Readit Newshttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29371008/
https://reviewofmm.com/light-as-a-tool-for-myopia-control/
I can't find the site that I read a while ago, it was very similar to the myticker.com site that was posted the other day for heart disease but focused on myopia.
I also found this Guardian article from a Google search: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/01/shortsighted-t...
https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-soci...
> The program, called the Disability Case Processing System, or DCPS, was designed to improve case processing and enhance customer service. But six years and $288 million later the program has “delivered limited functionality and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns
For the main system they're still using COBOL, which has no Date data type, causing issues even in 2025.
I have a feeling you might enjoy that book as it goes into a LOT of detail about government dysfunction with respect to software.
I found the book eye opening and personally it provided me with some new perspective.
Imagine if the DMV and passport services had even the possibility of competition like a private company has. You bet all of a sudden the service would get much faster and better and with fewer mistakes and red tape with the same or fewer number of employees. Or someone would set up a competitor and imagine how many people would even pay extra just to not waste several hours of their time.
It's tax payer money so there is a lot more waste than even at big private companies. For example, the costs to just administer and operate the social security administration(not including any money paid out to recipients) is $15 billion dollars with a big B. There is no incentive for anyone to save the tax payer any money and there would be a huge pushback from govt contractors, unions and employeees. See how much hate DOGE gets for even proposing cuts or higher efficiencies.
Any large IT project in the government in almost any country and at any goverment costs huge amounts while not returning much value if any. Look at the state and costs of local metro stations and trains in almost any city.
For example, a quick Google search shows administrative overhead as around 0.5% of benefits: https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-...
Location: California
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: QuickBooks Online, Xero
Resume/CV: available upon request
Email: jananyoung (at the popular email service hosted by Google)
Notable experience: bookkeeper for Segment (YC S11) for 2 years (eventually helping them transition to an in-house team as they grew). Also worked with Stellar Development Foundation and Sense HQ.
We’re looking for an additional client. With an expected workload of ~1-2 hours a day, at ~$50 / hour.
We’re NOT looking for: she does not do taxes.
In the original RTO email they even pointed the importance of employee spending money in the surrounding restaurants to support the downtime economy as if I should feel personally invested in spending 30$/meal on an overpriced burger for lunch.
So I ordered canned soup, on Amazon, to be shipped to the office mailroom. Then picked up the soups and kept them in the drawer by my desk.
Here is what Wikipedia[0] says
> Due to the diffing results and the data being compressed with the same coding, SDCH dictionaries aged relatively quickly and compression density became quickly worse than with the usual non-dictionary compression such as GZip. This created extra effort in production to keep the dictionaries fresh and reduced its applicability. Modern dictionary coding such as Shared Brotli has a more effective solution for this that fixes the dictionary aging problem.
This new proposal uses Brotli.
I don't really understand the thesis outlined in the article. "Givers" and "takers" are defined like this, but it actually sounds like the two types of conversationalists are "actives" and "passives", where actives seek to move the conversation forward and passives let others move it forward. A giver-and-taker conversation where both participants are alternatingly active can work. The giver asks a question and the taker answers it but then adds something of their own that doesn't let the conversation grind to a halt.
Example:
A: Hey, have you heard about X? (giver, active)
B: Oh, I hate X. I think Y. (taker, active)
A: Woah, hang on. I'm not so sure about Y. (taker, active)
B: Oh, yeah? Do you think Z? (giver, active)
In my experience, the absolute worst conversations I've had were those where I felt I was the only one putting in any effort, trying to come up with topic after topic only to have them peter out in under a minute, followed by silence.
I also don't know that people are necessarily fixed in their roles, be as giver, taker, passive, or active. In fact, if I'd have to guess, an engaging conversation has the participants constantly switch roles with the flow, depending on how much they have to say on a given topic.
So I think a corollary from all this is that a conversation breaks down when an active participant switches to passive expecting the other to become active, when in fact the other person just wants to be passive, or when two passive people try to have a conversation, in which case nothing happens at all.
The classic advice is basically a caution against being a boring monologuer. And it has its merit. But this is an extra "level 2 conversationalist" lesson. It's the old: "OK remember those rules you learned in level 1? Here's when you can break them".
Th affordance analogy is that you want to give yourself and your conversation partner an abundance of options and opportunities for good conversation. Asking questions often is a way of doing that, but it's not the only way, and not all questions are equally helpful.