It's worse than that. A friend of mine is in the estate sale business. He and his partner have been doing it, along with sidelines in collectible art and furniture, for close to 30 years, and cater to a who's-who list of local old money families.
Unless you are an extremely serious collector of high value objects, about half your stuff will sell for 10 cents on the dollar and the rest will go to the landfill. Vintage silver service? Valued at the melt value of the silver.
I helped him move stuff to the dumpster a couple of years ago and stumbled across (in the dumpster) 5 photo albums with family pictures. Nobody wanted them, not even the family, although I think in this case "family" was 4 cousins in their 50s who lived out of state.
In Minnesota, MNDOT decided to close all of US-169 to replace a bridge/causeway and now a whole bunch of people are trying to cut through side streets versus taking the MNDOT-approved detours, which are on parallel freeways miles away.
What's funny is that the city they're driving through, Edina, is probably the wealthiest one in the whole state and the residents are MELTING DOWN over the cut-through traffic. They're organizing vigilante slow traffic, the city has been cracking down hard on traffic violations and has put up all manner of "calming" obstructions to discourage people.
It's so hard to not link their economic privilege with their apparent sense of geographic privilege. I think they believe they ARE living in a gated community and somebody left the gate open.
You've got terabytes of information you will never access again. How about just getting rid of most of it? Pick some subset you want to keep and then buy 3 HDDs and create triple copies of it Repeat this every year and you'll probably not lose any of the information.
I answer no to all the drug questions at the doctor's office and try to answer questions that may indicate mental health problems as neutrally as possible. I figure they can poke and prod and take samples, anything I tell them verbally is most likely to be used against me, especially when pre-existing conditions come back around.
You'd have to be crazy to tell your average doctor with a EHR data entry screen in front of them you use any drugs except what has been prescribed.
The real bullshit factor in all of it is that the doctor doesn't care about the questionnaire info *at all*, all they give a shit about is what they can see/feel and the lab results (and occasionally patient reported symptoms).
I don't know who is driving those clinic exam questionnaires, but it isn't any doctor I've worked with. My guess is either insurance or the larger health system wants it for analytics.
What I was thinking of though was something that could pull individual masses as light as a couple of tons each up about 100 feet. Think of the weights used to run a grandfather clock.
There's things I just won't tell my doctor because I know if they end up in EHR they are there forever, will likely follow me and can be used against me.
It makes me wonder if anyone has considered a turbine generation system for storm water runoff.
My back of the envelope math says that our local stormwater system handles something like 40,000 acre-feet of water per year, which is the current flow rate of the Mississippi river at St Paul for a month.
That's potentially a lot of water flow that hasn't been tapped, and a lot of it is all downhill with no pumping (because it goes into the river itself).
I'm sure they're considering all the usual options, including filtration on the turbine ingress and egress, biocidal coatings, zinc plating and probably active cathodes (since they have electricity to begin with). And some of the active cathodic systems can use copper anodes to act as biocides, too.
It's not going to be maintenance free, for sure, but we've managed to put giant iron ships in the water for over 100 years, I'd suspect managing the ocean here is no worse and maybe even easier because the objects are stationary.
There's a lot of places where wind and solar work really well (especially solar) where there is no useful combination of water and terrain suitable for pumped hydro.
I always wondered if you couldn't do essentially the same thing on dry land with raised masses. Use excess generation capacity raise a series of masses and when the power is needed let gravity lower the masses, dumping the power into flywheel(s) attached to generators.
The masses could be sized so that rather than raising one very large mass, a series of smaller masses would be raised allowing relatively small excess generation amounts to captured over time.
However if what you are worried about is your own piece of the pie as a highly privileged elite who benefits greatly from artificial borders and the resulting income inequality then that is not necessarily a good thing for you personally.
Yes, as a fact I am worried about my piece of the pie and I don't want it taken away. The global morality is immaterial to me, I am unwilling to sacrifice 90% of my standard of living to raise that of others by 2%.
Nevertheless I'd be interested to see what would really happen in a world entirely without borders where everyone was allowed to physically live and work anywhere they wanted. It would be an interesting experiment. I'm not sure such a world would really be that different though because most poor people don't have the money for airline tickets or other international moving expenses and don't have good enough educations to really compete with people educated in first world countries. Although presumably some of the HR drones may not be able to distinguish between well educated and badly educated applicants. And it's not like the whole world would suddenly get better at speaking English.
I think it looks lot like Western Europe's influx of migrants, actually, and that's an example where you actually have borders, where poor people can't afford airline tickets and don't have the language or job skills to compete for any but the most menial of jobs.
As a thought experiment, if you actually did say "OK, borders no longer exist and people can move freely" it would be a disastrous set of chain reactions. You'd merely have a mass migration of poor people where no economic expansion could happen fast enough to provide them with jobs or adequate housing. It would look more like a refugee crisis.
Transit barriers (like the North Atlantic ocean) would only delay the problem in North America until opportunists began using bulk freighters to ship people -- if you'd risk drowning in the Mediterranean to cross a few hundred km of sea in an overloaded old fishing boat, being crammed into a bulk freighter for a couple of weeks wouldn't be seen as any worse.
And the sociological ramifications would be terrible -- local residents would band together to keep migrants out on the local level by any means necessary. It's being debated nicely and with political process now in the EU, but a true open border situation? All those pretenses would stop. Governments would face civil war trying to stop it.
1) have been beneficial to the US economy as a whole (because cost of software development, and lack of developers strangles growth).
I think the economists are probably right when they say trade, immigration, etc. benefit the economy as a whole.
The problem is that it's kind of a hollow argument because rising income inequality means that the growth in the economy as a whole isn't getting distributed to rank and file workers. Usually cost reductions and efficiency improvements end up as corporate profit which gets unequally distributed to senior executives and/or shareholders, not wage earners.
It's great that we're baking a bigger pie every year, but why is my piece the same size but people with big slices end up with even bigger slices?
Worse yet, many of the "benefits the economy as a whole" components have direct negative impacts on individual workers -- unemployment, vanishing labor sectors, downward wage pressure, etc.
And for a lot of people they see the pie is getting bigger, but not only are they not getting a bigger slice, they're getting a *smaller* slice. In some cases, they're not getting a slice at all, and someone's taking away their fork and plate, too.
Benefiting the economy as a whole is being decoded by a lot of people not by its macroeconomic benefits, but as a euphemism for increasing wealth inequality and people will start supporting ideas which actually hurt macroeconomic growth because they know longer believe that macroeconomic growth benefits them and in fact is hurting them.
Economists as a whole need to stop focusing so much energy on macroeconomic growth and focus more on reducing income inequality. People will support macroeconomic growth if they feel like they get something for it.
The Supreme Court is also part of the problem. The stability of the court is both a benefit and a curse. It's a curse because once appointed, justices serve for life which means the court is glacially slow to turn over. In most cases, the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling is to either pass a constitutional amendment or appoint new justices with predictable ideological biases who then overrule past rulings.
Since amending the constitution is practically impossible, partisans have realized that by loading the court with ideological allies they can achieve lasting legislative goals through Supreme Court rulings.
Thus the legislative and democratic process has been bypassed in favor of what becomes a nearly ecclesiastical body. Americans have on many issues traded legislation by elected representatives for legislation by life-appointed jurists whose rulings are nearly completely permanent.
I think the simplest solution is to acknowledge the political nature of the court and overhaul the tenure of the court, requiring justices to retire after 10 years of service. This would cause the court to more closely align with the general political will of the country. This would mean court rulings would be more likely to align with the legislative process politically and ideologically, which, hopefully, would push issue resolution from the court system to the legislative system.
The most contentious issues benefit from legislative solutions where compromise can more easily be achieved. Judicial decisions tend to be more absolute, which in turn makes them inherently more partisan in nature. If dispute resolution is pushed back into the legislative arena, we might end up with a more compromise-focused set of policies which would also be less partisan.
There might be other solutions, too, such as allowing a supermajority of Congress 30-90 days to vacate Supreme Court decisions. Failure to affirmatively vacate them would allow them to stand as usual. This would prevent the court from issuing rulings which run counter to the general political will, while still setting the bar very high for overturning them.
Another option might be to make the Vice President the 9th member of the court, allowing an elected official to act as the tiebreaker for issues partisan within the court. This allows political influence on contentious court decisions, while still allowing the court to issue majority rulings for which the 9th vote would have no influence.
Maybe I'm some kind of fascist, but I think making English the official language of the US makes a bunch of sense. Obviously not forcing anyone to speak it privately, but I think it would go a long way towards ensuring a cultural assimilation and stamping out the kind of cultural ghettos that Europe seems to have problems with. And really, it's probably a softer technique than banning mosques and other more heavy-handed techniques.
My parents' neighbor (elderly) was the child of Polish immigrants. She said they spoke Polish at home. One day in her early teens she went to a downtown department store with her older sisters. They were at the counter and a sister was asking the clerk questions. She asked her older sister a question in Polish (even though she knew what they were talking about in English) and her sister wouldn't respond to her. After they left the store her sister got mad and told her not to speak in Polish in those situations because it made people look down on you.
It's interesting, because I don't think today's immigrants feel that compelled to assimilate. In the situation described to me, there was a really strong motivation to embrace English.
That's a little like saying that the North American "Indian" languages aren't really indigenous because they brought with them languages when they crossed the Bering Straits.
Does anyone really have a problem with requiring public hire drivers speak the local language? I mean, it is a place called "England" and presumably it's called "English" because it is the indigenous language of the people of England.
I always wonder how often people with electric cars forget to plug them in when they get home. That seems like the most common use of extended range, not long haul trips. It's the ability to get 2-3 days of short-haul use without having to charge.
It's common to be rushed when you get home, jump out of the car to attend to something and then completely forget about stuff in the car. A couple of times a month my wife says "Bye, I'm off to work" and then 30 seconds later is trudging back through the house because she parked out front and never moved her car into the garage.
If I get into the car to go to work and find I'm out of gas, it's a 10 minute delay to stop and get gas. If I get into the car and I were to find out I'm out of charge? Now I'm delayed an hour or longer to get sufficient charge, and that's a nuisance.
Maybe the connecting the charger just becomes so routine you don't think about it (or get burned enough you never forget), but once you have kids, a dog, and lot of tight scheduling between 5 pm and 7 pm, it sure seems easy to me to forget.
AI isn't going to want to destroy humanity unless we program it to.
AI isn't going to want anything on its own (at least initially), everything it "wants" is going to be programmed in as a set of seemingly specific but ultimately ambiguous set of goals which will be pursued with a single-mindedness that will ultimately be its downfall.
The real problem isn't "AIs are too smart" but AIs that are too dumb to recognize when goal seeking is a problem.
Wasn't it Netflix that released their internal scripts for testing reliability? Randomly blowing away cloud instances and other core components so they could more realistically test the ability of the HA to deliver?
I generally agree that HA is hard, and it's made harder still by PHBs who ask for HA and then cherry pick the cheapest element (out of several necessary), blab to management that you are fault tolerant and then never allow actually testing it.
I also blame vendors for waaayyyy overpromising what their HA products can actually do, and sales people for piling on and selling actually unnecessary shit when customers actually indicate that, yes, they would like to buy everything the overcomplex HA system requires.
No nobody believes the vendor requirement list (..when they can find it) because its been so bloated.
In spite of BILLIONS spent on it, Google still gives me ads for products I bought months ago or never will buy.
I guess my question is do you run Privacy Badger, U-Block and/or other similar blocking programs? If you do, it's kind of hard to judge Google's AI when you're depriving it of a lot of the information used in decision making.
On the other hand, if you're running those tools and they still show you ads with relevance at all maybe their AI is better than you give it credit for -- it's given you ads of some relevance in spite of being denied comprehensive information.
..it's 5 hundredths of a percent of the water volume. And since urine is 95% water, you're talking about less than 4 liters out of nearly a million liters of water. It wouldn't surprise me if the mass of dead skin or even hair was greater than non-aqueous urine components.
And since our swimsuits aren't hermetically sealed against our bodies, I'd wager there's some measurable amount of fecal matter in the pool too. Maybe some vaginal discharge and/or menstrual fluid, too. And you can't discount the amount of mucus and other sinus discharges along with some saliva from the people who like all of the above so much they get water in their mouths.
But in spite of all this (assuming the filtration and chlorination systems are working), the water in the pool is still way cleaner than most other bodies of water people swim in.
I've seen pictures of the Ganges that make me retch and people *bathe* in that water.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that you, Ann Clayborne?
It's worse than that. A friend of mine is in the estate sale business. He and his partner have been doing it, along with sidelines in collectible art and furniture, for close to 30 years, and cater to a who's-who list of local old money families.
Unless you are an extremely serious collector of high value objects, about half your stuff will sell for 10 cents on the dollar and the rest will go to the landfill. Vintage silver service? Valued at the melt value of the silver.
I helped him move stuff to the dumpster a couple of years ago and stumbled across (in the dumpster) 5 photo albums with family pictures. Nobody wanted them, not even the family, although I think in this case "family" was 4 cousins in their 50s who lived out of state.
That's mostly my attitude.
In Minnesota, MNDOT decided to close all of US-169 to replace a bridge/causeway and now a whole bunch of people are trying to cut through side streets versus taking the MNDOT-approved detours, which are on parallel freeways miles away.
What's funny is that the city they're driving through, Edina, is probably the wealthiest one in the whole state and the residents are MELTING DOWN over the cut-through traffic. They're organizing vigilante slow traffic, the city has been cracking down hard on traffic violations and has put up all manner of "calming" obstructions to discourage people.
It's so hard to not link their economic privilege with their apparent sense of geographic privilege. I think they believe they ARE living in a gated community and somebody left the gate open.
You've got terabytes of information you will never access again. How about just getting rid of most of it? Pick some subset you want to keep and then buy 3 HDDs and create triple copies of it Repeat this every year and you'll probably not lose any of the information.
I answer no to all the drug questions at the doctor's office and try to answer questions that may indicate mental health problems as neutrally as possible. I figure they can poke and prod and take samples, anything I tell them verbally is most likely to be used against me, especially when pre-existing conditions come back around.
You'd have to be crazy to tell your average doctor with a EHR data entry screen in front of them you use any drugs except what has been prescribed.
The real bullshit factor in all of it is that the doctor doesn't care about the questionnaire info *at all*, all they give a shit about is what they can see/feel and the lab results (and occasionally patient reported symptoms).
I don't know who is driving those clinic exam questionnaires, but it isn't any doctor I've worked with. My guess is either insurance or the larger health system wants it for analytics.
Concrete blocks would probably be the simplest.
There is a raised mass storage system that uses an old mining railroad spur to pull rail cars uphill.
https://www.wired.com/2016/05/...
What I was thinking of though was something that could pull individual masses as light as a couple of tons each up about 100 feet. Think of the weights used to run a grandfather clock.
There's things I just won't tell my doctor because I know if they end up in EHR they are there forever, will likely follow me and can be used against me.
It makes me wonder if anyone has considered a turbine generation system for storm water runoff.
My back of the envelope math says that our local stormwater system handles something like 40,000 acre-feet of water per year, which is the current flow rate of the Mississippi river at St Paul for a month.
That's potentially a lot of water flow that hasn't been tapped, and a lot of it is all downhill with no pumping (because it goes into the river itself).
I'm sure they're considering all the usual options, including filtration on the turbine ingress and egress, biocidal coatings, zinc plating and probably active cathodes (since they have electricity to begin with). And some of the active cathodic systems can use copper anodes to act as biocides, too.
It's not going to be maintenance free, for sure, but we've managed to put giant iron ships in the water for over 100 years, I'd suspect managing the ocean here is no worse and maybe even easier because the objects are stationary.
There's a lot of places where wind and solar work really well (especially solar) where there is no useful combination of water and terrain suitable for pumped hydro.
I always wondered if you couldn't do essentially the same thing on dry land with raised masses. Use excess generation capacity raise a series of masses and when the power is needed let gravity lower the masses, dumping the power into flywheel(s) attached to generators.
The masses could be sized so that rather than raising one very large mass, a series of smaller masses would be raised allowing relatively small excess generation amounts to captured over time.
This. Offshore wind farms have lots of water, but no hills and no place to pump water.
Pumped hydro is great, if you have the water and the geography to impound the water.
However if what you are worried about is your own piece of the pie as a highly privileged elite who benefits greatly from artificial borders and the resulting income inequality then that is not necessarily a good thing for you personally.
Yes, as a fact I am worried about my piece of the pie and I don't want it taken away. The global morality is immaterial to me, I am unwilling to sacrifice 90% of my standard of living to raise that of others by 2%.
Nevertheless I'd be interested to see what would really happen in a world entirely without borders where everyone was allowed to physically live and work anywhere they wanted. It would be an interesting experiment. I'm not sure such a world would really be that different though because most poor people don't have the money for airline tickets or other international moving expenses and don't have good enough educations to really compete with people educated in first world countries. Although presumably some of the HR drones may not be able to distinguish between well educated and badly educated applicants. And it's not like the whole world would suddenly get better at speaking English.
I think it looks lot like Western Europe's influx of migrants, actually, and that's an example where you actually have borders, where poor people can't afford airline tickets and don't have the language or job skills to compete for any but the most menial of jobs.
As a thought experiment, if you actually did say "OK, borders no longer exist and people can move freely" it would be a disastrous set of chain reactions. You'd merely have a mass migration of poor people where no economic expansion could happen fast enough to provide them with jobs or adequate housing. It would look more like a refugee crisis.
Transit barriers (like the North Atlantic ocean) would only delay the problem in North America until opportunists began using bulk freighters to ship people -- if you'd risk drowning in the Mediterranean to cross a few hundred km of sea in an overloaded old fishing boat, being crammed into a bulk freighter for a couple of weeks wouldn't be seen as any worse.
And the sociological ramifications would be terrible -- local residents would band together to keep migrants out on the local level by any means necessary. It's being debated nicely and with political process now in the EU, but a true open border situation? All those pretenses would stop. Governments would face civil war trying to stop it.
1) have been beneficial to the US economy as a whole (because cost of software development, and lack of developers strangles growth).
I think the economists are probably right when they say trade, immigration, etc. benefit the economy as a whole.
The problem is that it's kind of a hollow argument because rising income inequality means that the growth in the economy as a whole isn't getting distributed to rank and file workers. Usually cost reductions and efficiency improvements end up as corporate profit which gets unequally distributed to senior executives and/or shareholders, not wage earners.
It's great that we're baking a bigger pie every year, but why is my piece the same size but people with big slices end up with even bigger slices?
Worse yet, many of the "benefits the economy as a whole" components have direct negative impacts on individual workers -- unemployment, vanishing labor sectors, downward wage pressure, etc.
And for a lot of people they see the pie is getting bigger, but not only are they not getting a bigger slice, they're getting a *smaller* slice. In some cases, they're not getting a slice at all, and someone's taking away their fork and plate, too.
Benefiting the economy as a whole is being decoded by a lot of people not by its macroeconomic benefits, but as a euphemism for increasing wealth inequality and people will start supporting ideas which actually hurt macroeconomic growth because they know longer believe that macroeconomic growth benefits them and in fact is hurting them.
Economists as a whole need to stop focusing so much energy on macroeconomic growth and focus more on reducing income inequality. People will support macroeconomic growth if they feel like they get something for it.
The Supreme Court is also part of the problem. The stability of the court is both a benefit and a curse. It's a curse because once appointed, justices serve for life which means the court is glacially slow to turn over. In most cases, the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling is to either pass a constitutional amendment or appoint new justices with predictable ideological biases who then overrule past rulings.
Since amending the constitution is practically impossible, partisans have realized that by loading the court with ideological allies they can achieve lasting legislative goals through Supreme Court rulings.
Thus the legislative and democratic process has been bypassed in favor of what becomes a nearly ecclesiastical body. Americans have on many issues traded legislation by elected representatives for legislation by life-appointed jurists whose rulings are nearly completely permanent.
I think the simplest solution is to acknowledge the political nature of the court and overhaul the tenure of the court, requiring justices to retire after 10 years of service. This would cause the court to more closely align with the general political will of the country. This would mean court rulings would be more likely to align with the legislative process politically and ideologically, which, hopefully, would push issue resolution from the court system to the legislative system.
The most contentious issues benefit from legislative solutions where compromise can more easily be achieved. Judicial decisions tend to be more absolute, which in turn makes them inherently more partisan in nature. If dispute resolution is pushed back into the legislative arena, we might end up with a more compromise-focused set of policies which would also be less partisan.
There might be other solutions, too, such as allowing a supermajority of Congress 30-90 days to vacate Supreme Court decisions. Failure to affirmatively vacate them would allow them to stand as usual. This would prevent the court from issuing rulings which run counter to the general political will, while still setting the bar very high for overturning them.
Another option might be to make the Vice President the 9th member of the court, allowing an elected official to act as the tiebreaker for issues partisan within the court. This allows political influence on contentious court decisions, while still allowing the court to issue majority rulings for which the 9th vote would have no influence.
Do you forget to plug your phone in overnight?
About once a week.
Maybe I'm some kind of fascist, but I think making English the official language of the US makes a bunch of sense. Obviously not forcing anyone to speak it privately, but I think it would go a long way towards ensuring a cultural assimilation and stamping out the kind of cultural ghettos that Europe seems to have problems with. And really, it's probably a softer technique than banning mosques and other more heavy-handed techniques.
My parents' neighbor (elderly) was the child of Polish immigrants. She said they spoke Polish at home. One day in her early teens she went to a downtown department store with her older sisters. They were at the counter and a sister was asking the clerk questions. She asked her older sister a question in Polish (even though she knew what they were talking about in English) and her sister wouldn't respond to her. After they left the store her sister got mad and told her not to speak in Polish in those situations because it made people look down on you.
It's interesting, because I don't think today's immigrants feel that compelled to assimilate. In the situation described to me, there was a really strong motivation to embrace English.
That's a little like saying that the North American "Indian" languages aren't really indigenous because they brought with them languages when they crossed the Bering Straits.
Does anyone really have a problem with requiring public hire drivers speak the local language? I mean, it is a place called "England" and presumably it's called "English" because it is the indigenous language of the people of England.
I always wonder how often people with electric cars forget to plug them in when they get home. That seems like the most common use of extended range, not long haul trips. It's the ability to get 2-3 days of short-haul use without having to charge.
It's common to be rushed when you get home, jump out of the car to attend to something and then completely forget about stuff in the car. A couple of times a month my wife says "Bye, I'm off to work" and then 30 seconds later is trudging back through the house because she parked out front and never moved her car into the garage.
If I get into the car to go to work and find I'm out of gas, it's a 10 minute delay to stop and get gas. If I get into the car and I were to find out I'm out of charge? Now I'm delayed an hour or longer to get sufficient charge, and that's a nuisance.
Maybe the connecting the charger just becomes so routine you don't think about it (or get burned enough you never forget), but once you have kids, a dog, and lot of tight scheduling between 5 pm and 7 pm, it sure seems easy to me to forget.
Well, there's absorbed glass mat (AGM) batteries which are actually more shock-resistant than standard flooded cells, so maybe there's hope.
AI isn't going to want to destroy humanity unless we program it to.
AI isn't going to want anything on its own (at least initially), everything it "wants" is going to be programmed in as a set of seemingly specific but ultimately ambiguous set of goals which will be pursued with a single-mindedness that will ultimately be its downfall.
The real problem isn't "AIs are too smart" but AIs that are too dumb to recognize when goal seeking is a problem.
Wasn't it Netflix that released their internal scripts for testing reliability? Randomly blowing away cloud instances and other core components so they could more realistically test the ability of the HA to deliver?
I generally agree that HA is hard, and it's made harder still by PHBs who ask for HA and then cherry pick the cheapest element (out of several necessary), blab to management that you are fault tolerant and then never allow actually testing it.
I also blame vendors for waaayyyy overpromising what their HA products can actually do, and sales people for piling on and selling actually unnecessary shit when customers actually indicate that, yes, they would like to buy everything the overcomplex HA system requires.
No nobody believes the vendor requirement list (..when they can find it) because its been so bloated.
In spite of BILLIONS spent on it, Google still gives me ads for products I bought months ago or never will buy.
I guess my question is do you run Privacy Badger, U-Block and/or other similar blocking programs? If you do, it's kind of hard to judge Google's AI when you're depriving it of a lot of the information used in decision making.
On the other hand, if you're running those tools and they still show you ads with relevance at all maybe their AI is better than you give it credit for -- it's given you ads of some relevance in spite of being denied comprehensive information.
..it's 5 hundredths of a percent of the water volume. And since urine is 95% water, you're talking about less than 4 liters out of nearly a million liters of water. It wouldn't surprise me if the mass of dead skin or even hair was greater than non-aqueous urine components.
And since our swimsuits aren't hermetically sealed against our bodies, I'd wager there's some measurable amount of fecal matter in the pool too. Maybe some vaginal discharge and/or menstrual fluid, too. And you can't discount the amount of mucus and other sinus discharges along with some saliva from the people who like all of the above so much they get water in their mouths.
But in spite of all this (assuming the filtration and chlorination systems are working), the water in the pool is still way cleaner than most other bodies of water people swim in.
I've seen pictures of the Ganges that make me retch and people *bathe* in that water.