genericuser314

"...due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations"

It isn't true that children whose permanent residence is a trailer park are counted as homeless.

Most facts are incomplete, it's almost impossible to give all the context to any given data point unless you just give people a URL and tell people to read for themselves.

For example, it's an incomplete fact to say that "if you live in a trailer park, you are considered homeless", but thankfully you provided the link to the complete fact!

From your source, a little more completeness for your fact:

"living in ...trailer parks... due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations"

Thankfully, it is not true that everyone whose permanent residence is a trailer park is counted as homeless.

Type in "Other agricultural workers" and then compare the result to other professions.

Or, just a different sort of integrity than you had in mind.

Anecdotally, I can confirm that my employer requires me to:

1.) Not allow my phone to be unlocked by fingerprint/face.

2.) Not carry USB sticks or similar portable storage devices on my person, to only transport them by courier.

3.) Not unlock my computer for anyone, including the police, unless directed to by our compliance office.

Or it's breach of contract and they can reclaim part of my compensation. I don't work on anything exciting, just Big medical data.

Based on political contributions, police officers have donated their money to Democrats and Republicans almost in equal proportion for quite awhile... until 2018, when they became overwhelmingly Republican.

https://archive.md/bacrC#selection-1400.0-1404.0

to arbitrarily remove... for arbitrary reasons.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Popular English has taken a real hit in the last few years.

Here's a chart of Lake Tahoe water levels since 1900: https://www.usgs.gov/center-news/water-science-lake-tahoe-ba....

> There must be hundreds of thousands of bolts

99,356 in USA & Canada, per this number: https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/chevrolet-bolt-sales-figures-u...

I was curious about this so I looked it up, you might think it is interesting too.

I was being too indirect. Your framework doesn't have predictive value. 'This person had an extremely favorable outcome, therefore they are elite' is a retrospective judgment, it can't be used to form a hypothesis. It is unfalsifiable.

Whether someone is Scottish, or any "easy to measure" fact, has nothing to do with the No True Scotsman fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

My partner is a civil engineer so I go to a lot of ASCE happy hours and it is common wisdom among civil engineers that for every $100 you spend on infrastructure, you get like $113 to $117 in economic activity. I also believe that almost all federal infrastructure spending has Buy American clauses.

The linked Reason article makes some libertarian arguments against Buy American clauses that if you know anything about libertarianism you can anticipate, but I am not a libertarian and personally think that more things should have Buy American clauses.

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-potential-macroeconomic-...

https://reason.org/transportation-news/analysis-of-the-bipar...

Isn't your definition an example of a No True Scotsman fallacy?

Aren't you liable to wind up in situations where you find yourself saying "Ah-hah, now that person I thought was not one of the elite is now one of the elite because they didn't go to prison. Ah-hah, now that person I thought was one of the elite is not one of the elite, because they are going to prison."?

The degree to which our ethics should be consequentialist, or they should evaluate intent is worth discussing, but as consequences become more significant intent becomes more insignificant. I don't care if someone 'looks bad', or breaks any law if they prevent nuclear war.

Stanislav Petrov disobeyed orders in the face of "30 layers of verification" telling him to report 5 incoming nuclear missiles.

I think in any scenario where "nuclear war destroys a large portion of highways and communication equipment" then Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin will all be smoking craters.

Here's the 1990 FEMA assessment of nuclear targets in Texas: https://www.webpal.org/SAFE/state/TX/tx_nuclear.htm

Assuming that's accurate, my guess is that Odessa/Midland and Laredo would be Texas's major population centers.

It's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't, but if Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helping the Soviets achieve nuclear parity prevented the US from "using them when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind" then they should be thought of like Snowdens or Assanges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Sov...

> FAQ 2.1: The Earth’s temperature has varied before. How is the current warming any different?

> Earth’s climate has always changed naturally, but both the global extent and rate of recent warming are unusual. The recent warming has reversed a slow, long-term cooling trend, and research indicates that global surface temperature is higher now than it has been for millennia.

> It’s warming rapidly ...during the shift from the last glacial period to the current interglacial, the total temperature increase was about 5°C. That change took about 5000 years, with a maximum warming rate of about 1.5°C per thousand years, although the transition was not smooth. In contrast, Earth’s surface has warmed approximately 1.1°C since 1850–1900 ...for the past 2000 years, we have higher-resolution records that show that the rate of global warming during the last 50 years has exceeded the rate of any other 50-year period.

I think that's because of different vaccine uptake by age cohort. People 65+ have always been most likely to require intervention and they are also the most vaccinated age cohort - ~80% vaccinated in the US. [0]

[0]: https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac...

Maybe you're thinking of Russell's teapot, which is the idea that the burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims? That's specifically for unfalsifiable claims.

Or maybe you're thinking of the burden of proof concept from jurisprudence? That is a high standard because it keeps innocent people from having their lives destroyed.

The IPCC reports [0], predicated upon the anthropogenic theory of climate change, predict a lot of people will have their lives destroyed, and the theory specifies the mechanism which will determine the magnitude. You and I as agents in democracies (I'm guessing) can help determine that magnitude - maybe whether it's millions of families displaced and destroyed or hundreds of millions.

I think the philosophical stance we should apply is the precautionary principle. If we're unsure of whether or not it is harmful that our activities are changing the composition of our atmosphere, of our oceans, and of our soil, we should at least, as a precaution, reduce the rate at which we're changing our environment.

[0] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

I don't think its "first witnessed", I think its 80% of blossoms are open.

https://twitter.com/sayakasofiamori/status/13739565776071311...

"...it is particularly frustrating as my personal FB account is tied to not only my Oculus library (which I can no longer access) but also my FB business page"

Oof!

* emasculating

Summary: "Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called "off-label" uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns."

Bextra was approved: "for the treatment of osteoarthritis, adult rheumatoid arthritis, and primary dysmenorrhea." [0]

But was marketed for: "In such documents, PHARMACIA marketing team stated as the “intended” use and message for Bextra that Bextra was for “acute pain.”" [1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdecoxib#Uses_until_2005

[1]: https://archive.is/20091207084948/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/...

Should add (2009)

I think you're making a category error in your analogy.

DuckDuckGo is much more like Google than "dig a well" is like municipal water.

"A deterministic AES mis-computation, which was “self-inverting”: encrypting and decrypting on the same core yielded the identity function, but decryption elsewhere yielded gibberish."

Imagine debugging this.

"for each thing "everyone knows" by the time they're adults, every day there are, on average, 10,000 people in the US hearing about it for the first time."

~ https://xkcd.com/1053/

"Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak." ~ Umberto Eco

I'm currently at a ~133 person fully-remote healthcare innovation group and I have received 7 e-mails so far this week. We use very little e-mail, mostly just for scheduling meetings. We mostly communicate in Slack and coordinate our work in Smartsheets.

My last three gigs were at ~2000-to-5000 person corps and it wasn't uncommon for me to get 100 e-mails a day which I mostly filtered with rules. Previous corps used TFS to coordinate workflow and had no officially sanctioned chat system.

This article discusses this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/n1y55k/been_purpo...

...which includes the "1st Notice of Copyright Violation" the beta tester received while torrenting.

> 470 The term does not include any information service, system,

> 471 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by

> 472 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment

> 473 complex as defined in s. 509.013.

The bill includes an exception for companies that own theme parks, which I for one am entirely in favor of.

Move Fast And Break Things - The Rollercoaster

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/...