PSA: with Mailchimp URLs, it's best to remove the `?e=xxx` URL parameter. That way, A) you can't be identified by the sender as the person who shared the email, and B) other people can't flood your inbox by clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of the email.
Good call! This just keeps getting better, sharing the URL is such a natural thing to do but of course they need to add the tracking parameters to everything.
Based on the rate of commenting, I guess HN just really really wants to speculate on all the ways they'd have secured things differently in the capital building with retrospect and with absolutely no idea what the circumstances are that went in to the decisions made. So much so that one hour-and-change old thread on the subject just wasn't good enough. It's still on the front page ffs.
Threads like this make it very difficult not to get all ranty about how awful and arrogant tech people are.
This kind of thing (multiple posts on the same hot story) happens all the time, every day. It's a stochastic process and always works the same way. Reading a narrative into it is (over)interpreting randomness.
> I guess HN just really really wants to speculate on all the ways they'd have secured things differently in the capital building with retrospect and with absolutely no idea what the circumstances are that went in to the decisions made.
You say this like there's a good explanation for the department of defense rejecting requests to deploy the National Guard after the capitol building had been breached.
It also highlights the unashamed US-centric view of this place.
These kind of events happen all the time in other countries and you don't hear a peep on here, and rightly so it's considered off topic.
But it happens in the USA and it's all over the front page because it's a "new phenomenon".
No, attempted coups are not a new phenomenon, nor are stolen laptops. It might seem that way to most of us US citizens but the USA is not immune to events like these.
As with most things, real politik will ensure things continue in stability. As with any other failed coup, no coup can suceed without the support of the military. Not to mention the wider global political community would do their best ensure that Biden keeps power unless there really was an overwhelming case that Trump had full command of everything.
This thread is just "nerd-wanking" about how if they ran IT there they'd have everything permanently under FDE with 3fa, physical lockouts and a whole host of other things that users would do their best to work around lest they spent half an hour every day waiting for their bitlocker resets on their 512bit entropy randomly generated passphrases.
It's significant yes, but it's not a new phenomenom.
It's "the Capitol" to you, it's "The US Capitol Building" to the rest of the world.
Is it newsworthy? Absolutely! But it's not a new phenomenon on a global scale, and it's very US centric to claim otherwise.
"First time major thing happens to <country>" happens all the time globally, but only when it's the US that it goes from off-topic to allowed content here.
And that's OK, it's their news site, they set the rules, but it uis jarring to come on here and find essentially general news content and commentary.
I agree with you, but to answer your argument: the difference is that one is airlines choosing who they want to serve, and the other is the government choosing who airlines are allowed to serve.
I have no problem with the former, but I have a big problem with the latter, particularly as it's currently implemented.
I don't know exactly how this works, but you can definitely end up on the list because the airlines OR the gov want you on the list. I guess that once you're there it makes little difference, but I agree with you that these things should be treated differently (the same way in which your SSN is your personal identification number when this is not it's original purpose but private entities hijack it anyway)
Oh yeah hospitals all benefited so much from having to postpone expensive well-compensated elective surgeries for months, after which many of the heart, cancer, etc. patients were just dead so it wasn't so much a postponement as a cancellation. Their CFOs were turning cartwheels. Q people are really tying themselves in knots trying to explain away the excess deaths. (Hint: this goofy argument doesn't work either.)
I didn't say hospitals haven't undergone financial hardship due to COVID-19. In fact, the reason for the extra funding is precisely to alleviate the stress under which hospitals have been for the past ~year.
All I said was that hospitals receive extra funding from the government for taking in COVID-19 patients, relative to "normal" patients. This is indisputable and I was not making a broader point.
Don't try to lump me into a group such as QANON based on something I didn't say.
At this time your comment still says "It's pretty well-established fact that hospitals benefit financially by taking COVID-19 patients." Those hospitals that didn't take covid patients didn't delay as many surgeries for as many weeks. Every heart bypass is worth more than ten covid deaths have even been rumored (falsely) to be worth. This is a pointless argument that harms public health, and those who wish to distinguish themselves from Q shouldn't make it.
I honestly don't get what you're trying to accomplish here. The original question was this:
"How does a doctor/hospital/insurer benefit from putting Covid-19 on the death certificate?"
My read of this question is that the person was unaware of the extra funding made available to hospitals taking COVID-19 patients. Therefore, I gave a link to a USA Today article which explained the facts.
I didn't say that there aren't ways for hospitals to make more money than they get by caring for COVID-19 patients. My only point, which I'll reiterate, is that the government provides additional funding to hospitals that take COVID-19 patients.
I haven't indicated whether I think that's good or bad, and I haven't indicated whether I think the additional funding has been abused or not. I just gave information about government funding of hospitals to somebody who asked a question about the subject.
> ten covid deaths have even been rumored (falsely) to be worth
Is there a problem with the USA Today article I posted? If the numbers are wrong, I'll be happy to correct it.
> This is a pointless argument that harms public health, and those who wish to distinguish themselves from Q shouldn't make it.
I haven't made an argument, and I haven't harmed public health. You're still reading things I didn't write and then making assumptions about me with no basis. Please stop. Slow down, reread everything I've written. Then reply here without fighting windmills so we can converse.
This is actually standard practice (in the U.S.), and there are official procedures to recover unclaimed assets. See: https://www.usa.gov/unclaimed-money
1. It sort of is. The prevailing founding arguments for federalism was as a check against the national government.
Even today, 35 states contradict the federal government's regulation that states marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use"
2. Only SCOTUS can definitively say whether or not may-issue contradicts the 2nd.
The first two problems would be easily prevented by keeping your firearms in a safe. If you're worried about arguments with your spouse becoming fatal, please talk to a counselor ASAP.
As for negligent discharges, which are probably the most legitimate concern, you should always follow the four rules of gun safety:
1. Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
In my experience, these are hammered into civilian students who take firearm training classes, but soldiers in the military often haven't heard of the four rules and generally are far more casual with their guns than civilians.
It's easy to dismiss the concerns out of hand and spout basic handling rules that soldiers do get, btw and are drilled into them.
The wisdom is realizing that all of this goes out the window when the shit hits the fan. Also unless you're training your entire family on weapon use, they will be untrained folks around dangerous weapons.
There is a reason barracks do not allow weapons and all that stuff is under guard in a proper armory.
Your flippant response sounds more like a religious defense than practical consideration of real situations. There's a reason a large number of firearm deaths are one of the above categories I listed.
You do not need to teach young children how to use a gun if you instead teach them to never, under any circumstances, to touch the gun. This is not hard to do, though many irresponsible people neglect to do so. And none of this goes out the window even in fantasy "shit hits the fan" scenarios; the rules for how to handle (or, to not handle) guns remain the same. The rules keep you safe when you follow them dogmatically. As soon as you start making 'common sense' exceptions to the rules, that is when you put yourself in danger. A lot of people have gotten hurt after thinking "I know I shouldn't point the gun at myself, but I KNOW I just unloaded it so logically there is no danger..."
(And anecdotally, I've personally witnessed no correlation whatsoever between military service and taking gun safety seriously.
YMMV.)
If abstinence education was effective, there would be few unwanted children in red states.
A shit hits the fan scenario is when you're black out drunk or something where you're in a bad mental state, not society collapsing. Following rules does not help in a situation where you're unable to follow rules
If 'gun abstention' weren't effective, there would be a whole lot more kids with gunshot wounds in red states. The fact of the matter is that telling kids not to touch guns generally does work.
I don't doubt that you've considered your experience and knowledge in coming to the decision to not own a gun. My response wasn't flippant, and I'm sorry it came across that way.
I grew up around (unlocked) guns and knew better than to even think about touching one of them while I was a child. I am aware that many children aren't taught proper respect for firearms, which is part of why I recommended keeping them locked up. (The guns, not the children...)
My comment about soldiers is based on my personal interactions with them. I know they go through gun safety handling, but in practice they frequently have very poor muzzle discipline ("But it's unloaded!": I don't care). I've also talked to a few soldiers who had never heard of the four rules of gun safety, either by name or after hearing them listed out, so I don't think all soldiers have had gun safety drilled into them as strongly as you may have.
I don't live in barracks, but my understanding of military life as a whole is that the military has to support the lowest common denominator in their troops. If you have children, you probably aren't a hotheaded 20 year old anymore, and it seems like that should factor into your decision making process, no?
The other two points (being shot by a spouse or burglar using your own gun), frankly sound silly to me. You listed four categories, but only two of them are responsible for a large number of firearm deaths. It's extremely rare for a burglar to take and use a victim's gun against the victim, and also pretty rare for a spouse to murder the other.
And just to reiterate what I said in my first post, if you're even a little worried you might lose control and kill your spouse, or your spouse might kill you, you need to see a counselor right now regardless of whether you have guns or not. (Alternatively, if you do get along with your spouse, then I'm not sure why you factored that into your decision to not own a gun?)
I am making this post in good faith, and I hope you'll respond.
For me the danger of all these externalities outweighs the potential gains.
The biggest danger of all is the perception that you are somehow in control of things that you can mitigate but do not actually control.
While you may be correct that spousal conflicts are not the biggest cause of deaths, a quick search showed that suicide is 5x more likely if that suicidal person has access to a gun.
Whether you get along with your spouse today is not guaranteed tomorrow. Counseling? Yes it helps. Guns? Statistically not.
This is not true. 50 year old ammo will shoot indistinguishably from new ammo if both have been stored correctly. Prolonged exposure to water or high humidity can damage cartridges by preventing the powder from burning, but that doesn't make it more dangerous, only useless (at worst).
As for humidity, I think you would be surprised. Much of Appalachia and the East Coast have high humidity levels (typically 70-90% during summer IIRC) and I've never found ammo damaged by humidity there. I've shot 25 year old ammo that was put in an ammo can and dumped in a hiding spot near a pond (so, very high humidity) and had no issues shooting with it. Even if the ammo is stored in the manufacturer's cardboard box, I wouldn't worry about humidity damage unless average levels are over 85 or 90%. Water damage is a different matter, but I don't have any experience with that.
That video is on Sporting Ammunition which is relatively low energy and shotgun shells which are reasonably safe in a fire. A rifle round cooking off is significantly more dangerous though without a barrel it’s below a normal handgun round, still the difference from that video is still shocking.
Edit: It's mostly true that ammo in a fire will just pop and maybe just throw a little brass a short distance.
BUT from that fire I'm witness to the fact that ammo can also "fire" with enough force to go through steel 50 cal ammo boxes and continue through such things as walls and cans.
There were bullet holes through the shop's paneled and insulated tin walls. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/ammo-in-a-fire...
I will admit I may be overstating the humidity issues, my personal experience was 15 year old ammo in Florida shed which had issues but clearly YMMV.
Do you have a source for that? I don't really understand why shotgun rounds would be less dangerous, particularly if rifle rounds are more dangerous. More powder = more dangerous would make sense to me, but that doesn't sound like what you're saying.
Some parts of Florida are more humid than Appalachia, so maybe the difference between 75% and 95% humidity has a greater effect than 55% to 75%.
I was told the rifle rounds where more dangerous, but not why. My suspicion is the plastic tube around a shotgun shell loses strength before the round is hot enough to go off ~200C. Though it’s probably more complicated.
As to humidity, I don’t know it might be just extreme humidity or it could be humidity + temperature, or perhaps we had a bad case of ammo to start with.
Check out https://github.com/metabase/metabase . I'm not clear on their open source vs paid model, but I'm pretty sure you can host it yourself and their core is open source.
In this case, the cleaned URL that should have been posted is https://mailchi.mp/ubnt/account-notification