Kombucha has 1/10 the alcohol of a beer. So you would need to drink 40 12oz kombuchas in an hour to be intoxicated (moderate alcohol use). That’s almost 4 gallons and really not practical a single time, much less daily like what contributes to colon cancer risk.

I suspect you’re being downvoted because your comment is low value, wrong, and doesn’t need to be seen. For specific feedback, I think you can think critically about whether the level of alcohol applies to the advice you give.

It’s the dose that makes toxicity. Working to eliminate completely things that don’t matter reflect a wrong understanding of nature.

[0] https://www.no1living.com/blogs/blog/is-kombucha-alcoholic

Every nutritive food we intake, including the gaseous and reactive molecular oxygen, is reactive and damaging. Some are worse than others, but we can control what we consume.

In time, our view of many of the things we do - breathing dirty air, consuming too much alcohol, maintaining an unhealthy gut microbiomes, etc., will inform new habits.

We don't know what the lower bound of safe alcohol consumption is. Modest consumption probably increases risks, but it may be negligible against the background noise of everything else we bump into. The effects will also sum with any other bad habits an individual may have. Population studies are messy, but we do know the biochemistry.

I only had an undergraduate biochem + general chemistry degree, so I'm not "credentialed" in this space. I continue to read the literature regularly, though, because it interests me deeply. I do worry about alcohol consumption's effects on my health, even though I continue to drink kombucha and have a cocktail every now and again. It still wears on me.

We're all killing ourselves slowly through eating, breathing, and metabolizing. You can worry about it, you can disregard it, you can make small changes, etc. We're all dying, though.

You’re right, but we have studies that show the levels that show harm. It’s possible that the alcohol in kombucha could harm us, but there’s no evidence. So it doesn’t affect our lives. The FDA doesn’t even consider it an alcoholic drink since it has less than 1.2%BAC. I don’t trust the government completely, but I think if there was any harm in the alcohol in kombucha (or bananas) we would know about it.

Again, you’d have to drink 4 gallons of it to get a buzz so even a baby’s liver can metabolize the alcohol in kombucha without causing concern for anyone.

a 1.5 fold increase of risk is not necessarily significant if the baseline risk is low, but notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that actually moderate consumption of alcohol poses much of a risk.

Edit: Not that anyone cares, but I guess I'll say a bit more: I don't know what brand of kombucha OP drinks, or how much of it, and how many grams of alcohol that sums up to, and what the current body of research says (or doesn't) regarding the precise amount of risk incurred or not from that amount of alcohol ... but the fact is, there's extensive research on the association between alcohol and cancer and I stand by the suggestions that someone dealing with recurrent colon cancer should be cautious about alcohol consumption, and that it could be worth reviewing existing research on the matter.

You need evidence, or at least some logical basis, to make a claim or believe such a thing.

You can review the literature to find something. Typically is a paper is publishing about moderate levels causing an effect they will cite or be cited by other studies showing effects from other levels.

There are many things in nature that are harmless at some level and become harmful at another level. And there’s no negative effect whatsoever from the appropriate level.

What sort of cardio activity would you recommend for these short intervals?

fta: "The national average salary for this role is $144,752 and job listings for these roles have grown 278% over the past year."

degrees are for getting the HR recruiter person to like your resume enough that they pass it on to the hiring manager. period. that's it. 1 bachelors, 1 masters, you're done.

the only possible argument for another masters is if you plan to do it at at a place like MIT or Stanford, which is a strong signal on a resume.

edit: and/or, you likely plan to remove your first master's from your resume upon completion of the second (in which case you really value the education the second master's would give you). that said, i cannot speak to visa-related issues so my comments might not apply in such cases.

for banks/hedge funds/etc roles, look at the book "Capital Markets for Quantitative Professionals" to get up to speed on background knowledge.

Most "tech leads" where I work are senior engineers, but not all senior engineers are "tech leads." Here, it seems more like a purgatory positions where you don't want or have the skillset required for engineering management, but are far more senior than other senior engineers.

I am often less picky than other people, but I find that the picky types often want things that I feel are less than optimal.

So getting offered tech lead coming into a place can be seen as a good defensive choice if you are coming from a place where you feel like you've been suffering because you didn't have the control.

a) coworkers respect your competence & judgement so they align with your decisions on technical matters

b) engineering manager believes what you have to say about what the project needs, which may include staff allocation & performance management

Like it or not, that is what power is.

Building respect and trust is great, but you can have all of these things and not have any real power. I've seen trusted respected people let go in a heartbeat when times are tough. The people that can decide to 'let people go' are the ones with power.

In my experience tech leads and middle managers often have to do the difficult task of balancing the whims of power with sound technical decisions. This is a hard task because it's frankly much easier to just bow to the whims of leadership and wait for the day when they decide a "shakeup" is needed and layoff most of middle management.

Could any other CEO have come into Apple in 1997 and done what Jobs did? They respected Jobs more than they would have a generic CEO.

Heck didn’t the Pandora CEO convince people to work for two years with no pay?

A number of us stayed at a startup until the bitter end because the leadership was completely honest with us and the investors promised to pay us for every hour we worked.

Edit: I'm saying this because I decided to stop being "tech lead" recently, precisely because of the problem of responsibility without authority.

Yes, people respect me and my decisions, up to a point (we have several very competent people and we don't always all agree) . They did that before I was tech lead and to the exact same amount after. My work did not change one iota compared to what I was doing before. But suddenly I got blamed for some things that I had no power to prevent.

That's just not healthy.

The power that comes with a job title or position is actually quite limited. And it also calls into question as what exactly is meant by power. Personal power (getting your way?) or creative power (putting forth your energy for the benefit of the organization). I find that it's actually not too hard to have a great deal of creative power, regardless of personal power -- by listening and responding well to the needs of others and by effectively solving problems.

With prestige comes attention to what you say and do, and ability to influence decisions.

If you feel like the middle manager is powerless, these are exactly the types of books to read. Other recommendations include High Output Management, Drive, How To Talk So Kids Will Listen (I'm serious), Turn the Ship Around, Out of the Crisis, and more.

Classic management theory is that their are three levers of power in an organization - relationship, expert, and role in that order.

No one is going to go the extra mile for a leader they don’t like or one they think is an idiot. Role power is the least effective.

I’ve left plenty of jobs because of a reorganization put me under a lead/manager that I didn’t like or respect or I thought they were an idiot.

Even if you don’t leave a company because they lean on their role power too much, people will “work to rule”.

I’ve had a lot more influence working at small companies by building relationships and demonstrating expertise.

Well said.

would be interesting to hear about what career you transitioned to, if you're willing to share.

Edit: I should say that the interviewing experience that put my over the edge was actually not a whiteboard but a take home exercise. What I didn't know and didn't appreciate was that it was designed with an adversarial review. There was a long list of requirements and I thought I met them all. The response was kind of rude and was a big turn off. After a second pass I was told that I was missing some fundamental things, which were never requested or discussed. The whole thing seemed designed to exclude rather than assess.

Honestly, its their loss. I've done great work and continue to do so. For better or worse, may name is on patents from more than one job and from different industries. My work experience and history of accomplishments says something about the kind of candidate I am. Hounding me at the whiteboard or calling my take-home work crap seems unnecessary - if that is what the job is like then I don't want it.

And I didn't 'give up everything'. I make the same money in IT without the hamster wheel feel of always 'sprinting'. Marathon runners do not sprint the entire race.

Here is the problem, many people have patents, many people have words. You should be able to solve a simple BFS, DFS or DP problem. These algorithms ARE used in good jobs. Seems like most people here write CRUD apps.

Also, lots of FAANG engineers have lots of patents as well. That doesn't mean anything.