No, once everyone who wants it is vaccinated, their health is their problem not mine. If anyone is still scared of unvaccinated people, they can keep themselves at home forever, they don't get to force medical choices and restrictions on others.
Actually, they do. Being vaccinated from an infectious disease is part of your civic duties, to help protect those who can't be vaccinated for various reasons.
If anyone is scared of getting vaccinated due to nonsense conspiracy theories, they can keep themselves at home forever, they don't get to force a deadly disease on others.
> If those 100 people are still worried about that, they can choose to keep themselves locked away forever.
You must be trolling, no way you're so self-centered.
"I like to drive with 200km/h through cities, those who don't like it or are scared of my driving can stay home"
"I like to take my aggressive pitbull for a walk without a leash, if you don't like it you can stay home"
"I like to play with guns, if you don't like me handling guns in public you can stay home"
It's all recklessness, and of course not acceptable. You know what's the better solution for those 100 vaccinated people? To force you to stay at home. Because they're 100, and you're 1. It's not the whole world that needs to adapt to you, it's the other way around.
Nice army of straw men. You're trying to redefine literally existing in public as recklessness.
Self-centered? The people demanding the nonvaccinated cease existing in society because of their fears are the selfish ones. I'm saying nothing about anyone else's choices or activities whatsoever. Restricting someone else's behavior and bodily autonomy is the selfish act.
100 people forcibly removing 1 person from society who has done nothing wrong? That's a concentration camp. This is mob rule, you're just okay with it because you're part of the mob.
You can't walk naked on the street, despite it "doing no harm", because of other people's sensitivities. You need to adapt to the society, it's not the society's duty to adapt to you.
If it bothers enough people, you can't do it. Call it law, call it mob rule, call it whatever you wish - it's just how the world works.
Exactly, it's not societies duty to adapt to you, and some societies are more beholden to principles surrounding liberty; there are plenty of other more authoritarian societies available for those who want more restrictions.
And the 100 vs 1 argument is very poorly thought out; we have just had a year of people shut in their homes for the sake of the few who were at risk. For the argument to suddenly swing on its axis, it would strongly suggest an authoritarian thrilled at the opportunity to exercise their will on others.
This isn't some theoretical scenario - we have plenty of experience with other infectious diseases. People choosing not to be vaccinated creates opportunities for the disease to spread and either infect those who can't be vaccinated (young children, immunocompromised people etc), or gives the disease opportunities to mutate and evade the vaccine in the future.
Your right to not be vaccinated does not trump public health concerns, or shouldn't.
I think people should get vaccinated, but 'think of the children' is not a strong argument since they seem to be at very low risk of becoming seriously ill or death compared to every other age category.
I was discussing in a more general context of vaccination rights/obligations, even though for the particular case of Covid19 you are right.
Note however that we still don't know exactly what long-term consequences Covid19 may have, so even with this, if we can avoid infecting young children, we should.
Vaccines work - but they are not 100% effective. If an unvaccinated, COVID positive person comes in close contact with 100 people that are vaccinated, a number of them will get sick. Way less than had they not been vaccinated. But way more than is acceptable.
Is it? Far fewer of them still will get severe symptoms. And this of course requires the unvaccinated person to actually be infected. From what I read, my risk (of at least an unpleasant time) is worse if that person had some other virus instead, since I'm much more likely to catch it and guaranteed to have unpleasant symptoms if so. At some point there needs to be a cutoff in risk level where it's low enough for a free society.
A bigger concern in my mind is that as long as the virus is spreading it is mutating, potentially becoming dangerous again to the vaccinated too. But this seems to be increasingly not likely with this particular category of viruses.
Nuclear is more expensive per KWH basically entirely because of the regulatory environment. Not because of anything physical about the method or its fuel; it's not more expensive in France, for example. Get the costs of regulatory compliance down and nuclear becomes the cheapest power source for both capital and ongoing costs.
France's reliance on nuclear is almost 100% government-and-geopolitics driven, to avoid relying on foreign states for energy imports, the market has little to do with it. I can't speak for how much regulation is needed or not, but given nuclear failure is catastrophic, I can see why we should err on the regulated side. Nuclear is incredibly safe, but only because we made it safe by spending on it. Solar/wind just doesn't have the same risk profile.
> Or maybe they just recognize that their AI is causing more harm than good.
Google recognizes that these flaws in their AI aren't worth caring about. Google doesn't have any mission or obligation to help the world share videos. Google cares about Google's profits. And they've found that the expedient way to do that is just let the AI be overzealous with rejecting, because the cost of a false positive is infinitesimally tiny and the cost of a false negative (real copyright violation) is so much higher.
How do we fix this? Competition. We need a Google/Youtube competitor so that users will choose the platform that does copyright recognition better.
My guess would be that there must be something to do from an investing angle -- but also that industry insiders and specialists who look at such things dedicatedly and professionally would have already priced in or arbitraged anything far ahead of a layman's understanding and participation.
Note that New York to Chicago by Amtrak is so slow largely because there's no direct route. You either take the Great Lakes route going through Albany, Buffalo, and Cleveland, or the northeast corridor route to Washington DC and then another line to Chicago. The more direct Keystone line through Pennsylvania only goes as far as Harrisburg.
And the other part of the problem is that you're going through a continental divide. Prior to air travel, I assume NY to Chicago was a major route so there may be good reasons for why the routing is as it is.
100 years ago there were many routes! I hate that the rails have failed, taking a train between Philly, Reading, Allentown, and Scranton makes so much sense!
Yes, but the 20th Century Limited flagship of the New York Central Railroad [1] actually did follow the current Lake Shore Limited route. I suspect that there are geographic factors that limit a more direct route.
I think the absolute time and distance is what matters, and it would still substantially benefit from being high speed, even if it is meandering through upstate NY and along the great lakes.
Eventually, a more direct NY - Chicago high speed rail route could be built that is even faster.
You’ll notice that there is a Detroit to Toronto line on that map. It’s not an accident. Chicago to Detroit has been running at 110mph for 80+% of the distance for almost 10 years now. The rail tunnel under the Detroit River already exists.
You just need a fast NYC to Buffalo with a little extension on to Hamilton, ON and you’ve got a very direct NYC to Chicago route.
They'd need to do something about the hour-long stop at the border for CBP and its Canadian equivalent to go through the train checking everyone's passports. Decades ago I ran into it on the now-defunct Chicago-Toronto line and I'm pretty sure it's why they don't run those trains anymore. The New York-Toronto and New York-Montreal trains still do it.
Seattle-Vancouver avoids it by not making any stops between Vancouver and the border, so the immigration checks take place at the station. This might be feasible for Montreal, probably not for Toronto, and a train that runs from Buffalo to Detroit without stopping in Canada at all seems implausible.
Could probably set it up to do checks on departure. End up in the wrong country without your passport? Just take the next train back to the last destination in the other country.
Would likely need a special treaty in place so Americans traveling from Chicago to NY can travel through without a passport (just ID). Alternatively if we’re talking diplomatic solutions, the US and Canada could move towards a Schengen-style free transit zone without cross country border checks.
> Could probably set it up to do checks on departure
There's a seaplane from Victoria-Seattle. It's been a few years since I took it but I believe this is what happened. There's a custom agent at each side. I can't remember if there were any checks before departure though. I would imagine they would do some preliminary check because they don't want to be on the hook for taking you back.
Shortest custom wait ever BTW since the plane only holds 10-15 people.
> US and Canada could move towards a Schengen-style free transit zone without cross country border checks
This would be a dream. I'm curious why I've never really heard any proposal about this. As a Canadian (currently living in the US), I think that Canada would be more opposed to this. We always seem to have a fear of the US amalgamating us. I think it'd be politically tricky on both sides though. Even though it was proven to be false, there's still this myth that the 9/11 hijackers entered the US through Canada.
> As a Canadian (currently living in the US), I think that Canada would be more opposed to this. We always seem to have a fear of the US amalgamating us.
If it helps, Switzerland joined the Schengen area while maintaining its own customs controls (with reasonably consistent enforcement) and autonomy on immigration policy (outside of temporary tourist travel which is mostly harmonized). Major policy unification isn't necessary, although the minimum feasible level is likely still unprecedented for the US and Canada.
Right. And one way to combat that is IP geolocation, show your ads only to a first world audience. Of course, then a VPN or other IP spoofing techniques will combat that.
Not quite, because in this case the 50,000 listeners do exist. It's just that 45,000 of them are shills paid by the radio station. But if the advertising contracts didn't exclude for that, then there's no grounds to complain.
Does gold affect the ranking of a comment (i.e. where it is displayed on the page)? I guess I never really thought about it, but I assumed not.
If it's all about the icon displayed next to the comment header, I suppose that's a kind of amplification -- but it seems like less of a zero-sum game, because it's not forcing another opinion out of view.
Yes, it does. I think most of the various silly awards they have nowadays don't do it, but at least the original Reddit Gold award before all that other stuff does elevate a post or comment.
I never thought about it like this. I always just thought of Reddit Gold as just another weird Internet quirk I will never understand.
I kind of wonder if NFTs for artwork will become the same thing. Like amplifying comments, maybe high NFT prices will be a way to amplify one artist over another in what is a very crowded marketplace.
And a similar data point: I read GEB around age 30 and liked it but didn't love it.
About the first third of the book was interesting in new ways of thinking about symbols and self-reference. After that it kept looping back around the same topics without really adding anything more. The dialogues were somewhat entertaining but I found myself wishing to cut past the rhetorical fluff and get to the point.
Just to be clear: The ship is still there and still stuck. They were just able to straighten it enough (parallel to the shore) to be out of the way and no longer blocking boat traffic.
Edit: I think I saw an earlier article, other reports are now saying it's fully floating and moving.
