 years.
Charcoal is stable in the ground at least for a couple of centuries, probably longer, and reasonably good for plants. So you can just till it under or bury it.
Store it. That's the carbon you've sequestered, now you need to make sure nothing happens with it to turn it back into CO2. Careful in particular that it doesn't just catch fire.
The global ecosystem is a living, complex, adaptive system, and will recover with or without human intervention. Whether humans survives as part of that adaptation remains to be seen.
Rather than looking at this as if we are separate from the ecosystem we live in, and try to sequester carbon, I think the better approach is to develop deeper relationships with local ecosystem.
The problem isn’t carbon. The problem is that the carbon is not moving through the ecosystem. Probably one of the more practical things is to separate the local hydrological cycle from the local carbon cycle — that is, plant more stuff; feed onsite composting to the plants; make greater use of greywater, even blackwater; design dwellings and sites with sun and shade and more passive heating and cooling in mind.
"The global ecosystem is a living, complex, adaptive system, and will recover with or without human intervention."
On the trajectory we're currently on, a significant fraction of all species on earth could go extinct. There will be life, yes, but significantly less diverse life.
Take polar bears for example. At the rate things are going, they will go extinct. On the other hand, the polar bears that are cross breeding with their cousins, the grizzly bear, are producing offspring better adapted to melting ice caps.
If we want to have better genetic diversity, it’s not going to come from reducing carbon emissions. It will be things like planting wildlife refuges in your front yard, at least poly-cropping not mono-cropping, letting landraces develop for local conditions instead of insisting on standardized produces. It’s participating within the ecology and not trying to take the entire yield and maximizing usefulness to humans. Reducing carbon emissions will not, by itself, get us there.
The carbon being put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels wasn't part of the ecosystem for millions of years. Simply moving it around the cycle isn't really going to solve the excess (though whether the air is the best place to try to remove it from the cycle is an important question).
Pollution, desertification, ocean acidification, habitat destruction are as great, if not greater concerns, and yet here we are, picking a single metric as if changing that alone will solve everything.
Well, a lot of those are being driven in large part by climate change. I don't think I was saying that reducing CO2 back to pre-industrial would solve all environmental problems, just that reducing it is an important part to improving a lot of them.
Pollution is not driven by climate change. It is driven by our industrial processes that includes fossil fuels. It also includes the processes that goes into high-tech materials. We don’t have forever chemicals and microplastics because of climate change.
Desertification has to do with ecosystems degenerating. While there are regions that are desertifying because of changes in percipitation patterns, our industrial scale agriculture and feedlots are depleting the soil in a way that is leading to desertification, even without changes in climate patterns. We kill soil with fertilizers and pesticide. We got rid of beavers, and the way they reroute rivers and watershed to spread out water, making the land less resilient. We pipe water to grow things in areas we probably shouldn’t. The Great Dust Bowl was not a result of climate change.
Ocean acidification is a result of the ocean absorbing more atmospheric CO2 as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. It has affects on the health of marine ecosystems. It is not a consequence of climate change.
The problem is that it will be a lot harder to grow food after 3°C of warming and also to get people drinking water. At some point your "deepening relationship" has to feed billions of people. That's assuming the heating is stopped at that point. Otherwise it gets worse until people are starving, which might eventually reduce CO2 emissions.
Atmospheric temperature is one thing. A focus on that leaves blindspots to things like land temperatures.
Soil is alive, dirt is dead. Healthy soils helps with water retention, and changes the local microclimates. So does designing canopy layers — agroforestry and perennial food forests.
Industrial scale monocropping is not adaptive, and kills off soil. It is fragile, and contributes little to regulating temperatures in the local microclimates.
There are solutions beyond simply looking at carbon emissions or industrial scale carbon sequestering.
Soil damage only happens where it happens while warming can significantly reduce arable land on the planet. This matters a lot for feeding people.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about maintaining soil qualiy but your comment "heating irrelevant, just deepen your relationship with the environment" is vague and people basically hear "do nothing about the CO2/warming because it's fine, we just need more hippies loving the soil". That's probably not what you meant but it's how it sounds.
There was a time I used to think I was doing my part by recycling. I did not know then, this stuff gets ship overseas to be dumped, or that it often gets burned. Or that the ethics of recycling was a result of clever marketing by the corps involved to shift this burden onto individuals. I grew up with it and recycling made be feel as if I was doing my part to help save the planet without really ever considering a change in the way of life.
This is exactly what I am seeing with the messaging around “climate change” and “carbon emissions” and “carbon credits”. It allows people to continue with the way of life they are used to and feel good about doing their part.
When I say “get connected with the local ecosystem”, I am not espousing a hippie view.
Part of our modern way of life insulates us from really understanding at an instinctual and bodily level, what it means to be a part of an ecosystem or a community. I mean it literally: many people do not actually know what it is like to eat an apple off a tree, let alone a relationship with that particular tree, and all the birds, bees, worms, fungi, and microbes involved with that apple.
I don’t know how to say this any more literally and directly. Advocating for “doing something about CO2/warming” is so far away from getting your hands dirty, and knowing at a deep level, that this is our home, and we’re not the only ones living here, and that the land can very well provide healthy food, and our actions directly
impacts the land around us.
Oh and as for warming — the Soviets were able to adapt warm-weather fruit bearing trees, and we can do the same. There are plenty of heat-hardy edible plants, if we are willing to go beyond the small handful of monocropped “food” we have standardized on. We can try using industrial scale solutions, but we are just kicking the can down the road. It is our way of seeing the world around us that lead us here.
Purchase synthetic bio-oil CO2 sequestration from Charm Industrial at $600/metric ton. They already have this in production, and sequester CO2 in the form of shitty biodiesel in spent oil wells. You can go net zero immediately and literally.
It is a managed service that keeps a cached copy of your dependencies at a specific time. You can pin your dependencies within a Dockerfile and have reproducible docker images.