md5/sha1 is useful because they're still used in UUID (rfc 4122) generation. obv not from a crypto standpoint but more from a unique (non-exploited) approach.
I do not recommend doing that. Instead, you may wish to either use the plain "urn:uuid:" format, or use a different URI scheme (such as "http") with your company's domain name. A company does not normally have only a single UUID; you can make up additional UUIDs as needed. (If you want to avoid collisions, you can use version 1 UUIDs.)
Byrne's has had an interesting life to say the least. I followed him years back when he was on a mission to fight naked short selling & steven cohen. What a trip. That said, if you've not read his speech about his fight with cancer, you owe it to yourself to do so. Probably one of the most inspiring things I've read to date. Tried to post in it's entirety but too long for the bots here so will just start with the intro (link follows).
Good evening, Heavy Hitters of the Pan-Massachusetts Challenge. I am deeply honored to speak to you this evening.
There is a Zen saying that happiness is planting a tree knowing that you will not be there to enjoy its shade. Tonight, I am thinking about the meaning of that saying in the context of cancer and cancer research that is supported by men and women such as yourselves.
Mr. Starr has asked me to speak to you about my own experience, my own struggle with cancer, a struggle which occupied the three years of my life immediately after college, as well as the three transcontinental bicycle rides which helped me to recover physically and mentally from my cancer ordeal. I do have a doctorate in philosophy from Stanford, which he mentioned, and he asked me to share with you all the philosophical and inspirational lessons I learned from these ordeals. I told him if I share all of the lessons, this is going to be a very short speech.
I should tell you that I've never spoken publicly about cancer, and only rarely privately, to a handful of friends. And to borrow a line from Oscar Wilde, I warn you that you would have to have a heart of stone to listen to the story of my struggle with cancer without laughing. I'll be laughing and you're welcome to join in at any occasion. Also, I should tell you that I've always declined requests to speak about cancer because I feel as though I’m boasting, “Hey look at me, I cheated death.” And in general that’s just a bad idea, because I think in the end, he will take the last round.
So with such caveats in place, per Billy's request, I will tell you my story of cancer, pausing to note such meager philosophical and inspirational lessons as I may.
Hopefully I'm not the only one that thinks that prices for iphones are insane. I use a handful of apps (yelp, maps, mail, news, music, and (occasionally) browser) which are readily available on all phones. Paying $300 for my moto vs 700-1000 for an iphone is a no brainer..
Well, if you don't mind uploading your private live to the Google cloud, Lenovo, and whoever else paid enough to get stuff shipped on a Lenovo phone.
For most people who do not want to spend much money on a phone, I just recommend them to buy an iPhone 6s or perhaps 7. You get most of the privacy benefits of an iPhone, for an affordable price. And even though it is an older model, it will probably get updated longer than most new Android phones at the $300 price point.
had my first impossible burger this weekend. the patty itself was like 6oz and cost $15 just for the burger (no fries). i'm in NYC and even this is a bit high for the area. it was also sitting on a large bun topped with lettuce/tomorrow. the patty was overwhelmed. I thought it tasted just ok and would give it a C. The whopper patty tastes better IMO.
In addition to the other people who commented, I'll add that, like beef, impossible burger will vary based on the cook. So things like seasoning and level of doneness have a big impact. I'm a big hamburger fan, and I had a well seasoned, medium rare impossible burger and thought the flavor was great. Texture was different, but not bad. Anyway, I'd also recommend giving it another try.
You likely had the impossible 1.0, which is supposed to be inferior. I've had the 1.0, and it was decent. The 2.0 is very hard to find, even in California, but easy to find the 1.0.
yup, in LA there's monty's ( https://montysgoodburger.com/ ). it's similarly priced ($16, i think), but that's too much for a mediocre burger. to be fair, it usually has a line. but for that price, it really needs to be comparable to father's office or plan check, which are both delicious.
Whopper patties IMHO are the worst fast food burger patties. Sometimes they're over-microwaved and on the border of inedible. I can't imagine an impossible burger tasting worse.
They do get flame grilled initially, after being pulled from the freezer, but then they sit in a heated drawer for an amount of time. The only reheating they get is a quick microwaving for maybe 5-10 seconds, and then they're off on their way. (This is all unless you ask for it fresh, in which case you'll wait for 2-3 minutes while you get a fresh patty.)
In addition, the people working in the kitchen are supposed to toss any extra patties out after x hours, provided they don't just press the ignore button when the timer goes off and do nothing, which is what I saw 99% of the time when I did this job like, 15 years ago.
So if you come at an odd hour, you may be getting a particularly old patty. Granted, things may have changed in a decade and a half and I worked in a very low profit store in a rural area, so my experience may be much different.
I think it's somewhat insidious in that it forces a confrontation between workers and customers and the benefit goes to the owners. it also gives the impression that the product (lets say food) is 20% less than what is printed. yes I u/d tipping is optional, but it is more or less expected (at least in nyc) and you can be ostracized if you don't participate.
This should not fall to the patrons. This is the problem of the business model. Remove tipping as an option, price the meals, and pay the employees a wage.
who are you advocating for here? if you're actually concerned for the servers, you might consider asking some of them for their opinion on tipping. most servers that I've talked to (including myself) actually like the system.
I'm not the OP, but I'd advocate changing the minimum wage law to be the same for waiting staff as it is for every other job. You can still allow tipping. Here in the UK a 10% tip is customary if you were happy with the service, and I know plenty of people who do very well out of tips.
Some make good money and like it. Some would rather have more consistent pay and less emotional labor. Some think it's good for them but unfair to the back of the house. Some have seen it facilitate wage theft and hate it.
over a single pay period, servers are guaranteed minimum hourly wage regardless of tips. if minimum wage is less than a living wage, that's a separate issue that applies just as well to gas station cashiers.
I hope this doesn't come across as me trying to justify what happened but can anyone be explicitly about what laws were broken and who should have gone to jail? I know there was a bunch of outrage but want to cut through all that and get at exactly the issue.
A lot of lower level mortgage brokers clearly committed fraud in the applications they processed. There may be some criminal or civil negligence by middle management by ignoring the fraud in an attempt to meet quotas. Unfortunately, it's hard to pin much of anything on the higher level executives.
There was a time when fractional reserve banking [0] was considered simple fraud (it wasn't called "fractional reserve banking" at the time, it was "bankers using for personal gain assets that were owned by another and stored for safe keeping at their bank.")
So, as banking gets complex, the laws get complex. Once we decide fraudulent (fractional reserve) banking is legal, most of the rest can be whitewashed with enough handwaving.
I know the assertion that fractional reserve banking == fraud is extremely contentions, and most disagree with me. Feel free to explain why you disagree!
It's pretty obvious, actually. If you tell people you're doing it, and they still choose to give you money in exchange for the good or service you're actually performing, it cannot possibly be fraud.
Banks are very up-front about the fact that they're doing fractional reserve banking. You set up accounts in full knowledge of the fact that some of your deposit will be used for investments and that - if too many people try to withdraw the full value of their account at once - the bank may run out of reserves and you will be unable to withdraw.
Even an outright Ponzi scheme wouldn't be fraud in any moral sense if it specifically and openly said you would be investing in a Ponzi scheme and that any returns entirely depended on the extremely unlikely gamble that you would be among the first, rather than last, people to invest. (In fact, there are quite a lot of Ponzi schemes like this in cryptocurrency; at one point they made up a fairly significant proportion of all Ethereum transactions. They were treated - correctly, I think - as basically just a form of gambling for entertainment.)
And whatever your opinion of fractional reserve banking, even if you do think it's fraud you have to admit that it's clearly much less fraudulent than an outright Ponzi scheme.
I challenge the relevance of your point of view. Always bringing up federal reserve banking is not relevant.
World has changed and narrow money under fractional reserve is less relevant today. Crypto or gold coin can't change the system when the system does not run on narrow money. That's why federal banks have less control today than ever before.
Capital ratio requirements limit banking more than reserve requirements. Do you agree or disagree?
Swiss people had a change to quit fractional reserve banking few months ago using popular vote. When the facts were presented, many people were surprised to learn that only 20% of the money assets in Swiss banks were under fractional reserve banking system and only thing abandoning it would do is that normal people would have to have to keep more cash in their account. Massive financial industry in Switzerland is not running on narrow money.
Financial crises don't start with narrow money. There are more and more assets that are almost as liquid as money under normal circumstances[1] but they are not money. Within just few hours you can turn them into cash [1].
----
[1]: Normally very money-like liquid assets separate from broad and narrow only during crisis. Other asset types stop being liquid but central banks provide money so that shops can stack their shelves and people can buy food and gas and not to loot to survive.
You seem to be defining fractional reserve banking to be fraudulent (in your second paragraph). That's not a useful perspective for trying to get real answers to your questions.
When banking was "I'll store your money for you in a safe place for a small fee", fractional reserve banking was fraud, because it was not doing what you told people you were doing, and in a way that could cost them their money. Once fractional reserve banking became the normal way banks operated (that is, became both legal and expected), it's no longer fraud. It may still be immoral and/or unwise, but it's not fraud.
Now, there was plenty of fraud in the run-up to the 2008 crisis. ("Liar loans", anyone?) But that's distinct from fractional reserve banking itself being fraud.
By that logic anyone who gave out a loan should be thrown in jail. After all there was a time when charging interest of any kind was considered usury and was illegal. Once we decided that usury banking is legal, most of the rest can be whitewashed with enough handwaving.
