Unfortunately, universities have entrenched with Word documents that cannot format correctly on any FOSS solution, or even on the web version of M365 Word. I have tried, so many times, to request form compatibility at least with the web app. Not going to happen.
I have a Windows VM with Word installed, just so I can fill in stupid institutionalised forms :( Drives me nuts.
At the risk of getting in trouble for frequent self promotion, I sicked Claude for a few hours, and Office 365 works with Wine on Linux: https://github.com/Tombert/office365_flake
It seems to work fine for me, with a legit Office 365 account.
I can't promise it will fix your problems but it's the "real", full-fat Windows version of Office, so it might be a starting point if you want to avoid virtualization.
I understand your approach and applaud it. I have been doing two things that keep me doing the parts I love. Instead of pseudo code I write in a simple managed language like JavaScript or Python. My instructions to the agent is simple. Code gets no comments. It is intentionally brief and for me at least understandable. Second. I have a document for each code file that holds the an enumerated list of rules used to develop the file - The comments if you will but in a format I can deal with line by line, just like the code. This is substantially more rewarding for me as I change both the code and the document and limit terminal interactions to must-see/do stuff.
I am vegetarian, not vegan. I am so because it is something I can do about the state of animal welfare. I don't engage in discussions about my eating with people outside my immediate family. My immediate family are all omnivores. I sometimes, but rarely, choose to eat meat because it is served to me by someone who doesn't know my preference. Animal welfare remains my top priority and concern.
> The Big Mac Index is a price index published since 1986 by The Economist as an informal way of measuring the purchasing power parity (PPP) between two currencies and providing a test of the extent to which market exchange rates result in goods costing the same in different countries. It "seeks to make exchange-rate theory a bit more digestible."[1] The index compares the relative price worldwide to purchase the Big Mac, the flagship hamburger sold at McDonald's restaurants.
In recent years Japan has been cheap due to the weakness of the yen, which has been trending 160/1 USD. Just 10 years ago it was nearly twice as strong. When I visited a couple years ago (2 weeks in Tokyo/Osaka/Kyoto), everything seemed to be surprisingly cheap.
- Yes food, as well as alcohol, was quite cheap. Had very few meals that came out to more than $10, alcohol (about $3-4/drink) included.
- I purchased a couple pairs of running shoes that were about 30% cheaper than they were offered for sale in the US.
- I purchased an umbrella for $45 that sells in the US for $75.
- An all-access pass at their premier amusement park, Fuji-Q Highland, was only about $40 - when entry to comparable parks in the US can easily be twice as much.
- I recall the subway came out to around $1.50 a ride, roughly half what the NYC subway costs and the 1 and 3 day passes made it ridiculously cheap (IIRC something like $5/$10).
- I only used capsule hotels, but those were only $15 to up to $38 for a luxury one, almost all in desirable/touristy areas.
- I also took a look at apartments, and in decent areas in Tokyo you can find small apartments for about $1500 that would cost ~$3500 in Manhattan, or maybe $2000 in medium sized US city centers.
Is that in comparison to the US? Because US food was cheaper than dirt in the past before all the food processing conglomerates decided to leverage their dominant market position to increase margins.
If you want to pay a lot for food you still can. I imagine this is the case anywhere. If you care to look, you can find an amazing meal on the cheap. If you don't, you may end up paying a few bucks for a single apple.
Printing does not of its own cause inflation. In Japan it seems that efforts to inject money into the economy end up immediately stuck in low interest savings accounts.
Folks are not paid terribly high wages in Japan. I saw McDonalds "we're hiring" signs when I was eating there and I don't recall the wage but it was below 1000¥.
(That being said I tried to calculate the ratio of hourly wage to McChicken sandwich and Japanese workers came out with a better deal than Canadian ones)
"Evidence does not support the use of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of cancer, respiratory infections or rheumatoid arthritis. Similarly, evidence does not support vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis or for improving depression/mental well-being."
The thing that resonated the most with me was the idea that slow processors need to focus on strategic thinking. I am a 60 year old and now retired software developer. I keep myself busy by actively continuing to code every day. I definitely have experienced a slowing of thinking in the last ten years. I have read that this could be because I have more information to sift and sort but being honest with myself, the machinery is not as well tuned as it once was.
I am fine with all this. I love coding and I doubt I will ever stop doing it for pleasure. I have had to become more methodical and intentional with my time on the laptop but reflecting on this piece, being more strategic would be a wise thing for me to contemplate on.
Those policies, if they include means testing, need rational means testing.
For example, it can't be all or nothing. You shouldn't be kicked out/lose all support by getting a job or a raise. Assistance can be reduced, but it should be something like pulling back $.5 for every dollar earned over since level.
Whatever limit should also be index to inflation.
An example of how to do everything wrong is what we did with SSI and Medicare for people with disabilities. Means test set in the 70s, no inflation adjustment, and all or nothing.
This is functionally equivalent to voting to reduce the value of investor property portfolios. Building enough housing for everybody = building new supply = reducing the value of existing homes.
Since American political parties are utterly financially reliant upon donations from investors with property portfolios, you're rarely if ever able to vote against their interests as a group.
If the US were democratic like Finland rather than being an oligarchy then it might be possible, but at the moment, 60-70% of US voters craving single payer healthcare isn't enough to make that happen and that would only hit a specific group of investors. A finland style "housing for everybody program" is a political pipe dream given the damage it would do to donor portfolios.
The financialization of housing has been an unmitigated disaster and must be rolled back at all costs. The responsible individuals are unfortunately long dead and we will never be able to hold them to account - the next best thing we can do is to reverse it.
The currently in-vogue answer is "give them houses", but your answer is more attainable. When someone asks me for money I take it as a reminder to donate to organizations that help the homeless and near-homeless.
The best homeless shelters have programs targeted at helping people graduate into apartments. They have social workers and counselors that try to help people overcome addictions. They partner with charities that collect donated home goods and turn them into a "free store" so that when someone graduates into an apartment they are able to furnish it. This is how the shelters in my area operate, but many shelters do not have the resources to offer this many resources.
The best food banks do not question your level of need, but offer food and hygiene supplies to anyone who asks. If someone owns a car and home but has run across hard times, these no-questions-asked resources help them make do without losing their car or their home.
Giving to homeless shelters and food banks helps us to have better homeless shelters and food banks. Shelters that have more resources are able to offer more to those in need, including helping people graduate to stable living conditions.
It's also just institutionalizing homelessness rather than trying to address the cause of the problem: refusing to give (or subsidize sufficiently) people who need houses.
> The best homeless shelters have programs targeted at helping people graduate into apartments.
The capacity and cost of this is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the problem with homelessness we face today. It's nice, it's good that there are some resources available, but it's not going to lessen the overall problem of homelessness.
I don't believe that is the root cause of homelessness. Rather, the root cause is actually lower-level and is a fundamental flaw of capitalism.
For all of time, there will always be a subset of people unable to work. Homeless people aren't just homeless, they're jobless, many permanently so. Due to mental illness, disabilities, drugs, etc.
Ultimately giving these people houses does not solve the problem, because they will still be very unsuccessful in a capitalist system. You need a job to survive. What happens if you don't have work?
We don't have a solution for this. Typically, we do bandaids. Retirement funds for those who can't work, medicare, social security. That helps a bit for those people who did work but no longer can.
SOME homeless people can be "trained" to be ideal capitalistic laborers. Most can't, and never will be, because of physical limitations of their person. We don't know what to do with them. Previously, we just institutionalized them. Disqualified them from society. That was awful, so now we let them participate. But they fail, and always will fail.
Ultimately, there is no way around it regardless of the solution you choose. There will always be a subset of people that cannot work and will never work.
If I give to a charity, I get a tax deduction. If I give directly to a homeless person, I don't.
Let's say my marginal tax rate is 50%. That means I could give $10 to a homeless person, or $20 to a homeless shelter, both costing me the same amount.
If someone has highly appreciated stock that is going to be sold, can donate it (e.g. through a DAF), and has the highest possible marginal tax rate in California, that person has the choice to donate $10 to a homeless person or ~$80 to a homeless shelter, both costing the same amount.
I'd believe that people were serious about this if every time they said "well, they'll just spend it on booze" then also went home and donated an equivalent amount to such programs.
I think the author agrees but is dismayed that these organizations don't "solve" homelessness. I'll offer the suggestion that it might be _even better_ to donate that money towards somehow providing housing.
I don't mean temporary shelter. But I agree there is a subset of the homeless population that have more problems than just homelessness. It may be impossible to solve their homelessness without solving other problems first.
Many homeless shelters are worse than sleeping rough because the security situation is so dire. At worst you can be locked in (yes, some lock you in for the night) with violent and rapey men but an averagely bad night might still mean having your phone stolen.
Too add further stress to overwhelming anxiety, many people who work in homeless shelters are also, unfortunately, narcissistic bullies on a power trip.
Nobody gives a fuck about the security situation of homeless people though and their reluctance to use shelters is usually chalked up to them being drug addicts unwilling to deal with the no drug mandates.
reply