My experience around universities (as an academic) is that, generally, the number of adjuncts scales linearly with overall funding/skill at grantsmanship in the department. That is, the smaller universities I know saddled professors and their graduate students with substantially more non-research work, including teaching and administration.

My impression of DBT compared to CBT, based on what my friends told me, is that DBT is much more confrontational. I remember one friend even specifically said that it took her a long time to "unlearn" the therapist's natural response to affirm and validate, but then redirect negative feelings with skills.

Technical subjects achieve this with labs, too. It doesn't scale but we see clearly that scaling isn't always very desirable, especially if it leads to this regression.

The tl;dr with Ancient Greek as I understand it (warning) is that dramatically less content was written and over a much larger time period. Homer's works are even described as their own (Homeric) and as such it makes "Ancient Greek" a more nebulous term than "Latin," even when you account for Old/Classical/Late branches. In turn, making it in my estimation harder to have a Fr. Foster equivalent.

Look into it and let me know.

Like you said, the giveaway is the poor performance, but if you're a systems developer that usually isn't a problem anyway. Emacs, C, assembly, some Chisel and Forth are all that I write on it.

One thing that would be very useful is to color the segments on the map based on the waytype. The proportions are given in the summary but unless I already know the route I can't tell where exactly those segments of difficult cobblestone are.

Remote: Willing/preferred currently

Willing to relocate: Yes

Resume/CV: Send me an email

Email: gorgonical at fastmail.com

Techologies: C/C++, ARM assembly, RISC-V assembly, D

I'm currently a PhD student working on my dissertation in trusted computing. I have published papers in high-performance computing, virtualization, and trusted computing, with a focus on operating systems and system software. I have written hypervisors for Intel x86, developed OS kernels for ARM and RISC-V at national labs, and written hardware drivers for our research kernels as well as Linux. Our research focuses on multi-kernel contexts and the advantages that pairing an alternative kernel with Linux can get us. Right now I'm working on my dissertation but am eager to pursue opportunities that would occur in the spring.

However, the greater point is that although nuclear power is dangerous by default because of the waste and risks of meltdowns it can be made very safe with engineering and still be a cheap generation method. By all accounts I'm familiar with fossil fuels cannot be made safe for either the environment or people while still being cost-effective.

A major issue in the nuclear vs fossil fuels argument is perceived vs actual risk. I don't have the numbers, but even though Fukushima was a huge disaster, the death toll is officially 1. But the cleanup has been very expensive and very visible. Meanwhile, coal/gas/oil plants deflect the equivalent costs of their cleanup onto workers and people in the communities in increased mortality and healthcare costs.

More succinctly, nuclear can be safe with effort, but fossil fuels seemingly can't be safe, no matter how much effort.