Many ships already use wind power. I don't think you'd be able to harness the wind, convert it to electricity, and use the electricity more efficiently than a sail.
It's _possible_ to build a secure Electron app, but it's also very easy to build an insecure Electron app. Even if you follow best practices regarding context isolation, it's very easy to introduce a subtle security issue like
What’s your point? A lot of people have tried crack and there are a lot of crack addicts. I calculated the numbers of Australia a few years ago. Something like 10% of people who try heroin become dependent. That number is like 0.1% or 0.01% for alcohol.
Many people come over on an L1 visa. A U.S. company will higher a foreign worker, have them work in a foreign office for one year, and then they qualify for an L1 visa.
There are so many things in our life that cause harm in any quantity. For instance, exposure to fine particulate is directly correlated with all cause mortality. Yet almost everyone drives or rides the subway, even though both activities expose you to fine particulate. For many, the benefits of transportation outweigh the negative health impact. Many feel the same way about alcohol.
That paper doesn't really say how they computed the scores of the different drugs. Without that information it's hard to say how accurate the scoring is.
There is a correlation between the father’s age and ASD. People are having kids older now, so the answer is no, it’s unlikely that the percentage of people with ASD is constant throughout history.
Why is it not ok to align with American foreign policy? I guess you’re implying that Americans are ok benefiting from other forms of labor exploitation? Why does that matter? Going back to the climate change example: everyone benefits from GHG emissions. Allowing arguments to be derailed by “NO U” is a quick way to stifle all discussion.
To me, your argument, fully constructed, is: “you can’t care that Uyghur’s are enslaved because America also uses slave labor and American foreign policy is anti-China.” How is that an argument?
So your point is that you can’t call out an instance of slavery unless you call them all out? That doesn’t make sense to me. You should be able to highlight an issue without someone retorting “what about X?”, which is literal whataboutism.
Everybody is a hypocrite on almost every issue. Take a major issue like climate change. Almost every human in the U.S. and Europe has massively large carbon footprints. Does that mean Americans or Europeans can’t care about climate change? We’re not ideal beings working in an ideal system. We’re flawed being in a flawed system trying to make things a little better.
You get paid for the power your battery provides to the grid. Power is generally cheaper at night as there is less demand (at least the spot price is cheaper, not sure how your utility passes that savings on to you). It seems like it's totally possible that it's better for you economically to allow your battery to power the grid during the day. You'll have less charge in your battery for the night, but hopefully you can get power at a cheaper price.
Why don’t you do it a few times first before advertising it? It’s be quite sad if someone gave you two years of their life and then have you fall through on your end of the deal.
The same type of argument can be made about any specific issue. For instance, labor rights is incredibly broad. I don't think it's a realistic requirement for someone to care about every possible labor-rights issue. It's fine if people want to be selective.
Processed meats usually have preservatives like nitrates or nitrites in them. It doesn't matter what bacteria is detectable when the meat leaves the factory. The bacteria are not going to propagate in the meat.
So? Most people's entire existence is predicated on unsustainable consumerism. There is literally too much to care about. If you require that people must care about all issues to care about any issue, then progress won't be made. Maybe that's your intention.
Three mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were all extremely severe events. Also, the timing of these events does seem to support the estimated probability of a severe nuclear event somewhere in the world every 30-50 years.
The empirical changes are not very low. Assuming each plant has a uniform probability of failing once every 10,000 years, that comes out to an accident once every ~50 years in one of the ~500 nuclear power plants on Earth.
Don't forget the multi-month lead times to even get connected to the internet. I lived without the internet for 3 months when I first moved to Germany. I read over 30 books that year.
Everybody is different. I've come back from a week's rest a felt way stronger. I justified this as the rest letting my body fully recuperate, but who knows why this happens.
Honestly, that's what you get for using AppEngine, one of the most insane platforms I've ever had the displeasure of using. Hopefully this has changed, but you couldn't even make a raw HTTP request from an AppEngine application. You had to tunnel your HTTP requests through a proprietary "fetch" service. Now that Kubernetes exists, Google should really deprecate AE.
Yes, one can always imagine such a scenario. However, more often than not, real discovered vulnerabilities (that is, vulnerabilities in the real world, not some hypothetical situation) seem to exploit permissive memory modification in C/C++. In the scenario you describe, even discovering the vulnerability would require deeply understanding the application logic. In the vulnerability discussed here, simply fuzzing was enough to discover the vulnerability because it was easy to detect the invalid memory access.