giantg2

Just use ghost pipes for your grayanotoxin.

Yes, the cleanliness can vary based on the outfit and the tech/facilities tends to be lower. However, there are not 100s of animals being ran through the same grinder. It doesn't seem like there are any real tests being done to each animal by the inspectors.

So facility risk seems similar or higher for the local shop, depending on specific people running it, but animal-bourne risk seems higher at the packing plant, which seems to be the more likely vector to me anyways.

No data on that. But qualitative experience shows the local farmer/butcher has much nicer/fresher looking/smelling meat than the Walmart.

Everyone is hating on statistics, yet HN posts studies all the time.

Yes, stats can be used deceptively or incompetently used, but they are generally useful. You just have to look at the full study to see what the starting data was and all the actions taken on it. Then you have to make a judgements call on if/how you want to apply that to your own choices, political policies, etc.

A great example of a stats being used by two sides of an argument and political positions would be gun control. See Everytown Research and Crime Prevention Reseach Center. You can see what gets measured, included, excluded, etc by each side and how those results get fitted for support of political policy.

Is the lack of green cover really problem? Seems like the lack of green cover would be natural for that area.

"It's also very not true that farmers are poor in the US (median household income about 30% greater than general population)."

Most farmers work a "real" job in addition to the farm work.

Then you also have farm workers, who do not own the farm, and they tend to be poor.

Wouldn't they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was data on the phone that was wiped? Even the article says that only the data on the device at the time of the search is in-scope. Wouldn't you have to prove that there was something in-scope to search for it to be a lawful search?

"If you can show that someone else was doing the same thing without being charged"

It's unlikely people would have enough evidence of high enough quality to make that case. The prosecution will just say the evidence isn't enough.

"Maybe the real issue is selective outrage about legal injustice."

The real issue is selective enforcement of the law. If it applied equally to everyone, then more people would be outraged as it affected them.

Might be better to upgrade your air handler if you're putting HEPA in every room.

"The problem with US healthcare isn't who pays for it, its how damn expensive it is."

And also how much is required. I bet a study investigating how much money and lives could be saved by reducing obesity would have 2x numbers

Quanity and/or quality of sex shows correlation with longer lifespan. Maybe this is a roundabout way to get there...

Accessibility and disabilty laws are about bringing people up to the level of "normal" people. Expanding that to surpass normal human abilities seems like a bad idea.

Collecting and storing the information is the real problem. The focus on warrants is a distraction.

Access control (warrant) doesn't prevent a breach, and the system is not architected in a way to prevent internal abuse. The best way to prevent the abuse of data is to not collect or store it at all.

"I really expected some secret sauce in Ivys/UoM, and nope."

The secret sauce seems to be that many come from money, which means they have connections.

The possible end result isn't that much different than the threat of wars or the financial crises - no job, possible death, etc.

"So many HNers complain about how the younger generation is hyper-competitive yet when universities start taking steps to help reduce that they start kvetching."

Dropping a semester of grades is a cover up for the symptoms, not a fix. A better fix would be stress management and realistic expectations. Building your identity or self-worth around going to a particular school is the insane part. It's great to have big goals, but you have to separate those goals from defining you. It seems many kids today don't make that distinction. Pick a cheap state school with a decent program, get a scholarship, and start living life. All this prestige and pedigree is the type of stuff we should be trying to destroy.

Some of that prestige is more regional. Perspectives change based on location and experience. The ivies tend to be more national.

I went to a state school. The quality varied wildly depending on the department. It was very eye opening in the general English/writing classes when encountering people who couldn't read or write above a 4th grade level. The difference between they're, their, and there was like a riddle to some of them. Of course many didn't make it more than a semester or two.

That's the big thing - the college might be dropping the first semester grades so they can squeeze a second semester of tuition out of kids.

15% seems extremely low for a non-ivy.

Iran's PLC weren't connected. How did that turn out?

It's probably in there with a note to let him go free.

Most people don't care as long as it doesn't affect them. You'd probably have to get to 10% affected for it to start mattering. Most people are happy to be ignorant.

I agree. Legal protections and policy changes would be needed to reduce incidents like this, regardless of mass surveillance.

"Do you really want every speeding pull-over to become a wild-west situation? Maybe your kids are in the car!"

That sort of thing depends on what is "normal". Many states in the US could have around 10% of the population carrying a firearm. Armed interactions with the police are common and the vast majority are a non-issue. The typical police response to "I have a license to carry and a firearm in the vechicle" is typically "Where is it? Just don't touch it". Happens all the time.

Now, is there a statistical difference? Maybe. It's hard to say because you would need to apply the same policing culture, legal system, and population dynamics to a lesser armed country. I don't know of any good choices for that combination.

Most police in the US don't overreact to the presence of a weapon during traffic stops or pther routine interactions. Many states could have around 10% of people carrying a gun, making armed interactions quite common.

Not to mention fake and stolen plates are a thing.

"but you won't need to do it again for another quarter century."

Hmm, so how do they handle the new cyber threats, since most of these are connected? It seems upgrades would need to be performed to address new threats. And just because something is not internet connected doesn't make it immune (eg stuxnet).

It shouldn't be that hard. It's basically just a network of satellites with directional antennas - tech we already have.

Or you set up relays.

Yeah, and appearently we don't know how to shield from radiation either.