lax4ever

As it stands, this is the report that the article uses as it's primary source:

https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Ped%20Spotl...

To start off with, 75% of pedestrian fatalities occur in the dark. If we can increase pedestrian visibility in the dark by doing something like saying "Don't wear dark clothes in the dark" that seems to me like something that may go farther in reducing pedestrian fatality than any car sensor.

Also, page 20 talked about how driving while intoxicated is a factor in half of all the deaths. A car sensor isn't going to help with that (and a breathalyzer is a massive invasion of privacy and a huge government overreach for people who don't have a history of this), and there are already all sorts of regulations that say "Don't drive after drinking" not to mention all sorts of public awareness campaigns. What car sensor is going to solve for that? There isn't one, there's just better enforcement of existing rules about driving drunk, which I can tell you already needs a lot of work.

In addition, pages 22-23 talk about a massive increase in light truck sales (page 23) but there is no corresponding fatality increase shown on page 22 and no fatality decrease for cars despite a massive decrease in sales. So I don't see how there can be a claim (not saying that you made the claim) that large vehicle traffic is causing more death.

Because cars are not, in and of themselves, inherently deadly any more than a train or a boat or a plane are inherently deadly. The fatality component of a vehicle largely rests on operators and those who are around vehicles. If a pedestrian on their phone steps off the sidewalk onto the road and gets struck by a vehicle is that the vehicle's or even the driver's fault? Of course not, just like a pedestrian is not at fault if they are crossing the street properly and a driver ignores the crosswalk or red lights. This issue cannot be solved by simply putting more sensors in a car, drivers and pedestrians need to take responsibility for their actions and understand exactly what they are doing when they cross each-other's path.

I struggle with the idea of adding more indicators and alarms to a vehicle because drivers are already swamped with a large amount of stimuli when driving. I'm not sure that adding more and possibly taking away control of a vehicle is the answer.

Honestly, this feels a little like blaming the tool rather than putting the responsibility where it belongs, which is with the driver AND the pedestrian. Driver's need to be attentive, of course, but so does a pedestrian. We put an incredible amount of effort into making train crossings safe with lights, sounds, physical obstruction, and more than enough literature and warning about don't walk on train tracks but people still get hit by trains all the time.

Vehicles, just like trains, cannot stop on a dime so the responsibility of safety falls on both parties regardless of "right of way". Talking about having a vehicle with more sensors doesn't really help if a driver doesn't have time to react to those sensors. Moving a step further, if you allow the vehicle to take control from a driver you add in more complications and danger for a whole host of reasons including 1) a driver reacting poorly to a vehicle taking control from them, 2) an auto driving system that is far, far from ready and could cause more issues, and more.

I truly think you could do a lot more to solve the issue by getting drivers and pedestrians to be more attentive around each other than any other sensor or signal.

The problem being is we are not technically purchasing a copy of the software. We are purchasing a license to use the software as the creator intended. I completely agree that this is asinine and needs to change, but this is the framework in which we are currently operating.

The process of buying a house is going to be relatively similar regardless of your age.

It starts by find a property that you like. You can do this in a variety of ways including using a realtor, looking through MLS listings on your own and working with the seller's realtor, looking through "For sale by owner" listings, etc."

As part of this, you can also work with mortgage lenders to do a pre-qualification. This process is basically where they, sometimes, will pull a credit report, get some info from you on your income and your estimated down payment, and tell you what they believe the price range of home you can qualify for will be. This can vary based on the mortgage program that you will end up using, as programs like FHA loans or first-time home-buyer loans might allow you to provide a smaller down payment. Keep in mind, though, that you will need to put some money down. I believe the lowest is 3 or 3.5% on an FHA loan. Typically anything under 20% will require some sort of mortgage insurance, whether it be FHA or private just depends on the loan program.

Once you have found a home you like you will submit an offer. There are many ways to go about this and the negotiations you and the seller get into are going to depend on you both and your associated willingness to negotiate. The market right now is relatively tight, so you cannot always count on the ability to submit or receive a counter offer or two.

Once you have an accepted offer you will work with the mortgage company to submit the necessary documents for mortgage approval, an appraisal will most likely be done, title work gets ordered, you will need to establish homeowners (also called Hazard) insurance, flood insurance if you are in a flood zone, etc. You may also need to work with a realtor and/or attorney to do things like get a survey or deal with some state-specific items like smoke certs, certification of occupancy, etc.

After you have a mortgage approval, you will typically do a final walkthrough of the property on or near the day of your closing and then you sign the documents and hand over the check or wired funds to cover the remaining closing costs/down payment.

Then it's time to move in.

That can sound complicated, but finding a good realtor, mortgage company, and/or attorney can help you walk through it pretty easily. There are things that will vary, but that's the general process for buying a house with a mortgage and down payment.

They also just cut out all the homeschoolers in the country who might want to use their products as UniDays doesn't allow for homeschoolers to use their system.

Can we, just for a minute, acknowledge how ridiculous this is? Blaming an app for teenage actions? Groups of teenagers have formed a clique over the color of their messages. Oh well. If it wasn't message bubble color it's going to be, and has been, many other things. Teenagers are idiots when it comes to trying to form some sort of superiority over their peers. For many of them, their value comes not from the skills they are able to learn and utilize but from an arbitrary distinction that is somehow able to be spun as socially more desirable.

To be honest, I feel sorry for these kids whose parents capitulated and bought them a second smart phone instead of trying to teach their teenager that the color of a text bubble doesn't matter and if the people they are associating with are going to place superfluous value on it then maybe it is time to look at spending time with other people.

My employer sponsors some of mine as well, but even if they weren't my premiums are still around half of what they listed in the article ($12.5k I think is listed in the article if I read it right). This is with coverage that has a minimal deductible and that includes great mental health coverage amongst other things.

Do you actually pay that much a year in insurance premiums? I don't live in CA, but I sure don't and my health coverage is pretty good. Keep in mind, this is also just the insurance premium, there's no talk of what co-pays or deductibles would be.

In addition, your employer now has to pay more based on their gross receipts and if you make more than 150k a year you are paying even more.

The author seems to be operating upon the assumption that the meat processors are the bottleneck but provides no support for that assumption. I would like some more information. To my mind, if meat processors are the source of a bottleneck issue, how long has that been the case? From a personal standpoint, I have not seen any indication that they were a bottleneck prior to the pandemic but I will admit I was not looking very hard as meat seemed to be in reasonable supply and at a reasonable price.

Since we know that personnel levels were an issue for just about every industry with the pandemic raging, it would seem a more reasonable assumption that, if these meat processors are the bottleneck, the pandemic and their associated restrictions are the problem which are a the result of government regulation and recommendation. I am no fan of the Biden administration, but the solution they are taking currently is something I find myself more agreeable to rather than just stepping in and buying a major player in the market.

That would seem reasonable, except we are not talking about opportunity cost. We are talking about actual financial burden comparison.

I can educate both my children to a higher standard in a far more personalized education form for less than $5,000 per child per year in actual financial cost. This includes progressive curriculum materials, paid external learning opportunities (things like park/nature center passes, museums, group activities, etc.), travel costs (yes, we actually do a far amount of local and some longer travel in the course of their school year for education purposes), and school supplies.

Opportunity cost tends to be more subjective and harder to realize because the success of opportunity is hard to predict. Does that mean I live in a single-income household? Yes, but my spouse and I chose this because we wanted to give our children as good an opportunity to succeed as we can and this was the way we were determined to do it. My spouse is actually has a higher education level than I do but chose to stay home and do this for our children. My spouse doesn't see this as the loss of opportunity but the gain of ability to spend more time with our children helping them learn and grow into compassionate, driven, and hard-working individuals. The fact that we can do so for less actual cost than the public or private school systems is just a bonus.

(I do realize this is anecdotal, but it is the best source I have right now and other homeschool parents in my area say much the same regardless of ethnic or economic background.)

1) I would be interested to see your source that says that enough funding gets sent to private schools to impact public school's ability to try and achieve the goals they are supposed to achieve.

2) If amount of money spent were actually a factor then why do we show no plausible link between literacy rate [1] and per pupil spending [2] by the government in public schools. This also doesn't account for how homeschoolers and private schoolers tend to do better in standardized testing (and other areas of academics) and yet homeschoolers spend vastly less in comparison to public and private schools (Finding a public source for spending that I am comfortable with is a little hard, so I am basing this on what I know of spending in my local homeschool groups. The test score comparisons are fairly easy to find.).

3) I think to try and simplify it down to simply the amount of money spent is disingenuous to an issue that, honestly, has very little to do with the amount of money spent and more to do with factors like like of parental involvement, politicization of schools by parents, teachers, and administrators, lack of motivation and work ethic in students, and a whole host of other issues.

4) Ultimately, and this is likely a simplification in and of itself, I think the largest factor is more about the willingness of a student to apply themselves and put in the work. A school is one of the few places where the playing field is as equal as it can be and a child/teenager does not need to be the smartest individual in the room in order to do well in school. They really just need to apply themselves. I remember reading some parenting advice many years ago about how it is better to encourage your children to work hard than it is to tell them they are smart as this helps put the value where it belongs, on hard work rather than one's natural abilities of which they have little control over.

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy...

[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-pupil-s...

It would seem to me that unless we start to see commensurate increases in hospitalizations that we don't really have much to worry about when it comes to Omicron.

EDIT: There was so little data coming out of SA that it was too hard to tell if this variant was following the trend of more infectious but less severe that is typical with viral mutation. I would imagine that question is going to be answered pretty quickly.

This is likely an opinion that will get downvoted and flagged, but I fail to see a negative in having a parent stay home to directly raise their children. I am an immigrant to the US, been married for 11 years, have two kids, and in that entire time have only ever had one working adult in the family, and I am the one that is lesser educated of the two yet I still earn enough to provide for my family. My spouse chose to stay home with the children because doing so gives them a far higher chance of success since there is a much higher percentage of direct involvement in their learning. That is not to mention that we have homeschooled our children for the last 5 years so the school closure wasn't even that big a deal for us. All of it on a sub 100k income.

So, I question why having a parent stay at home is seen as such a bad thing. Does going from a two-income household to a single-income household require change? Certainly. But I don't look down on those who live in two-income households, and I get a little frustrated at all the negativity against living in a single-income household.

No, the disease in question in this report is Marek's disease and I believe it was being studied in chickens.

I realize that is the CCN title, but let's be clear; They're not hiring robots, they're ordering and installing them. Semantics? Maybe, but clearly I'm convinced that it is something worth pointing out.

That's because de-platforming doesn't actually fix anything. Instead of refuting the idea on its merits and allowing there to be a logical destruction of extremist views, de-platforming just turns people into "martyrs" for their cause.

I would seriously recommend getting it serviced. I have 3 MacBooks in my house right now and none of them do that.

Have you stuck a volt-meter to your laptop to see if it is actually running a current through the body of the laptop? If it is, might be worth having the laptop serviced.

And there was no other major event that happened? We don't know if this is home insurance or auto insurance or health insurance or even something like marine vessel insurance. You didn't file a claim at all? Didn't get in an accident? Purchased a new/second home or vehicle? Changed jobs? Are you part of a program like DriveWise that monitors your driving habits? Had a recent medical procedure done? I think it awfully pre-mature to just assume that getting and cancelling a credit card would be the cause of this change.

EDIT: Heck, if 8% is a $400 increase, where do you live? Have you been affected by any recent natural disaster events? Have you added anything or changed your coverage at all?

Full disclosure; I am not a manager of anyone nor do I work in a software company. However, I work in an industry where things need to be timed out pretty well and I have to constantly provide an answer to my bosses and colleagues of the question "When do you expect to be able to do X?".

From my perspective it involves two things.

First, it is about applying the experience of similar situations to the future. I can't very well tell my coworkers "I don't know" because the work that they do depends on me getting my stuff done, especially in a timely manner. Thus, I have to draw on previous experience to say, "Well, this (or something like this) took me two weeks to get done last time so it will likely take me a similar amount of time this go round."

The second part of that is being open with expectations. Being up front with my coworkers involves me telling them that while I think this will take X amount of time, these are the complications I am facing that could have an impact on my ability to deliver in the provided time frame.

Ultimately, by applying a combination of those two things I have been able to build a good relationship with those I work with when it comes to providing estimates and expectations for delivery. Honestly, not sure how this will apply to software engineering or if it is even translatable at all, but that's my two cents.

I don't think this is specific to Binance. The SEC and Treasury are really looking at cracking down on crypto-reporting across the board. It's very unfortunate because, I agree, crypto's strongest appeals were in it's decentralization and it's anonymity. But I know that the current administration is trying to "crack down" on tax "evasion" and is proposing and implementing quite a few things that will likely make a majority of those involved unhappy. I don't think Binance is going to be the only doing this.

It boggles my mind that an article like this is acceptable when it basically advocates for racism. Take a moment and think if there was an article about how there were too many black people in the NBA (74%) or NFL (67%) or too many women in nursing (91%) or Asians are making too much money (median income $78,500, top median income in the US) and as such there needed to actively be decisions made to exclude them solely on that characteristic.

You will never find unbiased news. What I recommend doing is trying to understand the bias of the journalists that you read/watch on a regular basis and to follow some from several different sides. You have to treat news articles almost like a court trial. The typical routine in the US is that there are two sides presenting a story, and when applicable there is evidence/data/reports/etc. It's a lot of work to review something from both sides and any supporting work (like reports, papers, pictures, statements, etc) but if you want to get down to the bedrock of a particular issue that's what you have to do. You can't do it for everything, and I don't recommend you try. Be informed on the things that matter to you.

There is also the idea (that I think is a responsible thing to do) that will have to tell people you are talking to that you may not have looked in to whatever they are bringing up and you are not really the person to expect informed conversation from. Some people will continue talking about it and it's up to you whether or not you want to try to engage in the conversation beyond the courtesy acknowledgments. However, I find it a disservice to myself and the people I am talking to to try and interject an uninformed opinion or data point.

Ultimately, focus on those things that are important to you. Do your homework on those things. Recognize when you do and don't know something and don't be afraid to stop talking when you don't know something. Be willing to stop and listen, and don't go in to a conversation that you are informed in expecting to change minds.

Link is typoed. Correct link: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/12/kathryn-paig...

Those same jobs:

A) Typically ban smoking indoors because the state has banned smoking indoors

B) Also typically provide areas for smokers outside the building in compliance with local regulations. Are those places generally outside? No. Is the onus of responsibility on the business should an employee smoke inside? No, the employee is the one that would face the consequences, including possible termination and/or criminal charges. A business doesn't have much in the way to worry about.

There is no such provision for the vaccine. You either need to get the vaccine to continue working there, get tested every week, or find a different job. This is also without taking into account two things:

1) While the testing is offered according to OSHA, with potential fines up to 14k per instance what are the odds that employers are actually going to offer that to their employees? You actually, as a business, face less fines for leaving a piece of paper in plain sight that has someone's SSN, Name, and Address than you do for not potentially following this regulation.

2) That we are also looking at good odds of the testing option going away. It's not an option for federal employees, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that it will be going away for those under this mandate in the near future.

The difference being that people's general livelihoods are not being affected by these campaigns and requirements. The choice is still available to people even if there are restrictions on use and distribution. That is not the case with the vaccine.

This:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28474997#28475663

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28474688

Well, that didn't age very well...