I agree, though if all someone has to go on is that I stayed silent, it might be difficult to conclude whether I am uninterested, indifferent, or scared stiff.
4,501 karma · joined January 20, 2016
There are plenty of other places to talk politics, religion, or share personal opinions. Work is best kept for work.
I don’t know if anyone IS using such a database unlawfully - they might be checking the plate number against an Excel sheet they created based on other reports from people opposed to ICE - but if its a databse they shouldn’t be using in this way, if might be against the law.
0: https://www.ouest-france.fr/education/les-telephones-bientot...
There are still farmer protests here in France every day against this deal. There will be a lot of pressure on French MEPs to vote against it when it goes to the EP for the final vote.
Not the commenter you are respoinding to, but the link they shared explained that some of the 'hate speech’ that gets flagged is not anything that would rise to the level of ‘hate speech’ in many other jurisdictions. One of the examples cited was a person prosecuted for calling a politician a “professional moron”. The politician in question had had 700 people investigated for insulting them online in such a fashion; another politician had made more than 500 similar complaints.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with labeling some speech ‘hate speech’ and punishing the speaker even if it is indeed hateful because inevitably such laws will be used by people I don’t agree with to limit expression well beyond ‘hate speech’. Yet even if a case might be made for limiting some speech (denial of the Holocaust, for example) I don’t think that there is a strong case for limiting my ability to call a politician a moron, professional or otherwise.
In any case, the point stands: I would argue that France is willing to put a dozen soldiers in Greenland because it is pretty sure that they won’t be killed by the US, as opposed to sending even a single soldier to Kiev where there is a reasonable chance that they might get killed and we might have to do more than just send money and guns.
> Their findings offered reassurance: DWI alone identified the majority of cancers the AI had overlooked, detecting 83.5% of missed lesions for one radiologist and 79.5% for the other.
The combination of AI and this DWI methodology seems to identify most of the cancer, but there’s still about 20% of 1/3 that gets missed. I assume that as these were confirmed diagnoses, they were caught with another method beyond DWI.
That’s how it has been for most everything. Someone else’s parents let their kids watch TV on a school night, or stay up past 10pm, or has a curfew of 1am instead of midnight, or lets them drink soda at the dinner table. The response from my parents to me, and from me to my kids, has always been to point out that families are different, they have different rules, and that in this house we do X.
The report puts the threshold for being in the top 10% of income earners at €65.5K. I suspect many HN users would fall into this category.
Related: is there a way to estimate what the wealth inequality was like pre-industrial revolution? It occured to me that in an era of kings, queens, aristocrats, and nobles it might be similar to what we see today. Without concluding whether it is right or wrong, would it have been very different for the bottom 90% in terms of inequality? Is it just the ‘who’ that makes up the very top of the wealth and income charts that is different?
I absolutely do not believe my healthcare costs only €1200 a year. As I wrote, my top-up insurance costs about €1200 a year, and the healthcare costs more and that is why my taxes are so high.
Here I am self-employed and pay about 100 euros a month in top-up insurance (mutuelle) for myself and a couple of kids. Of course, the healthcare costs more, that’s why my taxes are high; but the insurance cost is about €1200 a year, not €2200 a month.
The article (in English, anyway) is a summary of the plot of the book and there is not a footnote nor any external reference - and why would there be? It’s a summary of the plot, not a commentary or a critique of it. In this case, there’s no need to cite a source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Game_of_Thrones
"Democrats and Republicans hold each other's party more responsible for the government shutdown. Among independents, 48 percent think Republicans in Congress are more responsible, while 32 percent think Democrats in Congress are more responsible and 14 percent volunteered that they think both parties are equally responsible.”
Of course, a handful of Democrat Senators could also vote to end the shutdown and that would fund SNAP, and everything else, too, at least for a few more weeks.
Both sides seem dug in right now. It's still not clear who I'll blink first.