I would love to do something like this but simply cannot afford it. I think it is good advice but going back to school for a degree one does not plan on utilizing is not as feasible today as it was in the 80's, largely due to the sizeable increase in tuition without reciprocal increases in wages.
In this day and age, you can do this for FREE and on the side, whenever you have time!
There are tons of very well-done professional level video courses on Youtube.
There are more organized courses that only ask you for money for the "extras", like some tests and a certificate, but the main parts, texts and videos, are free.
You could start with a really good teaching professor (Eric Lander, MIT) and his course: https://www.edx.org/learn/biology/massachusetts-institute-of... (the "Audit" track is free, ignore the prices; also ignore the "expires" - this course restarts every few months and has been available in new versions for many years now)
It's very engaging!
There's similar courses for everything in the life sciences, there on edX, on Youtube, many other places.
I feel the true Internet is soooo underutilized by most people! Forget news sites, opinion blogs, or social media. Knowledge is there for the taking, free. Only the organized stuff, where you end up with a certificate costs money, but they usually still provide the actual content for free.
Time and energy are also at a premium in the current economy. Good luck learning biochemistry by watching YouTube videos after 8+h of coding and meetings plus commute plus making dinner plus cleaning up.
Depending on where you live, and what you want to study, you might be able to take a couple courses at the community college in areas of interest without spending a lot of money.
I was paid to get a PhD in Biology, albeit just enough to live on. Most people in PhD programs are, either through being a TA (teacher's assistant) or RA (research assistant). The real financial cost is the opportunity cost of 5-6 years of your life.
Whether or not broad support for training scientists holds up during and after the current administration remains to be seen.
My current tuition is under 500 CAD per class. The opportunity cost of not working full time is the real bulk of the cost of studying in places that have a functional government.
A lot of companies will pay for at least part of whatever college classes you take, without auditing whether or not it would be good for your specific job.
I encourage people to look into it, it's a benefit a lot of people have but don't use and it's leaving money on the table.
I had a job with an education budget listed as benefits.
However, to use it there are constraints:
1. The topic should be related to technologies used by company. Cannot get a Google cloud certification as they are using aws.
2. To get it you need approval by line manager, hr, and director of the office.
3. If it is more than €250 you need to sign up loyalty agreement for a year. Meaning if you will return some amount of you quit.
With all that strings attached it is just a marketing bullshit to attract new hires.
Plus usually the employer wants it to be related to ones job, from their very limited perspective of the world and management decisions. For example I couldn't even take a language course for education vacation, as the employer did not make any use of my language skills.
Can you say more? What kind of company would so such a thing? Maybe I live in a bubble but that's so far outside of what I've seen that it just sounds fantastical.
Ok, both of these comments made me doubt my memory so I just checked and my current employer, a very large consumer company, and the limits of the program are that you get a C or above, and the class is "related" to your job or any job you can get at the company. But I've gotten classes paid for that only tangentially related to my job with no problem. So I concede that you might not get a biology degree as an engineer but my particular company does a lot of different things so my guess is in practice you'd have no problems. I also worked at a now-defunct mid-size startup and a hospital system with similarly loose requirements but I don't have access to their docs anymore.
My company uses guildeducation.com and we can use basically $5k a year (I think, it might be semester), a lot of if it is just individual classes, but there are also some degree programs. I don't know if they preselect which courses are available to us or if we have access to the whole catalog. I suspect it's somewhat curated, because we are a medical company and most of it is medical stuff. There is a CS bachelor's program but last I checked there wasn't an MS CS program.
I would assume most companies with 100+ office workers (essentially big enough for an HR department) usually offer something like this in western countries.
Why would you resign? You could have reported it yourself and then you would have whistleblower protections - if the company retaliated against you (e.g. fired you), you then would have had a strong lawsuit.
Because I don't want to be associated with companies that break the law and violate regulations knowingly.
I've long had a reputation of integrity, and it's one of the few things I have left having almost nothing else.
So you would rather be known as someone who had an opportunity to report a violation, and chose not to? From my perspective it seem like you decided against acting with integrity in this situation - the moral thing would have been to report the violation, but you chose to look the other way and resign.
> it seem like you decided against acting with integrity in this situation ... you chose to look the other way and resign.
I agree with this statement.
This isn't a judgement, we all have to make choices; the "right" choice (the one that aligns with integrity) is usually the one that will be the least self-serving and even temporarily harmful. They did what was right for them, that's okay, but it was not the choice of integrity.
Because that is the choice they made for themselves.
How it plays out after is another matter entirely. But the choice was what they seemed to think was right, for them, at the time. Thus it was the right choice for them. It doesn't mean it was the right choice in terms of integrity, or the right choice for me, or you or anyone whose data got caught up in it. Nor was it right choice in receiving a paycheck the next week.
But the way it was explained, it doesn't seem like they went out of their way to pick a "wrong" choice, specifically. They picked what they felt was the right one, for them, at that time. There were less ethical options to choose as well, and those were not picked either.
You appear to be talking about the external consequences of choices, while I am talking about them making a choice based on what they believed was the inner rightness of their choice. They did not want to be associated with a company like that, so they made the choice to not be -- because it aligned with their inner knowing of not wanting to be a part of that company. The right or wrongness in terms of external consequences is not what makes the choice, right or wrong -- for them
But they left the vast majority of the morality on the table. They even talked to a lawyer to avoid reporting. So in the sense of making the choice that aligns with inner rightness and makes them moral, they still made a bad choice.
> making the choice that aligns with inner rightness
Again, I am talking about -- them -- not anyone one else or what anyone else thinks of it outside of them. I am not talking about "inner rightness" in general, I am talking "what they believed was the inner rightness of their choice" -- Their inner rightness. You seem to be talking about what -- you and/or others -- may believe from an outside perspective. My outside perspective is they made the choice that did not align with integrity. But that does not mean that was not the right choice for them.
And again, they made the right choice, for them -- at that time. How that plays out after is neither here nor there and in your labeling it a "bad" choice for them is akin to saying that they have no real agency over their choices, and we outside of them are the final say in what is good or bad for that person.
Again, I am talking about things internal to that specific person just as much as you are. Not external anything.
You are trying to focus on what they believed in that moment, but I see no reason to use that in an analysis of whether their actions fit their own morals. Sometimes people make mistakes even by their own rules. If we only care about what someone thought right in the heat of the moment, that category of mistake would be impossible, and it's not impossible. Saying that mistakes are possible is not overriding agency.
The core of it is in this line "the choice was what they seemed to think was right, for them, at the time. Thus it was the right choice for them". I don't agree with that logic at all. Humans are not good enough at following their own motivations and principles. They are impulsive and bad at analysis. You can't assume that their choices will always be consistent with their personal parameters of right and wrong.
Also, saying I think someone made a mistake is not denying agency. Don't be so melodramatic. Nowhere am I claiming to have the final say. I merely have the right to an opinion.
I was never talking about if they made a mistake or not. That is after the fact and outside the scope of what I have been saying. I know it matters, but that is not within the scope of my first comment that started this.
I took the little information they gave and from that the only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop.
You’re the one bringing the extra opinions into the matter and reading into a simple thing far too much. Most of the above I agree with you on outside of this particular thread. It has nothing to do with the very narrow scope of my original comment and attempted clarification.
Neither of us can know 100% what was right or wrong for them in that moment, but based on the information of A. no longer feeling right about being associated with a place for reasons that they deemed important enough to come to this conclusion — and B. aligning actions with that inner knowledge; makes it the right action (choice) for that person. If they changed their mind later, it does not change the immutable facts of that moment. It simply provides a new set of choices and options that is outside the scope of my original comment.
> I was never talking about if they made a mistake or not. That is after the fact and outside the scope of what I have been saying. I know it matters, but that is not within the scope of my first comment that started this.
When I say mistake here, I specifically mean "mistake as far as their goal of making the right choice". And I mean that in the moment, using knowledge they have at that time, just like you're defining "right choice". Nothing after the fact nor outside the scope.
> I took the little information they gave and from that the only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop.
I don't see how they gave enough information to be sure, but more importantly you seemed to make a generic statement that anyone making a choice like that would be making the right choice, and that's what I really object to.
> You’re the one bringing the extra opinions
I am not! Please stop misreading me! Why won't you listen to what I'm saying about my own argument?
> Neither of us can know 100% what was right or wrong for them in that moment,
Please explain how "neither of us can know 100%" can be true at the same time as "only true logical conclusion was they made the right choice for them at that moment. Full Stop."
> A, B
Remember that not reporting the company was also part of the choice they made. The basic description of the choice was to report, quit, both, or neither, and they chose to quit.
> If they changed their mind later, it does not change the immutable facts of that moment. It simply provides a new set of choices and options that is outside the scope of my original comment.
I'm not talking about whether someone might change their mind later with new information, per se. I'm making the objectively true claim that people don't always think things through, meaning their choice might fail to represent the knowledge and priorities they had at the time.
Since this thread seems interested, I will reveal the main issue being that based on my analysis, reporting to PCI and the state AG would have absolutely destroyed this (very) small business and the businessowner, someone who helped me in a very rough time, and thus I felt both options were bad/wrong, but resigning without whistleblowing was the better of the two options. I appreciate the analysis and really hope I made the right choice, and if I change my mind, I can still whistleblow on this, which has been a solace in the struggle in this decision.
Many fast food wrappers/containers contained PFAS until very recently [0]. Putting hot food out of a fryer into those containers would leech some of the PFAS into the food.
Yeah right, no doubt true. But similarly I'd imagine it'd be also true for many household kitchen containers that are made of plastic.
I know some HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) containers have been found to contain PFAS, so it would be safe to assume those that are still in use in my kitchen also contain them but I've no simple way of telling for sure. But it's safe to assume the worst.
Also I use lots of large HDPE storage boxes to store everything from old papers and documents to tools and I've a long-term complaint about them in that they sweat their plasticizers and that has practical implications as it shortens their useful life.
Whenever a year or two later I rummage around looking something stored in the boxss I notice that they've developed a sort of greasy film on them like one would expect to find had they'd been stored in a kitchen where one does lots of frying.
So unless they're stored in a clean pristine place—which is impractical where I live—they'll collect dust that simply cannot be just brushed off as the dust mixes with the oil-like plasticizer. So every now and then I'll clean them by spraying them with a household cleaner that's a soapy surfactant then rinse them. I'm unaware exactly what plasticizers are used and or whether they contain significant amounts of PFAS.
However, over time, as the plasticizers leach out, the polyethylene goes a slight yellowish color and becomes very brittle, and it's commonplace for me to replace them. When old, they'll easily break open if stacked too high or if accidentally dropped.
To put it bluntly, I'm damn sick of having to clean and replace them all too frequently. The old ones end up wherever trash collectiors dump them (even if I put them with plastic recycling I've heard they're still likely to end up in landfill where they'll continue to leach plasticizer, FFAS etc. not to mention fragment into nano plastic particles and spread into the environment).
There are much better more durable plastics available than polyethylene that are much less likely to leach, and if used to make boxes and similar stuff it would make them much more rugged and durable, they could then last indefinitely—50+ years or more.
Trouble is manufacturers don't want people to keep stuff indefinitely, they just want people to buy more.
I reckon this problem can only be fixed by legislation. The sooner the better.
I do exactly this but take it even one step further. My actual (primary) phone number is only ever given out to humans. I have a second Google Voice phone number that I give out to machines (e.g. online shopping that "requires" a phone number that will eventually be leaked).
This is why I use a numeric pager, digits handed out to both machines and humans.
I call back from an unlisted number. Few people have my actual phone #.
----
If people are persistant, I usually mention something to the effect of "you don't want my phone number in your device, I know some weird people."
----
The first time I used Venmo, was also my last — the "feature" which show you every person who has your phone number in their phonebook was a bit too weird [the idea of public payments also strange].
My interpretation is that he provided enough evidence to the RCMP that convinced them to stay the case, since they likely thought the evidence they had to convict Barker was weak. This lead to him not having a chance in court to clear his name.
Had he not spoken to the police at all, and instead waited to present his evidence in court, he likely would have been found not guilty and therefore would have cleared his name.
Him talking to police worsened the situation because they are not the ones who evaluate the evidence and make a conviction decision (judges/juries do that). The job of the police is to collect evidence, and Barker did that for them (to his detriment).
> Their cost structure nickel and dimes the consumer so much that by the time you get to the destination you may have paid more for a much less comfortable trip
That lends more credence to the comparison against Dollar General and similar discount stores. Dollar stores generally charge a higher price relative to quantity, but they offer smaller quantities than big box stores which allows their customers to spend less (but also get a lot less). Wendover on YouTube did a video on this recently [0].
Does anyone know if this enzyme is present in B vitamins or produced by the gut biome due to excessive intake of B vitamins (B-2 and B-12 specifically)? In my experience, an excess of B vitamins causes the urine to turn yellow (independent of hydration level) and was curious if this enzyme plays into that at all.
Riboflavin (B2) is a bright yellow and fluorescent under UV light. B12 is red and aiui it takes a LOT of B12 to turn urine red. This happens because both are water-soluble.
