Anyone with an actual computer science degree should be ok. However, most universities don't teach computer science anymore. They teach IT or programming.

Computer scientists are taught how to think and problem solve. They are mathematicians and sometimes physicists with keyboards.

The applied computer skills like Cyber Security never belonged in the university except as an add-on.

My daughter starts her summer internship on Monday. The largest university in this country has a total of 9 students in entering their third year studying CSEE in the physics department. Every one of them are being attacked with extremely good offers by companies begging for their education. By comparison, thousands are studying applied computing such as programming and cybersec and only 60% of this year's graduates are likely to find jobs.

The fact that the company continues to use VMware - legally although they can no longer update it - sort of means that they aren't really a former customer. If they stopped using it completely when they decided not to pay Broadcom's subscription fee, I'd agree that they are a former customer. So that probably gives Broadcom the right to audit them. In my career at various jobs we sometimes had to go through this kind of audit as some companies were super paranoid that their customers might be using more copies of something than they paid for. It's been a while so I can't really remember specifics, but I vaguely recall that a company I worked for got busted during a similar audit as some people in another part of the company didn't respect the licensing agreement and just used the product beyond what we paid for and we had to pay some kind of fine/license fee to get straight.

Actively dismantling the US's vaccination system is indeed going to kill a lot of people, and that's what he's doing. That's exactly the point.

That rewrite wasn't important. My point would have been the same if I'd written "vaccinations are an essential *component* of mak[ing] Americans healthy". It's the component vs entirety point that I was trying to focus your attention on.

Anyway, we will just need to agree to disagree on all of this. I think it's completely reasonable to point out the ridiculous hypocrisy of RFK Jr's position, supposedly interested in making Americans healthy while promoting anti-vaccination policies that risk the health of millions. It doesn't matter what else he talks about -- the vaccination policy alone is so overwhelmingly bad that nothing else he will ever do can matter by comparison.

You missed the bit about *healthy* life years. In the jargon, that means reducing morbidity. Lower pain score = less morbidity. That's why it's a *quality-adjusted* life year, and not merely a life year. Not all years of life are equal in value.

Re NSAIDs -- the choice of whether to use a particular med can be very complex. For example, NSAIDs are now contra-indicated during recovery from an ankle break, whereas they used to be recommended, because while they relieve pain and reduce inflammation, they slow the fracture healing process. So the net result is higher morbidity.

As I said before, this really is my specialist subject.

I don’t think the OP was claiming that vaccines *alone* make America healthy. I think that’s a massive over-read. The OP was clearly employing rhetoric to point out that vaccinations are an essential *component* of how modern populations get and stay healthy, and that RFK is notorious for repudiating them.

You claim that the OP is being reductive, but that’s a claim that only makes sense if you yourself treat what they said reductively, insisting on a plain reading of the text, and ignoring the obvious fact that it’s a rhetorical reversal using echoic mention (the repeat of the phrase “make America healthy”) and ironic reframing (pointing out the contradiction between RFK’s stated goal of a healthy America and his opposition to vaccination, which will lead to lots of ill health in America). Human communication is too subtle to insist on only plain interpretations of text.

I don’t know what you think you are getting at with this, but it doesn’t mean anything. There are many forms of exercise that are highly targeted and there are many drugs that have multiple systemic effects (Mounjaro being an excellent example). But in any event, the clinical purpose of both exercise and medications and indeed all health interventions is to extend healthy life years.

If you talk to a medic about “life to years and years to life”, they’ll recognise the phrase straight away.It’s just a nice easy lay person rendering of QALY. And QALYs are well understood as a means of comparing the impact of health interventions, and increasing QALYs is a goal of health organisations around the globe, which is what you’ll immediately notice if you google the phrase.

This is my specialist professional field, by the way.

You also made out that I was making some weird point that technical terms don’t matter in medicine! They absolutely do, prevention matters, exercise matters, healthy living is vital, but clinical interventions are not entirely separate from them. I am in awe of the technical brilliance and sophistication of medicine.

I will give you just a single example of how these things interconnect: I broke my ankle climbing last year (well, landing badly from a fall). I needed an operation and my ankle was pinned. The intervention was exceptionally technical, I had a bunch of drugs and all sorts of other stuff and my recovery involved not only physio (ie exercise) but also tapping the inflamed area and mobilising it as soon as possible — massively different from standard practice of just a few years earlier. The surgeon explained that tapping the area helped push water molecules that were accumulating in the affected part of my ankle through the inflexible lattice formed by tendons and ligaments, and thus reduced swelling and enabled quicker recovery. It worked, too. I was able to walk after six weeks and was fully mobile after 12. Some of the intervention was thus super-specific, some was broad, some was “clinical”, some was “health”, all of it was useful and all of it added life to years for me (ie little impact on my mortality, but lower morbidity during the recovery period). What was medicine and what was exercise? Utterly unimportant to me - all I cared about was that the interventions were backed by an evidence base, feasible for me, and worked for me. It was, they were, and I’m grateful every day, especially because I’m actually stronger and more flexible than I was before.

This is *such* a weird response and I only ever see it on Slashdot. While modern engines are often quiet, van, lorry and bus engines are absolutely not, and neither are scooter engines, G-Wagens, sports cars, etc. I live near a gentle hill — I can just about hear tyre noise from passing cars going downhill from time to time, but the noise of engines of vehicles going uphill is dramatically louder and more obnoxious.

Tyre noise is definitely not the loudest component of traffic noise in urban settings, which is why EVs are required to have noisemakers fitted in the EU and UK for below 12mph. I have an EQA that weighs just over 2 tonnes. Under 12mph, the only thing you can hear is the AVAS (noisemaker). Tyres are basically inaudible. Above 20, they’re still really quiet. I frequently drive with my windows down — I’m keenly aware of how noisy my car is — answer is “not very, and much quieter than it would be with an engine”.

This is what London traffic noise sounds like — listen to say 3m20s in, and you’ll hear that it’s dominated by engine noise, especially from the buses.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

The distinction between “prevent or mitigate illness” and “make people healthy” is one without a difference in the context of healthcare interventions. There’s no meaningful so-what in the fact that exercise makes you healthy while a vaccine prevents you getting sick. They’’re both aimed at the same broad objective — adding years to life, and life to years.

Didn’t you find the regen in the mountains a wash, because what you gain on the downhill, you lose on the uphill (and a bit more because entropy is a thing)?

Although my favourite EV application remains that giant mining truck that never needs to be plugged in, because it starts full at the top of the hill and then returns uphill empty, with all the work done by the net change in gravitational potential energy

1. Infra is the main problem, and is not getting materially better any time soon in the US given the current administration’s policy. We Europeans are very lucky by comparison. We have good infrastructure that is rapidly becoming great
2. Charging apps are a pain in the arse, but I find the idea of leaving the house without my phone very odd, and Apple Pay is far and away my preferred method to pay for a charge (and just about anything). I find the American way of paying for things completely baffling, tbh. Swiping a card is like going back in time 25 years
3. Zapmap in the UK is really up to date, and the only easy way of keeping track of the dramatically increasing availability of chargers. But then, the availability is so good, I don’t bother planning a route ever any more. I just stop at a service station and know there’ll be chargers I can use - on the rare occasions I need to use them.

What I was trying to express with my previous post was that EVs work well for a lot of people in rural areas. I wasn’t claiming they work well for everyone, and it all depends on personal circumstances — the ability to have a home charger, whether there’s a few chargers en route to longer distance destinations, the type of car you need, etc.

The point I was trying to get at was that there are pernicious myths being spread that EVs are always unworkable for both rural (“no chargers nearby!”) and urban (“can’t fit a charger at home!”); and in fact, EVs work pretty damn well for a much larger group of people than is widely believed:
- Many people in rural settings have off-street parking and plenty of land and can easily fit a charger (and solar and batteries), don’t have to drive anywhere long distance that doesn’t have chargers en route, and benefit from the extra independence and lower operating costs that an EV provides (not having to drive 40 miles for gas etc)
- Many people in urban settings (at least in Europe) who don’t have offstreet parking are surrounded by large numbers of public chargers, can charge at work, and don’t drive very far so only need to charge once every ten days, etc. And even more of those who drive *do* have off-street parking

Ha. I'm entirely unsentimental about all forms of traffic noise! The quieter the better

Yeah, I know lots of people do this. I just decided to let the BMS worry about the battery and charge it fully when I charge it. I charge mine only once every 10 days or so. So many different patterns out there

Exactly. People are so quick to speak on behalf of the entirety of the rural community, and it's silly