A USATF certified coach, probably focusing on distance running with one-on-one training for adults. There are apps with algorithms that create personalized training programs for things like marathons and 1/2s but they aren't there yet. Plus, nothing is like in person human interaction for on the fly adjustments to training and for motivation.
Somehow get into climate science. I almost went to school for meteorology in the early 00s but on a tour of a college atmospheric sciences department when I was 17 an old professor told me it was a hard career to get into with very limited job prospects. :(
It is kind of, and unfortunately it doesn't give a lot of background. For the past few years there have been a few studies suggesting that distance running (say anything past a 1/2 marathon) might actually be harmful for ones heart. As I runner I'm personally glad to have more reporting on this issue.
So, the question of "is an alternative form of exercise, that has fewer damaging side effects, better?" is an important one to ask, and better would need to have a definition around it. However, answering that question wasn't the goal of this article.
Genetics has a huge role to play. Alberto Salazar had a heart attack at 48. Now, maybe running gave him a few years before his first incident as it sounds like he was already taking medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol.
The point being once you get into serious mileage like the 30+ miles per week, doing 15-20 mile training runs and racing 1/2 and full marathons its best to view them as personal performance goals vs health goals.
Also, as someone who has run long distance for about 10 years now, take it from me that rest is as important as the miles. Making sure you have rest build into your training plan and after your goal race. This will help you avoid burnout and injuries. Remember, all training really does is takes your body to a stressing point. Its the rest portion that allows your body to respond and adapt to the stress which in turn allows your body to perform at a higher level of performance.
There was a study a few years ago (posted below) that actually found running is fairly good for your joints as the stress encourages your body to build and repair cartilage.
If you are personally having joint issues and you want to continue to run I encourage you not to give up. Try different shoes, have your gait analyzed, even see a physical therapist who specializes in running. I obviously don't know if you are in this situation or if you have tried any of these things, but I know even a simple thing like changing the type of shoe you wear and a little rest can help resolve a lot of minor joint pain issues.
I'm just a software developer with a side interest in climate science so please excuse any ignorance on this topic. What I find troubling is it seems, from what I have read, our climate models currently have a poor handle on co2 and methane feedbacks, both positive and negative. For example there seems to be a general scientific consensus that NOx from industrial sources (mostly coal power plants) is having some cooling effect. When these are removed, which will happen slowly but steadily as coal is retired, there will be a warming response but it is not clear how much this response will be. Similarly, you have positive feedbacks coming into place like the decline of sea ice in the arctic, less forests and more combustion of those forests, and co2/methane releases from permafrost. These are other feedbacks are known but nothing I have read has convinced me we have a full scientific understanding of the impact that these feedbacks will have.
Thats why like others in this thread I feel rather hopeless about humanity ever getting global warming under control. We of course have the problem of humanity to continue putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere via our economic activity. This of course is co2 but also methane and HFCs. The challenge of bringing these down to safe levels while keeping not only the standard of living we enjoy currently in the west but also bringing billions more people into the middle class world wide is impossible with existing technology and incredibly hard with emerging technology. To get to a carbon neutral prosperous, middle class society for everyone on the planet will take many decades. If we ever get to that point I'm afraid feedbacks and built in system inertia will be so strong that the planet will keep on warming for 1,000s of years despite our best efforts.
TL;DR I think we as humans really screwed this up and I don't have much hope of us collectively being able to fix it.
I was able rent my apartment off of craigslist from a old school Brooklyn family. I think they did go through a broker but they also paid for the broker fees I believe. I didn't have to pay anything to a broker.
Is there some legal requirement in New York that rentals must go through a broker? I don't know any other city in the country that you probably will pay a broker fee to rent an apartment. It just seems like the real estate industry dipping their hands into the NYC rental market as a completely unnecessary middle man. I wonder if this is because of New York's history of being majority rentals which, until recently, was fairly unique in the US.
No, there is no legal requirement. Other big cities often have brokers. Boston, for example, has many brokers, despite being much smaller than NYC.
Brokers serve the owner, not the renter. While it may seem like the renter is paying the broker's fee, it's really the owner. Compare the rents of equivalent apartments, one with and one without a broker. You'll find that the one with a broker is "cheaper" by approximately the annualized broker's fee. [0]
[0] My own research, randomly sampling Craigslist postings in NYC.
These used to be popular in San Francisco even [1]
"Todd founded Rent Tech in 1995 using text pagers to alert clients of new listings. Clients would receive a pager after they signed up for the service, and when a new listing came on the market that fit into their specifications, Rent Tech would send them a page about it. Within two months, the two began to look at how to distribute rental listings on the web, which is where all the company's business now takes place. "
I'm not familiar but to hazard a guess, I know how hard finding an apartment in New York can be (a couple of friends living there presently). Outside of other notables (like SF), it doesn't seem as big an issue. In Austin the market is really hot right now, but finding an apartment is still very easy. We were using an agent (also house hunting) but she wasn't adding any value; that may not be the case somewhere like NY, especially if you're unfamiliar with the market there.
It will be very interesting to see how the below does in November in Colorado. If this passes and is successful it could act as a catalyst for other states to try the same. Like many progressive issues before it (Same-sex marriage, weed legalization etc) single payer universal healthcare in the US might go through the states first. The insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital industries know this and are working hard to see it defeated.
Exactly. Police in other western countries are able to enforce minor infractions without killing or injuring the suspect. One can have the discussion (and should!) if these laws make sense or not, but if they are going to be enforced cops shouldn't be judge/jury/executioner. This seems to be a very American problem.
They're not acting as judge/jury/executioner, they're defending their lives. We can argue about the tiny percent of such cases where there's controversy as to whether force was used properly, but your sweeping generalization is wrong and totally unfair to people who put themselves in harms way to protect you and me everyday.
BLM talking points are not facts and presenting them as such is irresponsible.
First, since America is awash with guns I would hope the law enforcement from the top down would be the number one supporters of sensible gun control. I'm sure its hard being a cop on the street not knowing who has a gun and who doesn't.
Second, it also comes down to a training issue. I would say that the response from law enforcement that Eric Garner and Tamir Rice met was no way appropriate to the threat that they posed to law enforcement or society, perceived or otherwise. I would hope we can at least all agree that these two citizens should be alive today.
The two videos linked below are an interesting and disturbing contrast. The top one is UK police responding to a man with a knife at a Tube station. The second one is American police responding to an unarmed bank robber in Miami.
Loggers, pilots, taxi drivers, refuse collectors, athletes/coaches/umpires all have rates of mortality that are higher than that of a police officer. Millions of jobs put workers at more than double the risk or even two orders of magnitude more risk than that of an officer.
For example, in 2011 and in California, the rate of mortality was 4.9 per 100k. The national average that year for all occupations was 3.5 per 100k.
I'm sorry but you're mistaken. 60 police officers have been killed this year already, and we're only halfway through. For many tragic reasons, the crime rate is disproportionately high in the black community, including the killing of police officers. This means that unfortunately, police have to resort to lethal force more often when confronting black people than other groups. (But don't forget that, in absolute numbers, more white people are killed by police than black people). When police officers have their life threatened, they are totally justified in using legal force.
Reaching for your gun while you're resisting arrest is ample justification for the police to shoot you.
Where there's mistakes, they should be investigated. If the evidence shows that police acted unlawfully, then they should be charged with crimes. But painting these broad strokes is dishonest and divisive. It's given rise to the false myth that police are hunting down black men en masse.
This myth has consequences. If I believed that police were hunting me and my family down due to the color of my skin, I might take some drastic actions too, and feel justified in them. But it's not true for me and it's not true for black people in America either. The vast majority of police officers who have to use deadly force in the line of duty act lawfully in defense of their lives or the lives of others.
No one argues that police are racist against whites because Asians are much less likely to be killed by cops.
Police unfortunately don't get to decide what laws to enforce. If the government decides to ban selling loose cigarettes, then police have a duty to the people to defend the laws that our democracy produces. Police are not elected legislators.
Every law ultimately rests on the police arresting you for not complying, at some point. Otherwise, the law is meaningless.
It turns out that people don't like having their freedom taken away and often fight back against the police. It's a very dangerous job.
Well it isn't as black and white as you're painting it. It is correct that sometimes law enforcement are obliged to enforce laws they as a group or as individuals do not agree with. On the other hand law enforcement are not obliged to enforce all laws all the time at any cost.
The legal principle of proportionality states that law enforcement always have to consider whether their actions are reasonable in comparison to the violation of laws.
There is also a general concept related to proportionality that basically states that law enforcement actions must be strictly necessary or required in the given situation. Especially when the means of enforcement includes physical violence.
In practice police can "turn a blind eye" - there are so many silly laws that if the police went around enforcing them all without interpretation they'd never be able to get anything done (kind of like a depth-first traversal). Generally speaking police have the freedom to pass over many misdemeanours unless they have been instructed not to.
Beautiful. Whenever I see images like this of "big things" in space I'm reminded how meaningless our short existence on this little rock is from a universal perspective. My big takeaway is always to try to find personal meaning in ones life. Either in work, or family, hobbies, etc.
It's taken 15 billion years since the big bang for our relatively complex atoms to form - from supernovae. Yes, we were generated in the core of stars. The entire superstructure of the universe is what allows us to exist in the first place.
http://www.usatf.org/Resources-for---/Coaches/Coaching-Educa...
OR
Somehow get into climate science. I almost went to school for meteorology in the early 00s but on a tour of a college atmospheric sciences department when I was 17 an old professor told me it was a hard career to get into with very limited job prospects. :(