cf498

Overdosing isnt an unfortunate sideffect, its people making an error while dosing. An error that is easily preventable with a bit of care. The airback equivalent is very much fitting, its an emergency aid for once you made a mistake. If you are overdosing regularly, you are majorly screwing up making unnecessary mistakes.

Had to read up a bit, but either way i seem to have mixed something up. I did not know the French tear gas grenades also had TNT in them. But I read about such flashbang/teargas mixups before their introduction in 2011. The non french sources are a bit muddy, but Vital Michalon seems to have died at Superphénix due to a sock grenade damaging his lungs?

But nevertheless it seems i mixed up France with Switzerland here. Though I cant find the original source I had in mind, Guy Smallman had his leg severely injured in Geneva during the 2003 G8 summit by a shock grenade.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130507090403/http://www.nujadm...

Thanks for the heads up!

As no one else mentioned it, depending on which country you are in, you should never try to pick up a tear gas canister shot/thrown at you as you might confuse it with a flash bang in the heat of the moment. There is a long list of people in France who tried to throw back flash bang grenades and lost a hand as a result.

The US started a trade conflict due to geopolitical interests, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The US is willing to act in their best interest, we are talking about countries acting against their best interest out of a humanitarian conviction.

You dont really need pellets. The pressure of a water canon is high enough to break rips and pop eyes. You dont achieve anything more by adding pellets. They do however mix in the different variants of pepper spray into the water.

Some countries use regular pellet guns, for example India in Kashmir with the expected result of a lot of lost eyes.

No idea why this is downvoted, I think its a daring thesis that China cares what the rest of the world thinks. On top of that there are only a few countries that can afford and are willing to actually act on something like this, there is just to much money to be made in the Chinese market.

That lethal force against protesters leads somehow automatically to breaking down of political support is wishful thinking. Do you really need a list of countries who regularly use lethal force against protesters and are good friends and partners of western governments? When it comes to a state killing protesters all that matters is who the state is.

Being (called) a communist and having to name names in front of the HUAC wasnt that long ago.

Your kids being the only ones without an tablet/smartphone is social death. Great they are not stuck to a screen, instead they will be a miserable outcast. I agree with your initial post, but the implementation is far from easy and needs an collective approach if you dont want to just ruin your kids lives.

I fear the timeline is way too optimistic. It wont take till 2030 to normalize.

>It turns out that, like DNA evidence, there's now an entire innocence project started dedicated to getting people out of incarceration for any crime where the totality of evidence was GPS data and some made up stories.

Is also already the case. Denmark had such a problem recently.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/world/europe/denmark-cell... https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/23/20829490/denmark-cellphon...

We all are making choices in our life. Abusing pain medication is also a choice. If it was problem born only out of lack of information, we wouldnt have this discussion about the necessity of tighter restrictions. You only need restrictions if you want stop people making choices you dont like. Otherwise education would be sufficient.

I dont get it, can you explain?

They are still severely under prescribed in nations across the world. To the point that they are not available at all in many countries due to puritanical lobbying. Which means people across the globe are still suffering an absolute horrible fate, despite how easy it is even for a developing country to produce pain medication. The world still hasnt recovered from the last US crusade against pain medication, so i am more then a bit worried about what happens in the US right now. The fact that large parts of the world today have worse pain management options available to their population then what was available in the middle ages should scare you a lot more then some guy having fun with his medication.

People misusing pain medication is a small price to pay to have pain medication available for people who need it. There wont be an optimal solution by pushing down on pharma companies and doctors, it will be quite a lot worse then today.

To put it simply, if you are lobbying to combat the so called "opioid crisis" you should think damn hard about the consequences of your actions. Because if or better when there is another backlash peoples suffering caused by a lack of pain medication will be on your hands.

>Paper ballot boxes are just as hackable at scale with those requirements.

No they arent. You need one guy with physical access to to a machine, at any time, to screw an election, with manual counting you need everyone in the room conspiring to rig the election during the voting hours. With the possibility to volunteer to count votes and publishing the voting numbers for each voting station, you just dont get those situations.

I know its an unpopular statement, but having a democratic election is not a new problem to solve. Most western countries do it just fine. This is not a problem with the concept of paper ballots but a absurdly broken system.

And look which 127 time Pulitzer price winner isnt above acting as a propaganda outlet. Its just sad, the headline is just the cherry on top.

Awesome, thanks for clearing that up

Like others have quoted, south of 20m means south of 3m. At that price tag grave digging makes complete sense if you can stem the running costs.

First of, thanks for sharing your experience and insight here.

You do however see how that is a bit difficult to just accept without any backing up, considering a former engineer might naturally be a bit biased about the public perception of a former project dying? By no means a personal attack, just picture yourself in my shoes. I do understand however if there is just no such data available.

Like everyone else here I saw whole communities with active people, with sometimes over a decade of content creation behind them, just vanish. And those werent just the complete porn focused ones, hell even the few leftists i followed from soup.io days packed up for good. Granted, just my anecdotal experience but given how many experienced the same, i would be confident to say that some rather big, active and motivated communities died and others lost a great share of formerly active members and especially content creators due to the sometimes bizarre overlap.

So if tumblr isnt dying, which new active communities sprung up to fill that void? Did any with the current public perception of tumblr? How is the rate of content creation and interaction looking pre and post porn ban announcement?

Differently put, what good do lurker numbers do if the content creators are gone? Without them lurkers arent going to be sticking around forever and which new content creators are acquired?

I do mean what I said in the last post and I mean everyone who reads this,

>If there are great hidden communities that grew in the vacuum left, please do share.

edit: I also forgot to mention the most damming part, Verizon selling tumblr for under 3m. They sure are convinced its dead for good.

Do you base that on anything but a suspicion on your part? You are claiming this to be a misconception, can you actually back that up? I have no idea who those new content creators are supposed to be, like everyone else i just saw people with a decade or more of content producing behind them leaving. And not some of the people i knew but all of them. If there are great hidden communities that grew in the vacuum left, please share.

I dont think there is anything problematic in simply encouraging people to vote, even if you tend to reach certain groups better. A higher voter turnout should be something to strive for, its a sign for a healthier democracy. The current approach to discourage more voters of the opposite party to not go voting then your own get discouraged seems more then just a bit problematic.

Differently put, what harm is done by getting people to go vote when you are not influencing them to vote in a certain fashion? I would argue that only the opposite is problematic, to discourage people to vote.

Googles motivation shouldnt matter as long as they are not influencing who you are going to vote for.

But thats another topic on its own, I find it hard to argue why google should be singled out in a country where even news organizations endorse candidates. If they are to powerful dismember them instead of making a lex google.

You can simply equip those people with a tracker. Then it also works if they leave the stadium. Put them in their shoes and you dont need their cooperation either.

If they dont have any just put the persons picture on the stadium screens.

I think the comparison with smartphones misses the point,

>You can leave your phone at home, switch it off, or put it in airplane mode.

Makes it something entirely different. The core characteristics of facial recognition are

1) No need for a cooperative, consenting subject

2) Not alerting the subject being identified and no protection against being identified without noticing

3) Unchangeable identification characteristic

We already have reliable easy to use systems for characteristic 1 and 3, fingerprints, and I see how there might be a need for such systems at specific locations. For example at a police station or border checkpoints.

Then we have facial recognition which is a lot less accurate and its only additional benefit is point 2. Point 2 however has no positive use cases, its a purely totalitarian instrument aimed at its scale-ability. For not only being used in specific places but everywhere. You cant even make the argument which makes nuclear weapons a worthwhile technology to have, the possible usage for war against a foreign aggressor. Facial recognition is only beneficial to keep a population suppressed.

Instead of going ad hominem you could also give a counterexample

But one of the easiest to track everyone everywhere. What makes it so dangerous is its scaleability. The large error margin isnt a problem if your goal isnt finding single terrorists but create a surveillance state.

I think the underlying question is, is it unethical to act morally towards immorally acting people? Not immoral actions in the past but continuing behavior? Especially once unethical actors count on you still acting morally towards them?

Amazon is maximizing profits at all cost, why should my actions towards them not be influenced by their behavior?

edit: It gets interesting once you take it one step further, is it ethical to act ethically towards unethical actors? Or more specific, are you obliged to steal Hitlers wallet?

http://www.aeromental.net/2012/04/05/the-book-with-the-quest...

edit2: Less abstract, there is also a real life example, some women who scammed ISIS by posing as to be wives on the internet.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11775228/Three...

What if is the right phrase. You assume they are only looking for a specific margin, which they have to optimize for. They already optimizing to maximize the total profit. If there is a productivity increase of the workforce possible they take it unless the conditions get so bad, that a lack of workforce or lawsuits result in higher losses. Same goes for a price increase, if the number of sold products shrinks less then the additional margin per products its a reasonable thing to do.

That piracy/fraud/costly mistakes increase the overall cost for consumers just doesnt happen, no large company in their right mind has additional profit potential lying around that they just dont take because they dont need to. What happens is that at some point the market segment becomes no longer profitable and companies leave that segment entirely.

Without getting killed or loosing a ship once

I was shocked to learn about the difference a while back, especially concerning first aid. In Germany you are facing criminal charges if you dont aid injured people, by either first aid or calling an ambulance. Then you have countries where not even dragging a person out of a burning car is protected under good Samaritan laws.

I missed the part of the article which mentions getting matched against deepMind is opt-in in the first go through. So everything should be fine.

I wonder in which way an ethics board was consulted for this. Is it ethically justifiable to introduce an anonymously "cheating" AI like DeepMind in the competitive ladder? After all

> A win or a loss against AlphaStar will affect your MMR as normal.

While the scenario at hand might be relatively unproblematic, at what point does an ethics board get consulted for anonymous trials concerning AI - human interaction? Is this something on the radar of the DeepMind team?