That region is flat and has few physical obstacles to a rail line (like mountains, major inclines, major declines etc)
Getting a rail line between a major city (LA/San Jose/San Diego/SF etc) requires going through pretty serious mountain ranges. There is already rail line between them in their own geographical pockets (LA-San Diego, SF-San Jose-Oakland)
They could build a train in central Nevada too. That’s “easy” — doesn’t mean it actually useful. I’d be happy with a Maglev replacing Caltrain to get from Mountain View to SFO in 5 minutes. More people could use that than a train to Bakersfield.
That would be awesome for the 3 people looking to go specifically from Mountain View to SFO at a given time... but not so awesome for the 300 people wanting to get on or off somewhere in between.
For land rights issues it is easy enough to create stations that are sufficiently distanced from the city centers but close enough to tap into local Bus/Uber-ish/car rental options. Most Californian metropolis' have an area distanced enough but accessible where land is still relatively cheap, the exception being LA which has sprawled into Orange County and completely enveloped other regions.
However going through mountain in an environmentally conscious way gets radically expensive in very short order. Additionally this style of construction tends to have its own legally contentious issues. (Dam construction for water management being comparative)
I disbelieve in your "easy enough". Certainly it is a problem that the plans for high speed rail never solved.
You already pointed out that Los Angeles was a problem. For San Francisco the route chosen ran into problems 30 miles south of San Jose, where they were planning to use existing rails (at slower speeds). And once you're in San Jose, you still have a long ways to go to get into San Francisco.
I am going to take the controversial stance and say BS to this one.
With Americans marrying later and often times dual income even then this has left most individuals doing 1.5 jobs (house work and their actual job)
Additionally the time required to access to the basics has also gone up. Super markets are more crowded. Traffic is much worse.
This has left Americans with a drastic reduction in time and created large amounts of time pressure stress.
The major advantage of eating out is a massive reduction in stress related to food prep, particularly around time savings and mental energy expenditure.
Now eating out is not on average healthy, but not all meals that are prepared at home are either. When faced with equivalently unhealthy meals, dining out has the advantage of automatic portion control.
The REAL reason American's are broke is cost of living. Rent and housing costs have skyrocketed and wages have stagnated.
Coupled with a reduction in time and increased time-stress taking care of every day chores, health goes out the window.
In short, there is a direct correlation between health and wealth. Specifically, if one partner earns enough to support a relatively unstressed house mom/dad, the family unit is healthy.
Otherwise if an individual earns a large sum of money with sufficient few hours, they have compound time benefits in other aspects of their lives allow for health considerations.
>The REAL reason American's are broke is cost of living. Rent and housing costs have skyrocketed and wages have stagnated.
Inflation adjusted housing costs have not risen much over time [1].
If you don't account that housing now is vastly bigger than before you lose this fact.
Here's [2, Figure 5] a shorter timespan, showing that the ratio of income to housing payment has remained essentially flat 1985-2005.
Nothing in any of this data supports skyrocketing costs. If you're going to claim it's skyrocketed in small pockets, then yes, it has, but over that same window it's crashed in some pockets.
For those interested, average house sizes look like this over time [1].
Here is inflation adjusted housing price per square foot over time [2]. It is not much different for anytime in the past 100ish years as far as I can find from various datasets.
I agree with this assessment; in my family we try to eat in as much as possible but short about of time and the stress was becoming a big problem.
We recently started using one of those ingredient/recipe delivery services and it has drastically reduced the stress. The meals are quite good and my kitchen skills are improving quite a bit. The downside is the cost is greater than shopping for your own meals.
No kidding there, and more than once it has bitten me. Spend enough time eating restaurant meals, and a sane portion size soon seems way too small, unless you're disciplined enough to chop your portions in half and bring the rest home.
Pay-by-the-weight buffets (as opposed to all-you-can-eat) seem to offer me the best way to control portions and get a variety of healthy things to eat without the prep hassle, but it still costs a good deal more than it does for me to make my own meals.
Depends on their income and other commitments. If someone has a budget, it's presumably for a reason. If eating out is the #1 cause of breaking a budget, then it certainly can be the piece that sends them into other budget problems.
Median income in, for example, Detroit was $58,411 in 2017. Post-taxes that would be $45,484. $3300 is about 7.3% of that so, yeah, that's a pretty hefty bite.
Even assuming the median earner is paying the average for eating out (e.g. is a blue collar family of 4 in the Midwest spending the same proportional to income eating out as a childless professional couple on the coast? I'd wadger no.), you still need to compare that against the cost of groceries. So, it's more of an additional 3%-5% in reality, not a whole 7%.
This is only around 20-25% of the median discretionary income in the US i.e. money available for savings after all ordinary expenses. So while it can have a significant impact on savings rate, I would agree that it is misleading to state that this will make you "broke".
Being broke requires spending the other 75-80% of discretionary income too, and that is a much larger pool of money.
Speaking from this space, everyone I see on my end is paying higher rents but it is eating into their ability to save and forcing them to consume less. Wage increases exist but are coupled with moves to riskier companies.
I want to tack on this comment by adding that everyone seems to ignore the fact that QE is essentially just printing money.
Historically this is usually coupled with run-away inflation, however since it was isolated to the wealthy sectors of the economy (rather than the typical economy as a whole) there is only inflation among goods in that sector (housing etc). The big red flag is that stocks and VC are in that pool as well.
So while there was 20 trillion dollars of growth over the last 10 years, there was also 21 trillion dollars of debt generated.
The way I see it, QE successfully generated economic growth, however none of that economic growth was "real" growth. There were new innovations, particularly in the tech space, but a huge swath of them have no method to generate real sustainable profit.
All this means we should see a MASSIVE correction in markets. Due to financial rules, banks likely won't exit the market like 2008, but the massive number of companies that took out cheap debt will be at risk.
Basically we have a potential repeat of 2008, but swap out sub-prime homeowners with corporations.
> I want to tack on this comment by adding that everyone seems to ignore the fact that QE is essentially just printing money.
This is actually inherently necessary and the fact that the government hasn't been doing it more has been the cause of the debt crisis.
Money is created both by the government (directly) and by banks (whenever they make loans with less than 100% reserves, i.e. whenever they make loans). As the economy expands, the money supply needs to increase with the demand for currency to use for transactions, or there would be deflation (very bad).
When that money is created by banks, it necessarily leads to an increase in outstanding debt. And paying the debt back destroys the money that was created by borrowing it, so the only way to maintain the money supply at that level without the government creating any is for the amount of outstanding debt to never go down. Which, of course, means that it only goes up.
If you print unlimited money at some point it causes inflation, especially when people use it to buy stuff. But if, instead, they use it to pay down debt -- which is what happens when people have a high debt load -- all it does is replace the bank/debt money with the government money.
Which is actually really healthy, because it it gives people the few bucks back in interest-not-paid on the debt they no longer have. That has a much smaller immediate effect on prices (interest-not-paid per year is only a fraction of the principal paid down), but a very beneficial long-term effect because it leads to more wealth in the hands of people rather than lenders.
It also has immediate positive knock-on effects because with less debt, people are more financially stable. If you're leveraged to the hilt and an emergency comes up, no one will lend you anything more. You also pay lower interest rates if you can e.g. make a bigger down payment, which reduces the lender's risk (the asset is worth the whole loan amount even if it depreciates some), enhancing the positive outcome of people paying less in interest.
The US QE consisted of printing money in a moment of deflation (reducing of the money supply), so the country would experience something close to a monetary stability.
It did create inflation, and basically offset the natural tendency of the market. The fact that the money was inserted directly into the capital markets, instead of the consumer market probably caused a huge loss of efficiency on the deflation containing goal, a bubble at the capital markets and the requirement of collecting the money back once it starts flowing in a non-controlled fashion into the goods. All that probably caused some instability down the line, but the US seems to be dealing with it just fine.
This comment is spot on. We never actually "solved" the consumer crisis of 2008. We only solved the acute corporate crisis (money market funds breaking the buck, under-capitalized/insolvent investment banks, bond liquidity leading to a markdown death spiral.)
The problem we didn't solve IMHO is the massive housing bubble. To be fair, solving the housing bubble involves lots of winners and losers, so the government would rather kick this can down the road. Obama was able to keep kicking this can for 8yrs.
While there were pops in many places, the steady state price has become whatever a two-earner household can afford with massive debt living paycheck-to-paycheck on a 4% mortgage. That isnt sustainable and causes numerous problems:
- Everyone not already in "the game" loses (youngsters)
- Moving is difficult due to transaction costs (poor job mobility)
- Selling will be impossible (underwater) once rates go up
- Disposable income for spending is reduced, causing people to borrow further.
On the other side of the fence, low rates are horrible for pension funds, pensioners relying on fixed incomes, etc. Pension funds and asset managers with return expectations struggle and reach for riskier assets yielding more. (Tech, to some extent has been a winner here as one result of this has been diversification of pension assets into VC.)
All easing central bank monetary operations involve "printing money" in that sense. What's more, when you have central banks operating an inflation-targeting regime, the entire purpose of easing operations is to stimulate higher inflation. This wasn't new with QE.
Before QE, central banks mostly influenced the market via interest rate targets. If the "market" rate is higher than the "target" rate, that means printing money to buy debt in the market). (And before interest rate based policy, some central banks explicitly targeted money supply measures).
QE extended that from short rates (overnight secured) to long rates (long-dated government bonds at first, then other high quality collateral), because once short rates were near-zero all they could do was to target long rates (well, some central banks have experimented with negative rates but I think the jury's still out on whether that's really worth trying or not).
The thing is, that's not what people (at least used to) mean when they talk/talked about "printing money".
"Printing money" is normally shorthand for "printing money to give to the government to spend". This is generally viewed as "bad" because if government simply prints money to finance itself then it suffers none of the short term negative political or practical consequences of doing so via taxation. This means it also faces comparatively little pressure to spend efficiently, which results in serious misallocation of resources over time.
It is only a short step from QE to "printing money" in the "government spends it" sense though, and some central banks have gone at least some way down that path. If the central bank provides a significant bid into auctions of government bonds, either directly or because market participants know the central bank will immediately purchase bonds in the secondary market at a known, or fairly easy-to-guess price, then the government is really financing itself by selling to the central bank who is printing money.
It still has to pay interest, but it's no longer worried about being unable to raise the money, or the impact raising too much money will have on the rate of interest it pays.
But it can also absolve itself of responsibility for paying the interest bill, by giving the government a claim over the "profits" made by the central bank, including interest income on its government bond portfolio. So the government pays interest to itself on bonds it sold to the central bank. Some governments/central banks have done this.
That only leaves the government concerned about principal repayment, and the theoretical view that QE is temporary and will be wound down still constrains behaviour here.
As a separate point though, I don't think QE is the sole cause of the asset bubble we're arguably experiencing. I'd put much more blame on the ultra-low short rates of "conventional" policy personally. QE being withdrawn is much less of a problem than short rates going up for that.
> This is generally viewed as "bad" because if government simply prints money to finance itself then it suffers none of the short term negative political or practical consequences of doing so via taxation. This means it also faces comparatively little pressure to spend efficiently, which results in serious misallocation of resources over time.
If you proxy government for companies in this sentence I would argue that is what is happening now. A large number of companies borrowed as much money as they possibly could during QE because they viewed it as "free money" with the low interest rate.
The impact being "money is cheap" and a large number of ventures have been engaged in that do not have real value.
Ultimately the "price of money" is always going to have a counter-balance of inelastic goods aka raw assets. While I agree that QE is not the sole cause (low interest rates are also to blame), I do believe it has had a net negative impact, particularly by inflating the price of assets among those who had access to excess (often times QE involved) funds to acquire them.
Redhat ships with 389 directory server for several years already (former Netscape Directory) and when you install FreeIPA, you will get 389 by default. I don't think FreeIPA even works with OpenLDAP.
This may be related to having an older machine that doesn't support EFI boot.
To solve the problem:
1) Create a partition that is of type bios boot (I believe it needs to be 2K)
2) Create a regular boot partition /boot (I recommend ext4 or 3)
3) Create your other partitions per normal.
> This may be related to having an older machine that doesn't support EFI boot.
The machine is a Thinkpad from the last couple of years. It definitely supports UEFI. I'd think it would have to be a very old machine to not support it at this point, or am I misunderstanding something?
May I ask why you chose CentOS for a laptop? You mentioned this was your first Linux install, which makes me suspect you might do better with another Linux distribution. CentOS, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux from which it is derived, is usually used on server hardware and virtual machines. It certainly can be installed on a portable machine, but you will struggle more than you would with a distribution that is optimized for installation on diverse desktop/laptop hardware. You're already struggling with boot loader problems; you'll face display and wireless driver problems after that. There are easier ways to get a working Linux installation onto a laptop.
Good question. I'm aware there are distros with better laptop compatibility and more features, and that CentOS is a bit of an unconventional choice. Here is my reasoning, but I have very limited experienced with the nuts and bolts of Linux and I appreciate any feedback I can get:
I work professionally in IT and one reason I'm installing it is to better learn my way around Linux. RHEL is the most prominent distro in business so CentOS seems the place to start. There's no better way to learn than to keep burning my hand. :)
I did make sure I used a Thinkpad to maximize the chance of a successful, functional outcome with CentOS or any other distro or 'nix. AFAICT, Thinkpads are by far the most popular machines among the developers of the various 'nixes.
One advantage to CentOS, for me, is its stability. I don't want rapid upgrade cycles. I have no need for the latest and greatest; I'm not gaming; I don't even use Bluetooth. Vim and a web browser should work fine regardless of the distro.
Is it your first foray into Unix? If so, it brings joy and a little tear to my eye to see such a properly motivated new user.
Joy, as you hit all the right spots for being a good Unix user (Great Editor Holy War notwithstanding), and tear, well, because of systemd, intelligenti pauca.
Maybe one day something like OpenBSD will find its way onto your machine. It works great on ThinkPads and doesn't even support Bluetooth!
That's a really nice line of thought. I'm no linux wizard but I've used Fedora for a few years for my laptop so if you want to ever ask about something basic we can exchange contact info.
You believe the Senators are conspiring with Facebook to protect their profit margin?
Why do you believe this? What would you believe if the questioning was harmful to facebook? Would you believe that Senators are conspiring with Snapchat to target facebook?
>Of the 11 senators up for re-election this year who will be questioning Mr. Zuckerberg, nine of them have received campaign contributions from Facebook’s political action committee since the 2016 cycle
Throwing around some "call options on campaign support" be the best investment FB could make right now, to be honest (yes I'm jaded to the idea of an uncorrupted democracy).
2) The bone marrow donor had the extremely rare delta 32 mutation (which provides resistance to HIV)
Bone marrow donors are in high demand. The delta 32 mutation is extremely rare.
Assuming there were not limitations on delta 32 bone marrow donors, it is not ethically sound to intentionally induce leukemia and/or perform transplants when there are already tested treatment methods (Antiretroviral drugs/tenofovir) that make HIV a manageable disease.
you dont need to induce leukemia right? leukemia was the reason why the person needed a bone marrow transplant, but as far as I know it doesnt help in 'curing' HIV.
I believe the point was that HIV alone does not motivate a bone marrow transplant. There are people with more urgent need for transplants and not enough donations to serve that need.
It goes without saying that it's unethical to motivate a bone marrow transplant for a person with HIV by giving them leukemia. I assume then that it was said either as a joke or just for the sake of completeness.
HIV is notable for its ability to create "hidden reservoirs". Some recent cure attempts have been aimed at intentionally "kicking" the hidden reservoirs in order to flush them out. For this reason I mentioned inducing leukemia as it would replicate the circumstances of the Berlin Patient.
For additional follow up, there have been additional bone marrow transplant attempts in somewhat similar circumstances with bone marrow that did not contain the mutation.
Yes. Though an allogeneic (from another person) bone marrow transplant is a high risk procedure. Some will say up to a 30% treatment related mortality.
You can cure Sickle cell disease as well with a transplant. Generally it isn't done because the risks are not worth curing a disease which has good treatment options (in HIV) or is generally a disease which can be symptomatically controlled in most patients.
Well no shit. The point is to find the cause for curing him, not to convince others to approve of intentionally inducing leukemia in HIV patients to get them on the bone marrow transplant list.
The hope is that it's possible to determine _what_ cured him so it could be possibly synthesized or extracted by other means that would not place additional strain on any transplant lists..
1% of people have the mutation[1]. 25 million people are registered to donate bone marrow internationally[2].
That statistically represents 250,000 total cures available worldwide for the 36.7 million HIV sufferers[3]. Not taking into account the other ailments bone marrow transfers cure.
Getting a rail line between a major city (LA/San Jose/San Diego/SF etc) requires going through pretty serious mountain ranges. There is already rail line between them in their own geographical pockets (LA-San Diego, SF-San Jose-Oakland)