Venmo fits in here as well. The pay and request money buttons are the same color and touching. I have fat-fingered it before and paid a person who owed me money.

The twitter account @SkyCirclesLA keeps track of these sorts of instances. Definitely worth a follow

Some of these people get paid for voiceover work, so this could get interesting

yup, I would stay as far as possible from using this wit explicit permission, just putting it out there, the project has created legal risk IMO.

At least in the US, you can’t copyright your voice. Publicity rights is a can of worms depending on the jurisdiction.

Tangentially related, if you have your voice print as a security mechanism at a financial institution (Vanguard), you should ask them to turn that off.

The Australian Taxation Office uses a voiceprinting system when you phone them, and I'm not sure there's a way to opt out.

What credentials do you have to properly vet people?

Well first, the point of this type of open fact checking is you can always verify everything for yourself, so you don't need to trust my credentials.

Working on this over the last few years though, I've personally fact checked over 500 assertions.

Yes, but that's not the point. That merely shows that we still need to trust someone -- you.

Specifically, let's say you support belief A, and I want to add a whole bunch of facts that support belief B. You're still the gatekeeper to decide whether I get to be a contributor. There's no way for someone to know that you're going to approve equally-qualified contributors on different sides of an issue, so they're always going to wonder whether there are voices or facts being omitted.

(But if that's just the plan for beta, that's fine.)

Indeed, manual vetting is only for alpha. I should reiterate - the point of this type of open fact checking is you can always verify everything for yourself, so you don't need to trust my credentials.

Long term every review, even those that are flagged, will be accessible. Albeit, those that are flagged will be in a separate section, but the point is they will always be accessible, so that you never have to trust me or the community, you can always review for yourself.

> I should reiterate - the point of this type of open fact checking is you can always verify everything for yourself, so you don't need to trust my credentials.

Again, not for the omission of facts, or the omission of counter-evidence.

E.g, suppose you only let in contributors who agree with you. An article is posts with "Fact A," which you happen to agree with. A bunch of your hand-picked contributors put up evidence to support "Fact A." No one ever posts the evidence debunking "Fact A."

So there's no way to "verify" anything, because we can't see what's not there. Most readers will be satisfied that "Fact A" is well-sourced.

So it's not enough to say that the reader can verify everything and not need to trust you. I mean, they could do their own research to Google the evidence debunking Fact A, but they could do that anyway and the platform doesn't support them.

I would respectfully disagree. Introduce enough noise into the system and the cost of verification becomes so high that doing so is unrealistic for many or most people.

Also, on first glance the app looks great, well-polished, and the UX of reading an article and looking at sources for claim is nice :). Thanks for working on and sharing this!

Honestly, just dispute the transaction with your bank. Why bother dealing with the company directly?

Like amazon et al, any chargeback ever results in a permanent lifetime ban with no appeal from these services

I work in chargebacks. That isn't true.

> “It has been scientifically proven that overall physical fitness — not gender — correlates to injury,”

I think the takeaway should be how do we reduce injury with respect to different body types

I disagree.

I see it more as natural selection. Training is usually what a soldier might have to go through in real combat. I don't think accommodating different body types will be useful when the war time environment selects for a particular fit, and those not adapted to it will not survive, or worse - be a burden to the lives of others.

Sure, we can do things to reduce injury for people of different body types, but it would make more sense to me to select for those who already have a particular fitness.

when I say fit, I mean fit to the environment, not necessarily physical fitness.

I'd be curious to read that study as it seems to contradict the article. I didn't see it sourced in the article.

> The Model S, which was being driven by Barrett Riley, was traveling at 116mph three seconds before the collision

What do you expect to happen when a lithium ion battery hits a wall at high speeds?

A lot of apps allow location services at all times.

There are a lot of reasons it made sense: getting to see your photos instantly instead of waiting for (and paying for) film development, the ability to change the white balance after photos are taken, not lugging a bunch of film around, not worrying about airport x-rays ruining your film, getting a digital copy of your photos without using a scanner, and many other very big advantages.

And the iPad

x-rays don't ruin film

That depends. A lot of older X-ray machines were designed on the more is MORE philosophy, definitely ruining most film.

The fine print on so-called ‘film safe’ machines typically state they won’t visibly affect film slower than ISO800, inclusive.

(Plus, the damage is accumulated, so if you lug a lot of film through a lot of airports, you will get the occasional nasty surprise.)

That being said, I’ve never had any problems having my film -when I travel with it- inspected manually.

Cost and flexibility when shooting (adjustable ISO, no need to pause to change rolls) are actually the bigger advantages.

You can turn out photos in film about as fast as digital. I can get a roll developed, scanned, and online in about 20 minutes.

You are fast. For me it's more like 2 hours at least. You have a Pakon?