I think you’re on the right track, but have identified the wrong place to insert a law. It shouldn’t be illegal to do this work. It should be illegal for insurance companies to abuse it through eligibility, premiums, and claims restrictions.
Sorry for the tangent. This conversation kicked up more nostalgia than I expected.
No problem.
Heh! You had blasting caps, we had carbide (my grandfather was still running an acetylene generator in his welding/machine/mechanic shop).
I’m more concerned about e coli levels than amoeba. But Lord only knows what gets into the South Saskatchewan River system and what grows vigorously once the water slows down in Lake Diefenbaker.
At least I’ve stopped swimming in the runoff sloughs in cattle pastures. (Kids are all kinds of stupid!)
Hah. I’ve been swimming in freshwater lakes, rivers, and reservoirs for about 65 years. Ain’t nothin’ takin’ me down.
Also a former water treatment plant operator, so I should probably not be quite so complacent. :)
Interesting. One of the chemicals they reference is tetrachloroethylene. According to this Wikipedia article:
Perhaps the greatest use of TCE is as a degreaser for metal parts. It has been widely used in degreasing and cleaning since the 1920s because of its low cost, low flammability, low toxicity and high effectivity as a solvent. The demand for TCE as a degreaser began to decline in the 1950s in favor of the less toxic 1,1,1-trichloroethane. However, 1,1,1-trichloroethane production has been phased out in most of the world under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, and as a result, trichloroethylene has experienced some resurgence in use as a degreaser.[17]
My grandfather had Parkinson’s. I would imagine that he had plenty of exposure in his work as a mechanic from about 1925 on.
Isn’t it sad that certain negative outcomes can be easily predicted by anyone bothering to think things through, yet no effort ever seems to go to mitigation, only spin and crocodile tears after the fact.
Thanks! My first thought was “hey, what about HPV?”
I think of my username as being like a lock on the door. It’s not going to stop someone who is dedicated to fucking with me, but it keeps the opportunistic fuckery at bay.
I don’t think that the uniqueness of fingerprints is in doubt, but their analysis and use might not be up to snuff. I’ve read numerous articles over the last couple of decades that call into question at least the statistical underpinnings of what it means to declare a match.
But law enforcement in general seems to be filled with pseudoscience, from profiling and interview techniques to body language and lie detection.
There is a lot of good discussion here, but I’d like to toss in something else. Look around at the society we live in. Corporations don’t care about health and well-being. Insurance companies don’t care about health and well-being. Political leaders don’t care about health and well-being. Pundits and think tanks don’t care about health and well-being.
Caring, volunteering, and donation all require the right frame of mind. Between the stress of daily survival and the messages we get from the people with the most power and the loudest voices, it surprises me that anyone is still donating.
I also prefer thematic instances, but try to find appropriate communities within those instances. Just because it’s coming from NASA, doesn’t make it astronomy.
Depending on which aspects of the project you think are important and want to discuss there are a few communities here that might be relevant.
Earth Science includes environment, and environmental impact seems to be the most popular talking point so far.
Noise and other forms of pollution are public health issues and there is a local community for that, although I’m not sure it’s really a great fit there.
Physics might be another choice due to the fact that a lot of physics is going into the engineering of something that reduces sonic booms.
Or maybe you just need to find the right thematic instance. For example, I’m registered on slrpnk for my climate, energy efficiency, and anarchism fixes.
On the grounds that a big and valuable chunk of territory that is currently being shared shows signs of being unilaterally fenced off. I’m not suggesting that Canada has a better claim, but it’s important for procedures to be followed.
Edit: I wanted to get my wording right, so I went back to the article:
The legality of all this is a bit hazy, Treadwell explains in a post for the Wilson Center. To make the definition official, the US has to submit data and reports to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, the US has not ratified UNCLOS due to complex political disagreements (the agreement has been ratified by 168 states and the European Union).
This leaves some uncertainty around how the proposition will be accepted under international law.
I hope Canada at least pretends to push back.
I’m more interested in the magical appearance of four states in “southeast” Canada than yet another solar eclipse.
Did someone forget to vet the AI’s output?
Total error rate is about 2/5? That’s barely better than a coin flip.
“Oh yes, I just got tested for my potential to become an opioid addict. Give me a second to flip a coin: heads I read the report, tails I toss it in the recycle bin.”