They wanted to regulate "rocket fuel" as a toxic substance. I don't know if they realized this or not but "rocket fuel" is no different than jet fuel, fuel oil, gasoline, or any other hydrocarbon fuel
In fairness there are various kinds of rocket fuels like hypergolic and zip fuels that are very toxic to the point where they're considered simply too unsafe to be used for the main engines in manned spaceflight, even by the Russians. Particularly ICBMs used hypergolic fuels due to it allowing them to be fired with shorter run-up times before the move to solid fuels allowed them to be fired practically with the push of a single button.
Sure, rockets that aren't just for manned spaceflight are moving more towards using engines powered by liquid RP-1 (highly refined kerosene) or hydrogen together with liquid oxygen. However that's just a more recent trend and Californian regulation probably has something to do with the move away from hypergolic and other types of fuel that don't need to be cooled.
If you have to dedicate a board seat to someone who's not necessarily the most competent and/or driven person to fill that it's obviously going to be to detriment of the company. Let's not even go into what it's going to be for the person who has to fill the seat knowing they got hired because of their gender and not their qualifications and the resentment this is bound to create towards this person.
Would you want to occupy a position you knew you got not because of your abilities, experience or dedication to the job, but because of how you were born? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.
The far left is typically the side that causes most fights at rallies and is way more eager to protest by destroying private and public property, kind of like how antifa pretty much wrecked a whole working class neighborhood at the last G20 summit. Hell, even the political murder argument hasn't held any water for two years after that Black Lives Matter activist shot 5 police officers to death and wounded 9 others along with 2 bystanders at a Black Lives Matter rally in Dallas.
Mind you, I say this as a traditional liberal who wouldn't bat an eye if we loaded both the far left and the right into a big rocket and shot them all into the sun.
Yes and people who fall outside of the two established biology-based genders make up such a small part of the population they're practically a rounding error so not even the most ardent "gender warriors" are going to make a fuss about their representation. I think the last StackOverFlow user survey had people who stated their gender as "Other" rather than "Male" or "Female" at something like 0.5%.
The annoying part about SystemD is that like PulseAudio, a previous Pottering project known to be a buggy mess (at least until some more competent management came in and fixed it), it's a genuinely needed replacement for something aging and badly outdated.
Unfortunately people are too aware of the pitfalls of NIH syndrome so you're not going to be able to get enough members of the open source community to create a competently done init replacement to replace an incompetently done one that still (somewhat) works.
My understanding is that the effects to the consumer are just collateral damage to what amounts to something intended to hurt countries and blocks on the macro level in an effort to make them willing to re-negotiate preexisting trade deals in the U.S' favor. If there's anything Trump demonstrated with his wall, it's that he can hold onto unpopular things as long as his base supports them. As for the "hurt" his tariffs may be causing, the Chinese stock exchange did lose it's position as the biggest stock exchange in Asia, a position it gained from the Japanese one back in 2014, the week before last.
Don't get me wrong, while I can see the idea behind the tariffs, I'm not ignorant to how people like Macron and Junker have made public statements where they clearly articulate they see can see through this and will not be brought to the negotiating table by this.
To my ears it just sounds like they're blaming whatever they can to take the blame off themselves so that this doesn't tarnish their personal reputations or give a reason for investors and creditors to sue them. In the Financial Times article they also talk about how a major account defaulting was a major contributing factor to their bankruptcy and I have a feeling it added more to their woes than the tariffs did. I'm also having a hard time believing the tariffs, which to my knowledge are mostly in the 25% ballpark, could have possibly caused an 80% increase in costs.
Sounds to me like Trump is actually doing the business community a favor by causing companies with dysfunctional business models to fail and allowing those with ones that actually work to thrive.
Also kind of odd that they talk about costs going up 80% when the tariffs are mostly in the 25% ballpark. Because to me that has more than just a whiff of trying to cover their asses from (justified) investor and creditor lawsuits.
Did you even read the oxford dictionary definition you quoted? Because it talks about production, distribution and exchange being owned or regulated by the community as a whole. In other words even your own definition makes it clear that collective ownership is not necessary and a socialist can easily be just that by having things like proper labor protections, proper consumer safety and up-to-speed financial regulations.
Hell, with your definition you could even make the argument that the U.S is socialist because authorities like the FDA, SEC, NHTSA and various labor boards exist...
It's funny how whenever Venezuela is brought up you always get people who come around and start going on about how their predicament is the logical end result to socialism even thou socialism in itself is actually a fairly vague concept and has been implemented in vastly different ways across the world. If you're going to use Venezuela as an example of socialism in action, you also ought to have a look at places like Scandinavia and western Europe.
Out of the Nordic countries only Norway has any oil, but the rest have still managed to build up much more economically equal systems without making everyone poor. Only real downside is that the average (income) tax rate is around 30%, which I assume a lot of right wingers in the U.S would consider unacceptably high.
What's even funnier is when systems like those of Norway, Scandinavia and much of western Europe that people actually use as an example of a socialist system done right are brought up, people like you claim they're somehow not socialist enough and thus don't count.
As hard as it may be to understand, socialism is fundamentally a pretty vague concept and can be be implemented in a lot of different ways without the state control of the economy that has messed things up so badly in Venezuela.
I can immediately think of a much bigger pre-Trump tariff on EU-made products, the 25% "chicken tax" on light trucks (utility vehicles like vans and pickups) imposed in the early 60s as a response to when France and West Germany accused the U.S of dumping chicken on their markets at below cost.
It's not like this hasn't happened before... The best known previous example is the "Business X, except on the internet" that was all the rage during the dot.com boom and I'm pretty sure everyone here on slashdot remembers what happened when people finally wised up on it.
Sure, there were some actually viable and profitable businesses that came out of it, but most of the businesses that got investors excited were garbage companies with no viable path to profitability. Thus when they finally figured out that being on the internet wasn't some magical thing that couldn't fail the end the result was truly brutal and it's not like the average quality of bitcoin startups is any better than the average quality of blockchain startups.
Only time I've been "robbed" was when a locker room that was supposed to be locked was accidentally left un-locked so somebody went trough my wallet and stole all the cash in it (only carried a minimal amount of cash with me since then).
The problem with that comparison that it's easy to check the shoes by just walking past them while you can't be sure if someone is actually in the bathroom or something and thus there, but not visible, when you're scoping out a house/apartment to burgle. Stealing someone's wallet from their stuff at the beach is obviously a lot quicker (10 seconds?) and easier to get away with than breaking into someone's house, scoping it out for valuables and them making off with what's got the best combination of ease-of-theft and value (several minutes?).
I have a feeling that's mostly to do with how many people in particularly humanities end up in education as they don't have much else in terms of post-university job opportunities. When a larger and larger section of our youth end up in higher education and the outside-of-education employment prospects of these groups stay the same their share of people in the education sector will obviously go up and they're obviously going to be pushing their what they studied to be given more focus.
Where I come from even my parents' generation (the ones in STEM subjects to be specific) used to joke about how awful the job prospects of liberal arts people were, but they're still educating way more people in these subjects than there are jobs for and now with the latest education reforms it seems like the chickens have come to roost. The new curriculums and course structures in pre-university education have been widely panned by the teachers of STEM subjects as having been written primarily for liberal arts' subjects and with little regards for the best ways to teach STEM subjects. We're still very high in the PISA rankings, but not only have other countries been improving their scores, ours have been worsening and the only explanation that has been considered acceptable to voice has been that it's the home conditions of the students deteriorating.
What you're describing sounds way more like what happens when you let managers with MBAs and the markering department make determine what features your product should have. Some over-eager programmers may suggest various improvements, which in your example would be things like making it easy to empty out the crumbs or ensuring it's well done but won't burn your fingers where you grab it after it's done, but most programmers I know only go overboard on how well they want to get it to achieve the intended task.
Sure, programmers and engineers often end up over-engineering things, which obviously isn't good, but that's a very different kettle of fish compared to the management&marketing-induced feature creep you're describing.
After the "intractable shambles" the last 50000 attempts have produced it should be more than clear enough that dumbing down programming just doesn't work and the solution really does need to be making those with the knack for the job more productive rather than just maximising the number of bodies.
Not everyone is suited for every job out there and there's genuinely no shame in admitting a particular job just isn't for you.
Sounds awfully over-complicated compared to what my grandfather used to do, i.e just leave some outside-visible lights on. Most burglars are obviously just going to assume nobody's home and move on to another apartment that looks like the residents are out.
I don't have any figures to prove how effective it is, but the closest my grandparents have ever come to a break-in was one time somebody broke into their cellar space at the apartment complex they lived in at the time and stole some of my dad and uncle's old toys.
Reading their responses, in which they don't even respond to what's actually being brought up, I somehow get the feeling that their corporate communications policy literally doesn't allow them to admit mistakes, so instead they just try to pivot and go on about something only tangentially related rather than admit that patches have been an absolute mess for the last few years. Only problem is that their move to turn Windows into a Software-as-a-Service type deal is only going to make the buggy patch problem worse when admins get less control over what patches are installed.
Then again I do understand why they don't want to address and admit fault with their shoddy testing and QA practices. Windows 8 and now 10 have after all been the way better advertisements for Linux, Mac OS and other alternatives than anything their creators could conjure up and they're obviously noticing how IT admins are once again looking at alternatives (the last time being when Windows 10 came out).
Considering that they've been investing pretty heavily into expanding their production capacity with the increased production they're buying more components, which obviously don't come out the other end as revenue exactly overnight, it's completely to be expected. We're talking both their loss and revenue being within 5% of analyst predictions so there's even less to be surprised about.
When a company invests into additional production the costs of that always show up on the balance sheet months before the additional revenue really comes in. In this case Tesla got to the 5k Model 3s per week figure those investments were made to reach by the last week of the quarter. Hence the real impact of the additional investments won't really start to show on their balance until the next quarter.
The problem with most UBI programs is that they don't require it's recipients to look for work and thus encourage people to be passive and not bother looking for work. Previous programs are the way they are exactly because they're supposed to prevent abuse, i.e people getting benefits they're not entitled to like unemployment for people who have no intention of being employed. Reductions in overhead costs mostly stem from the removal of systems intended to prevent abuse and when added to an UBI pram, the program will be just as inefficient and complex as the programs it's supposed to replace.
On a fundamental level most of the benefits programs that we have today are supposed to be financial assistance programs for those that need them and the complexity in them arises for the most part from attempts at preventing abuse of the programs by people trying to get benefits they're not entitled to. UBI basically just throws all of these safeguards to the side and assumes people won't abuse the program when the safeguards were originally put into place exactly because people were abusing the old systems.
Thus any UBI system that isn't implemented in an incredibly naive way will inevitably end up being pretty similar to already existing benefits systems. Not that it wouldn't be an improvement, but it won't be the revolution people are hoping UBI systems will bring about.
More likely it was "The program didn't have the intended effect of getting more people on benefits to take on part time work or start their own businesses, so we shut it down" or something along those lines.
I'm not completely familiar with the Canadian trial, but the heavily publicized one here in Finland really has the primary goal of improving employment rates by removing barriers for people on benefits from participating in the labor force. Normally people on benefits who try to work have to worry about earning too much to get benefits, but not enough to actually pay the bills and will hence reject job offers for part time work on those grounds. Some even reject applications for full time work on the grounds of said work not brining in enough additional money compared to just being on benefits.
The main complaint about particularly the Finnish UBI program is that it removes the requirement to show that you're actively looking for a job and thus people will just try to live on it with no intention of actually getting a job, full or part time, hence achieving the exact opposite of what was intended. It's not even that far fetched when you already have people who work very hard to game the system by actively sabotaging their job seeking with things like sending in intentionally bad applications or intentionally failing job interviews. Hell, even the guy who's basically become the public face of the Finnish program and been interviewed by dozens of foreign media outlets went from pretending to look for work to just happily living on it with no will whatsoever to look for a job.
I mean the main point of most basic income programs (including the one in Finland) that have been or are being tested right now along with those that had a real chance of being tested is to make it easier for poor people to take up part time work without having to worry about earning too much to get unemployment benefits, but not enough to actually live on their salary alone. That and simplifying benefits so you don't have to apply for a load of different ones based on things like disability or living expenses.
We're not talking about a direct hand-out to the poor, just an attempted streamlining of benefits so that more poor people actually enter the workforce. The bank and GM bail-outs weren't hand-outs either as they were loans that genuinely need to be re-paid (and to my knowledge have been done so with the banks).
Now why do I get the feeling that the only new restrictions on using DNA databanks like these are going to be on law enforcement trying to solve cold cases like that of the golden state killer while private actors like insurance companies will be completely free to use that data to increase costs for people with genetic conditions that can cause serious health problems or just deny them coverage altogether?
Slashdot Mirror
They wanted to regulate "rocket fuel" as a toxic substance. I don't know if they realized this or not but "rocket fuel" is no different than jet fuel, fuel oil, gasoline, or any other hydrocarbon fuel
In fairness there are various kinds of rocket fuels like hypergolic and zip fuels that are very toxic to the point where they're considered simply too unsafe to be used for the main engines in manned spaceflight, even by the Russians. Particularly ICBMs used hypergolic fuels due to it allowing them to be fired with shorter run-up times before the move to solid fuels allowed them to be fired practically with the push of a single button.
Sure, rockets that aren't just for manned spaceflight are moving more towards using engines powered by liquid RP-1 (highly refined kerosene) or hydrogen together with liquid oxygen. However that's just a more recent trend and Californian regulation probably has something to do with the move away from hypergolic and other types of fuel that don't need to be cooled.
If you have to dedicate a board seat to someone who's not necessarily the most competent and/or driven person to fill that it's obviously going to be to detriment of the company. Let's not even go into what it's going to be for the person who has to fill the seat knowing they got hired because of their gender and not their qualifications and the resentment this is bound to create towards this person.
Would you want to occupy a position you knew you got not because of your abilities, experience or dedication to the job, but because of how you were born? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.
The far left is typically the side that causes most fights at rallies and is way more eager to protest by destroying private and public property, kind of like how antifa pretty much wrecked a whole working class neighborhood at the last G20 summit. Hell, even the political murder argument hasn't held any water for two years after that Black Lives Matter activist shot 5 police officers to death and wounded 9 others along with 2 bystanders at a Black Lives Matter rally in Dallas.
Mind you, I say this as a traditional liberal who wouldn't bat an eye if we loaded both the far left and the right into a big rocket and shot them all into the sun.
Yes and people who fall outside of the two established biology-based genders make up such a small part of the population they're practically a rounding error so not even the most ardent "gender warriors" are going to make a fuss about their representation. I think the last StackOverFlow user survey had people who stated their gender as "Other" rather than "Male" or "Female" at something like 0.5%.
The annoying part about SystemD is that like PulseAudio, a previous Pottering project known to be a buggy mess (at least until some more competent management came in and fixed it), it's a genuinely needed replacement for something aging and badly outdated.
Unfortunately people are too aware of the pitfalls of NIH syndrome so you're not going to be able to get enough members of the open source community to create a competently done init replacement to replace an incompetently done one that still (somewhat) works.
My understanding is that the effects to the consumer are just collateral damage to what amounts to something intended to hurt countries and blocks on the macro level in an effort to make them willing to re-negotiate preexisting trade deals in the U.S' favor. If there's anything Trump demonstrated with his wall, it's that he can hold onto unpopular things as long as his base supports them. As for the "hurt" his tariffs may be causing, the Chinese stock exchange did lose it's position as the biggest stock exchange in Asia, a position it gained from the Japanese one back in 2014, the week before last.
Don't get me wrong, while I can see the idea behind the tariffs, I'm not ignorant to how people like Macron and Junker have made public statements where they clearly articulate they see can see through this and will not be brought to the negotiating table by this.
To my ears it just sounds like they're blaming whatever they can to take the blame off themselves so that this doesn't tarnish their personal reputations or give a reason for investors and creditors to sue them. In the Financial Times article they also talk about how a major account defaulting was a major contributing factor to their bankruptcy and I have a feeling it added more to their woes than the tariffs did. I'm also having a hard time believing the tariffs, which to my knowledge are mostly in the 25% ballpark, could have possibly caused an 80% increase in costs.
Sounds to me like Trump is actually doing the business community a favor by causing companies with dysfunctional business models to fail and allowing those with ones that actually work to thrive.
Also kind of odd that they talk about costs going up 80% when the tariffs are mostly in the 25% ballpark. Because to me that has more than just a whiff of trying to cover their asses from (justified) investor and creditor lawsuits.
Did you even read the oxford dictionary definition you quoted? Because it talks about production, distribution and exchange being owned or regulated by the community as a whole. In other words even your own definition makes it clear that collective ownership is not necessary and a socialist can easily be just that by having things like proper labor protections, proper consumer safety and up-to-speed financial regulations.
Hell, with your definition you could even make the argument that the U.S is socialist because authorities like the FDA, SEC, NHTSA and various labor boards exist...
It's funny how whenever Venezuela is brought up you always get people who come around and start going on about how their predicament is the logical end result to socialism even thou socialism in itself is actually a fairly vague concept and has been implemented in vastly different ways across the world. If you're going to use Venezuela as an example of socialism in action, you also ought to have a look at places like Scandinavia and western Europe.
Out of the Nordic countries only Norway has any oil, but the rest have still managed to build up much more economically equal systems without making everyone poor. Only real downside is that the average (income) tax rate is around 30%, which I assume a lot of right wingers in the U.S would consider unacceptably high.
What's even funnier is when systems like those of Norway, Scandinavia and much of western Europe that people actually use as an example of a socialist system done right are brought up, people like you claim they're somehow not socialist enough and thus don't count.
As hard as it may be to understand, socialism is fundamentally a pretty vague concept and can be be implemented in a lot of different ways without the state control of the economy that has messed things up so badly in Venezuela.
I can immediately think of a much bigger pre-Trump tariff on EU-made products, the 25% "chicken tax" on light trucks (utility vehicles like vans and pickups) imposed in the early 60s as a response to when France and West Germany accused the U.S of dumping chicken on their markets at below cost.
It's not like this hasn't happened before... The best known previous example is the "Business X, except on the internet" that was all the rage during the dot.com boom and I'm pretty sure everyone here on slashdot remembers what happened when people finally wised up on it.
Sure, there were some actually viable and profitable businesses that came out of it, but most of the businesses that got investors excited were garbage companies with no viable path to profitability. Thus when they finally figured out that being on the internet wasn't some magical thing that couldn't fail the end the result was truly brutal and it's not like the average quality of bitcoin startups is any better than the average quality of blockchain startups.
Only time I've been "robbed" was when a locker room that was supposed to be locked was accidentally left un-locked so somebody went trough my wallet and stole all the cash in it (only carried a minimal amount of cash with me since then).
The problem with that comparison that it's easy to check the shoes by just walking past them while you can't be sure if someone is actually in the bathroom or something and thus there, but not visible, when you're scoping out a house/apartment to burgle. Stealing someone's wallet from their stuff at the beach is obviously a lot quicker (10 seconds?) and easier to get away with than breaking into someone's house, scoping it out for valuables and them making off with what's got the best combination of ease-of-theft and value (several minutes?).
I have a feeling that's mostly to do with how many people in particularly humanities end up in education as they don't have much else in terms of post-university job opportunities. When a larger and larger section of our youth end up in higher education and the outside-of-education employment prospects of these groups stay the same their share of people in the education sector will obviously go up and they're obviously going to be pushing their what they studied to be given more focus.
Where I come from even my parents' generation (the ones in STEM subjects to be specific) used to joke about how awful the job prospects of liberal arts people were, but they're still educating way more people in these subjects than there are jobs for and now with the latest education reforms it seems like the chickens have come to roost. The new curriculums and course structures in pre-university education have been widely panned by the teachers of STEM subjects as having been written primarily for liberal arts' subjects and with little regards for the best ways to teach STEM subjects. We're still very high in the PISA rankings, but not only have other countries been improving their scores, ours have been worsening and the only explanation that has been considered acceptable to voice has been that it's the home conditions of the students deteriorating.
What you're describing sounds way more like what happens when you let managers with MBAs and the markering department make determine what features your product should have. Some over-eager programmers may suggest various improvements, which in your example would be things like making it easy to empty out the crumbs or ensuring it's well done but won't burn your fingers where you grab it after it's done, but most programmers I know only go overboard on how well they want to get it to achieve the intended task.
Sure, programmers and engineers often end up over-engineering things, which obviously isn't good, but that's a very different kettle of fish compared to the management&marketing-induced feature creep you're describing.
After the "intractable shambles" the last 50000 attempts have produced it should be more than clear enough that dumbing down programming just doesn't work and the solution really does need to be making those with the knack for the job more productive rather than just maximising the number of bodies.
Not everyone is suited for every job out there and there's genuinely no shame in admitting a particular job just isn't for you.
Sounds awfully over-complicated compared to what my grandfather used to do, i.e just leave some outside-visible lights on. Most burglars are obviously just going to assume nobody's home and move on to another apartment that looks like the residents are out.
I don't have any figures to prove how effective it is, but the closest my grandparents have ever come to a break-in was one time somebody broke into their cellar space at the apartment complex they lived in at the time and stole some of my dad and uncle's old toys.
Reading their responses, in which they don't even respond to what's actually being brought up, I somehow get the feeling that their corporate communications policy literally doesn't allow them to admit mistakes, so instead they just try to pivot and go on about something only tangentially related rather than admit that patches have been an absolute mess for the last few years. Only problem is that their move to turn Windows into a Software-as-a-Service type deal is only going to make the buggy patch problem worse when admins get less control over what patches are installed.
Then again I do understand why they don't want to address and admit fault with their shoddy testing and QA practices. Windows 8 and now 10 have after all been the way better advertisements for Linux, Mac OS and other alternatives than anything their creators could conjure up and they're obviously noticing how IT admins are once again looking at alternatives (the last time being when Windows 10 came out).
Considering that they've been investing pretty heavily into expanding their production capacity with the increased production they're buying more components, which obviously don't come out the other end as revenue exactly overnight, it's completely to be expected. We're talking both their loss and revenue being within 5% of analyst predictions so there's even less to be surprised about.
When a company invests into additional production the costs of that always show up on the balance sheet months before the additional revenue really comes in. In this case Tesla got to the 5k Model 3s per week figure those investments were made to reach by the last week of the quarter. Hence the real impact of the additional investments won't really start to show on their balance until the next quarter.
The problem with most UBI programs is that they don't require it's recipients to look for work and thus encourage people to be passive and not bother looking for work. Previous programs are the way they are exactly because they're supposed to prevent abuse, i.e people getting benefits they're not entitled to like unemployment for people who have no intention of being employed. Reductions in overhead costs mostly stem from the removal of systems intended to prevent abuse and when added to an UBI pram, the program will be just as inefficient and complex as the programs it's supposed to replace.
On a fundamental level most of the benefits programs that we have today are supposed to be financial assistance programs for those that need them and the complexity in them arises for the most part from attempts at preventing abuse of the programs by people trying to get benefits they're not entitled to. UBI basically just throws all of these safeguards to the side and assumes people won't abuse the program when the safeguards were originally put into place exactly because people were abusing the old systems.
Thus any UBI system that isn't implemented in an incredibly naive way will inevitably end up being pretty similar to already existing benefits systems. Not that it wouldn't be an improvement, but it won't be the revolution people are hoping UBI systems will bring about.
More likely it was "The program didn't have the intended effect of getting more people on benefits to take on part time work or start their own businesses, so we shut it down" or something along those lines.
I'm not completely familiar with the Canadian trial, but the heavily publicized one here in Finland really has the primary goal of improving employment rates by removing barriers for people on benefits from participating in the labor force. Normally people on benefits who try to work have to worry about earning too much to get benefits, but not enough to actually pay the bills and will hence reject job offers for part time work on those grounds. Some even reject applications for full time work on the grounds of said work not brining in enough additional money compared to just being on benefits.
The main complaint about particularly the Finnish UBI program is that it removes the requirement to show that you're actively looking for a job and thus people will just try to live on it with no intention of actually getting a job, full or part time, hence achieving the exact opposite of what was intended. It's not even that far fetched when you already have people who work very hard to game the system by actively sabotaging their job seeking with things like sending in intentionally bad applications or intentionally failing job interviews. Hell, even the guy who's basically become the public face of the Finnish program and been interviewed by dozens of foreign media outlets went from pretending to look for work to just happily living on it with no will whatsoever to look for a job.
I mean the main point of most basic income programs (including the one in Finland) that have been or are being tested right now along with those that had a real chance of being tested is to make it easier for poor people to take up part time work without having to worry about earning too much to get unemployment benefits, but not enough to actually live on their salary alone. That and simplifying benefits so you don't have to apply for a load of different ones based on things like disability or living expenses.
We're not talking about a direct hand-out to the poor, just an attempted streamlining of benefits so that more poor people actually enter the workforce. The bank and GM bail-outs weren't hand-outs either as they were loans that genuinely need to be re-paid (and to my knowledge have been done so with the banks).
Now why do I get the feeling that the only new restrictions on using DNA databanks like these are going to be on law enforcement trying to solve cold cases like that of the golden state killer while private actors like insurance companies will be completely free to use that data to increase costs for people with genetic conditions that can cause serious health problems or just deny them coverage altogether?