3ygun

Was interested by this comment and wanted to note a few things. The Titan is significantly smaller (in terms of length ~1/10th the size although obviously displacement is the real measure)[1][2]. And the depth of the implosion is about 4x deeper[1][3]. So there are things that could definitely affect the sound signature.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_San_Juan_(S-42)

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Titan_submersible_incid...

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic

Dan congrats!

Q: Was a reason you choose a User installed application (Electron or Mobile App) vs SaaS to avoid having to store username/password for sites and the ToS issues that result from that? Or am I off base with previous comments in another Discord?

Meme Q: Were earlier versions of redact.dev so powerful they redacted the trip to Japan? :(

Best wishes and #YeeAlwaysWins

I follow on Twitter and have seen a lot about prisoner/immigrant advocacy (probably because of my Twitter bubble/liking habbits). But re-looking seems like a good mix of voting rights and medical access mixed in https://twitter.com/ACLU/

As the parent notes. The issue is if you have a simple law say "Do not dump harmful chemicals into waterways used for drinking, shipping, etc." this leads to a lot of litigation regarding what is a "harmful chemical". If instead you have it all spelled out "harmful chemicals being one of coal ash, hydrochloric acid, asbestos, ..." (don't quote me on these). Business's know what the variables/costs effecting operations are up front. Only reacting and being liable if the list changes through the political process.

The parent was saying the US approach instead define what a harmful chemical is after the fact. Leaving companies to need "insurance"/a cost benefit wager before something is built. Otherwise they could be screwed later after litigation.

IMO, I can see both sides but preferably I would want simpler laws from political processes which are then refined into explicit interpretations by subject matter expert strong government institutions. But we have lobbying/revolving door government employees and trashy textualists in the US so it doesn't work out that way...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism

You watch Lirik!?!? Come on man watch a R E A L streamer like GiantWaffle... People like you probably only have 908 friends on Facebook, like "wolf packs" and work for networking companies TriHard. Get on my level and call me :^)

For real though Twitch is <3 KappaPride

Glad to help. I agree it shouldn't be removed entirely and FB will get crap either way. Thanks for the differing opinion, best!

rabboRubble To start off I understand your point that the Safety Check feature can be valuable. Japan's typhoon system is fantastic example you brought up where the entire population of a city needs to, after the incident, notate their safety. However, this is vastly different than the case being discussed of the London fire. In the London fire a small minority, ~500 people, results in a 6 miles notification (other comments said ~9 million people). As stated this kind of notification provides very little value. And instead provides negative value by switching peoples perceived safety ("I think my mother is safe sleeping currently") to a "required" opt-in safety check ("Well she hasn't said anything...so is she?").

This difference is my problem with the Safety Check system and, I believe, the authors. If there is an event where my safety is indeed in a majority questionable state (Typhoon takes out my town) then prompt me with a check #ThankYou. If there was an event which doesn't swing to a majority question then leave it to the individual case.

2 side notes: 1. Why do I personally take issue? Well, I was a student during the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_att... and felt "forced" to provide my answer to the Safety Check as I know my one crazy aunt would go loony if I didn't. In no way did the event warrant this switch from perceived safety to opt-in safety (it was 13 students hurt of >50,000).

2. As other commenters have noted "With great power, comes great responsibility!". If they're going to deploy this technology make sure it provides value and effects, changes safety to opt-in, for the smallest possible subset. Additionally, as you pointed out in your original post allow individuals to add themselves to the Safety Check list if you are getting spammed with messages.

Sorry for the long post but, like the author, I was very taken aback when I first encountered this feature on Facebook. While I understand the good intentions. Personally, it fell into the area of prompting a world where we need that instant knowledge, text back, response, etc. which frankly isn't that healthy...