I have tried to see if I could get a testing organization to test an older helmet of mine to try to settle an argument, but I got no response. I have a feeling that a 10 year old helmet will still be about as effective as when new, but I have friends who disagree.
I'm not saying that the drawbacks of solar outweigh the benefits, but their is a pollution problem in the manufacture and disposal of solar panels, and some of those products don't degrade, since their toxicity is due to them being heavy metals. If nuclear is held to the standard that we need a long term plan to store its waste, shouldn't solar meet the same standard?
This report should show you EXACTLY why we dont go all in on nuclear. We dont even have a long term plan for storing the fucking waste. How do you build a storage facility that is intended to last 10,000 years??? FYI, our civilization is only about 6,500 years old.
So what's the long term plan to store the heavy metals and the byproducts from solar panel production?
For the last 40+ years, bike helmets have been designed to protect the contents of the head from a single direct impact, They are the best protection for the occasional crash when the cyclist is thrown over the handlebars such that he drops head first onto the pavement from a height of 5 to 6 feet, or less. That kind of crash doesn't happen very often.
Note that in most crashes, the cyclist, if they strike their head on the ground, will have an impact consistent with a drop of 5 to 6 feet. The cyclist may be going 20 mph, but their head is still likely to receive the same force as just dropping at 0 mph (since there's horizontal velocity (their speed)) and vertical velocity (force of gravity).
Now motorcycle helmets have a similar standard for an impact test (DOT, Snell, and ECE). Again, because despite your velocity in the horizontal plane, it's the same force of gravity. Motorcycle helmet standards tend to have a few other tests as well (such as making sure the visor doesn't crack if a rock hits it at 55 mph), but there's only so much that can be prevented by a helmet.
Now there are tradeoffs - you can make a helmet that's stiffer, or that survives multiple impacts better, but that tends to come at the cost of how much energy it can absorb in one impact. Snell faced accusations of this in one of their previous motorcycle helmet standards (either M2005 or M2010) - the helmet was more durable, but at the potential cost of more G-forces transmitted to the brain.
Nothing in the above should be interpreted as me being anti-helmet - I always wear bicycle helmets, as well as full face, either Snell or ECE rated, motorcycle helmets.
Few pedestrian fatalities happen with the car at a complete stop.
How many collisions would be avoided if the driver was alert and checking nearby traffic (including foot traffic) instead of reading or composing a message?
The black box and speed limiter don't even have to be installed for them to do that. A lot of people think that you can claim insurance no matter how stupidly you behaved but insurance companies already have the right to refuse to pay out and they do it regularly. The thing is they are required to compensate you for damage resulting from reasonable behaviour, or due to random events such as forces of nature assuming you have taken reasonable precautions such as install a fire/burglar alarm or drove at a reasonable speed given the conditions. However, if you are testing out your flamethrower collection in your living room and burn your house down or drive your Porsche down an icy freeway at 200 kph they are well within their rights to refuse to pay out your insurance.
In the US, especially in my state, driving your Porsche down an icy freeway at 200 kph (125 mph), wiping out, and injuring yourself, is still covered, AFAICT.
Interestingly, you can get dead drunk, drive, hit another vehicle, kill one of the occupants, seriously injuring the rest, get charged (DUI, vehicular homicide, etc), be found guilty, and your insurance will still cover you for your illegal act (and your insurance rates will spike, but you only have to worry about that after your prison sentence).
Also the ocean temperature drops rapidly as you go lower, the ocean temperature just a few feet down is not going to be changing much at all. Lots of fish spend most time below the very top layer.
The top 200M (roughly) of the open ocean is known as the photic zone - where visible light reaches. Of that, 80% of the light is absorbed by the top 10M of the ocean. Most marine species live in this region. By around 50 - 70M, all green light is absorbed and photosynthesis cannot occur.
The thermocline of the open ocean happens below the photic zone - around 200M deep, temperatures rapidly drop off. Above that, mixing keeps the temperature similar throughout the region. Below that, temperatures plunge rapidly until around 1000M - 1500M.
How effective they are at actually getting stuff done? Not even using metrics or such, it's easy to see someone who is not actually getting work done on time versus someone who is very effective and contributing. Ie, low productivity person is not closing ticket issues assigned, difficulty in adding simple features or doing basic debugging; versus someone who implements lots of features and quickly resolves bug issues that are filed. Boiling down to "is the company getting its money's worth from this person?"
We got a ticketing system, which provided metrics for my boss to work with.
When the ticketing system was communicated to be important, I starting focusing on responding to and closing tickets ASAP and severely curtailed doing things that I thought improved the company but weren't being measured.
Now I don't know what measures of success my boss wants (maybe she needs the metric to prove her worth to her superiors), but I feel like I'm less productive and providing less of a benefit. Personally, I'd rather demote the importance of the ticketing system so I could be more effective. But since trying to communicate this issue has been met with a brick wall, I'm going to do what they want.
When Mount Saint Helens erupted in 1980 [wikipedia.org], one of the survivors had been camping near the mountain, saw the eruption, and got into his car. He reported he was flooring it at 100 mph down the road ahead of the pyroclastic flow, and passed another car doing 75 mph. He survived. The couple in the 75 mph car died.
This reminds me of the excuse people used to have about not wearing seatbelts because they didn't want to get trapped in a burning car.
Technically, it could happen. It probably has happened in the past. But practically speaking, not wearing a seatbelt is far more dangerous than wearing a seatbelt.
I do currently live in a suburban community. Of the five trucks that park in the same lot that I do every night, four are owned by construction workers. They are very useful for carrying loads to the door on barely graded lots that often do not have driveways yet. The fifth is indeed a grocery store supervisor who is just compensating.
Look closely at those four trucks. Are they the sort of vehicles optimized to make the owners money? Or the sort of vehicle optimized to make the dealer money?
I've lived in the country before, btw. Down a twisty windy dirt road that extended for several miles. Not bad with a FWD and snow tires, even in a car.
Funny enough, I have had more problems in the city, but that's partially because I don't have snow tires anymore, and partially due to record snow fall in February (39").
An electric 4WD should use wheel motors and completely avoid the whole differential and drive shaft clearance issues.
You could place the motors in the rear and have a short axle shaft, which would also avoid the whole differential and drive shaft clearance issues.
Depending on the design of the vehicle, the axle shafts and rear motors may have their own clearance issues.
But lets be honest - a pickup is a symbol of a certain type of lifestyle, more than it is actually used as a truck by most people. As a cargo hauler, one would want the opposite features of most trucks - lower bed (easier loading/unloading), better gas mileage (cheaper to haul cargo), full 8'+ bed. Lower profile and better gas mileage would also apply to hauling a trailer.
With modern trucks, they are mostly sold to people who don't want to drive a car. They should look big, look like they could go off-road, and sit higher up, because that's what the market wants. It's about as useful as a peacock's tail, and probably serves the same purpose (signalling your fitness by having something impractical that you have to support).
Sooner or later we're going to need to pick out what places we'll try to save, and what places aren't worth saving. For the places we are going to try to save, we'll have to invest in infrastructure to mitigate some of the effects of climate change. For the places we aren't going to try to save, individuals can either try to survive with what they have, or move. If they survive, they'll have to invest and make changes in their lifestyle - such as limiting water usage and trucking in water if they are in an area where drought has caused water tables to fall, to raising their houses by the coast in order to survive hurricanes and king tides.
Now Rotten Tomatoes is listing the number of people who want to see the film - not the percentage.
Just clicking around finds no other movies that shows anybody who wants to see them. Only Captain Marvel. Now perhaps there is a threshhold of votes that have to be met before Rotten Tomatoes will display the numbers. And admittedly, Captain Marvel is part of a franchise that's pretty popular. But what are the odds that people, in reaction to reports of a troll campaign, have been doing a counter-troll campaign to drive up the number of people planning to see the movie? And will Rotten Tomatoes investigate and remove any fraudulent votes for the movie? Or just negative fraudulent votes?
I don't submit my DNA to random Databases, so yeah, this matters to me.
You don't. But how about your family? If we put the limit at great-great-great-great-grandparents for a shared descent, you have 64 great-great-great-great-grandparents. Assuming they all had two surviving children and all of their descendants had two surviving children (most probably had more), that's over a hundred people in your generation who share roughly a 25 centimorgan match with you. Go back another generation, for an average of a 12.5 centimorgan match, and the number more than doubles. (I believe 10 centimorgan is the cutoff for reliability for DNA genealogists, but forensic DNA genealogists don't follow the genealogical proof standard - they can just find the likely suspect and get the DNA another way, like from trash, then compare that).
Now how many of those people will submit their DNA to databases that will be accessible by law enforcement?
That's why I say the cat's out of the bag. You may have never submitted your DNA, but others related to you almost certainly have.
I'm also _tremendously_ unlucky. I don't like to believe in fate but with the sheer number of bad things that happened to me in life outside my control I'm tempted to. If anyone could get a false positive that lands him (or a family member) in jail with $200k in legal bills to fight off a prosecutor it's me.
I hear you. I have started to wonder if our system can be considered truly fair when wealth correlates with outcome in our legal system.
We're to the point these days where we can usually use available DNA databases to narrow down suspects to a small family. If we have an unknown DNA sample, we can sequence it, match it against the genealogy DNA databases out there (usually GEDCOM). We'll find that the unknown DNA matches both the Doe family and the Roe families, leaving us to find the individuals resulting from a marriage between the two families. After that, it's just a matter of some simple deduction (e.g. Jane Doe and Richard Roe had four children, one was male while the suspect's DNA was female, another was living in Alaska at the time, but the third and fourth one was in the area at the time of the murder), some police work to retrieve a sample of DNA (e.g. tail them, wait for them to get a coffee and then fish the empty coffee cup out of the trash), and it's done.
The cat's out of the bag at this point. Assume GEDCOM and the other genealogy databases go defunct. Okay, great, you've just delayed the problem for a few years before some federal contractor builds in the ability to match DNA samples to relatives who have been incarcerated or DNA collected at a crime scene. (The US locks up a lot of people. Countless others (including murder victims) have their DNA collected by the police for the purpose of elimination.)
I think the question we should be asking is what limits should we put on this power? And how do we work on training police and prosecutors in this new era? What instructions do we give to a jury? Because when you can match anyone's DNA that you find at a crime scene, it's going to lead to more random coincidences and mistakes. (A famous one would be the "serial killer" whose DNA was found at multiple crime scenes - but it turned out the "killer" was a factory worker at the place that makes the swabs being used.)
The real question is, if finding a cure is not a sustainable business model. What is wrong with your business model?
My father gave me his old table saw it is from the 1950's it still works, The company that made the saw is still around, and they still make table saws. You would think if you made such a quality device that once everyone who has a table saw, you wouldn't be able to sell them anymore.
However, there are new things such as new safety features (this 1950's table saw is a death trap even beyond the blade, there are exposed belts, an exposed motor that seems to be a good bump away from sucking in the power cord...) There as well smaller sizes, or larger sizes, the ability to get better angles, to keep the material straighter, or make it easier to replace the blade.
A company who makes a cure for a disease will one make a lot of upfront money from people demanding the cure. Which they can reinvest into finding the next condition that needs to be cured. It will be a long time for all problems to be cured.
Seems like we already have this in the medical field.
I can get laser eye surgery done. Afterwards, it is likely I won't need their services - I go in, and get it done. Yet laser eye surgery seems to be a business model that's been around for years. Ditto, say, transplant specialists - hopefully most people aren't getting multiple heart transplants in their lives.
I work extensively in the DNA field and I would like to share a finding here.
We came across a subject that has no apparent link to its sibling as far as we can tell. This puzzles us a lot. Maybe his genes come from many generations ago and they have skipped several generations before manifesting themselves.
By working in the DNA field, do you mean you sweep the floor of the lab?
Because that's poor reasoning. Genes don't "skip" generations and magically reappear. A child has roughly a 50% chance of sharing a SNP with their sibling. Which means the odds of one child not sharing any DNA in a DNA test is roughly 1-(.5^(snips tested)). (It gets more complicated, that's why I say "roughly".)
What's far more likely is lab error, or one of the siblings is biologically unrelated to another, such as adoption.
The reason why people fail is because they cannot hold savings long enough to buy the expensive but durable goods. Instead, they'll spend their savings on something they don't need (as much).
Grew up poor, am doing well right now.
My success is due to a few things. Hard work helps. Being in the right field helps. Having a partner helps.
But so does luck. Luck in my gender, my height, even my name all have been shown to increase the chance of financial success in life. Luck in where I was born, and in what state, gave my poor family the ability to have state programs that were pretty good, and a local school that was also pretty damn good. Luck in my family, especially my mother, who didn't sabotage my life or my siblings. Luck I didn't make any irreversible mistakes in my teens and young adult hood that would have nailed me with a felony, huge debt, or a kid to support. Luck in my health, which is pretty good.
When we criticize the poor for being poor, we do two things:
The first is to feel better about ourselves - by believing that poverty is within our control, it shields us from it - we won't become poor because we won't make the wrong mistakes.
The second is that we hold the poor up to a standard that we don't require of the middle class. The middle class makes a slew of financial mistakes to screw over their lives, and we don't hold them accountable for it. Why is it that we require the poor to be saints with their meager incomes, while we don't hold the middle class to the same standard. The middle class is burdened with avoidable debt, consuming a ton of crap, underfunding their retirements, and often without an emergency fund. Yet we don't criticize them for buying things they don't need, even if they are making bad financial decisions. We'll even empathize with the middle class for not having enough money to go around.
But buy something nice for yourself as a poor person, and everyone will judge. Even own something nice as a poor person, and people will make assumptions.
It's a double standard, and an unfair one at that.
You're not doing outrage and sensationalism right... Try using more hyperbole and mention how it affects certain groups more than others. Thanks. - Mass Media
This is annoying as hell though.
I understand why scientists use high exposures when they want to know if something causes cancer. It's a simple way of determining things - just throw a ton of the stuff at a model organism, and see what results. If it causes cancer, then high concentrations should do the job.
But then the media runs with each and every study and we get headlines that cause us all to be dumber. Red meat causes cancer. BBQ causes cancer. Wood dust causes cancer. House paint causes cancer. Etc.
It's great that scientists are checking in on this. But lets not just yet throw out all our red meat, grills, and wood furniture to live in unpainted houses.
What media fails to report is what levels are needed to increase the cancer risk. Is it an exposure the average person is going to be experience? Or is it a level that you'd have to work in the industry to have an appreciable risk?
It's kind of like California's law labeling all carcinogens. The regulations around that label are so broad that it ends up being useless.
It's not going to happen. That is, even if CO2 hit 560ppm (which it will by the end of the century), sea level won't rise that much. That's far outside the probability range.
Since I don't know the geography of New York, I looked it up. West Side Highway is Highway 9A. Some parts are elevated, which can be ignored. Other parts seem to be pretty close to the water, and the topographical map indicates it is under 10ft in elevation. Google street view seems to confirm this. Checking other sources, parts of it may be about 1.5M above sea level.
OTOH, it seems like around 560ppm, the current models include that sea level rise, but on a much longer timeframe.
I'm not going to dig deeper, because I don't have the time, but a timeframe of 40 years seems too soon under current models.
The quote is not wrong, at most you can say it's off by a margin of error. Your link says New York should be under water by 2028. But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
Hanson says: "Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."
Reiss says: "When I intervieweÂÂd James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptioÂÂn in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."
Now the original quote apparently doesn't appear to be on tape. But since both people seem to say it is referring to one highway, in NYC, in 40 years, if CO2 was 560ppm. That hasn't happened yet.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like, at least for bicycle helmets, there is no significant degradation over time.
OTOH, standards can improve. Motorcycle helmets seem to do better than bike helmets for standards being changed over time.
Oh? Perhaps you should do some research first.
I'm not saying that the drawbacks of solar outweigh the benefits, but their is a pollution problem in the manufacture and disposal of solar panels, and some of those products don't degrade, since their toxicity is due to them being heavy metals. If nuclear is held to the standard that we need a long term plan to store its waste, shouldn't solar meet the same standard?
So what's the long term plan to store the heavy metals and the byproducts from solar panel production?
Well, there are a few standards. Here's a link
Note that in most crashes, the cyclist, if they strike their head on the ground, will have an impact consistent with a drop of 5 to 6 feet. The cyclist may be going 20 mph, but their head is still likely to receive the same force as just dropping at 0 mph (since there's horizontal velocity (their speed)) and vertical velocity (force of gravity).
Now motorcycle helmets have a similar standard for an impact test (DOT, Snell, and ECE). Again, because despite your velocity in the horizontal plane, it's the same force of gravity. Motorcycle helmet standards tend to have a few other tests as well (such as making sure the visor doesn't crack if a rock hits it at 55 mph), but there's only so much that can be prevented by a helmet.
Now there are tradeoffs - you can make a helmet that's stiffer, or that survives multiple impacts better, but that tends to come at the cost of how much energy it can absorb in one impact. Snell faced accusations of this in one of their previous motorcycle helmet standards (either M2005 or M2010) - the helmet was more durable, but at the potential cost of more G-forces transmitted to the brain.
Nothing in the above should be interpreted as me being anti-helmet - I always wear bicycle helmets, as well as full face, either Snell or ECE rated, motorcycle helmets.
How many collisions would be avoided if the driver was alert and checking nearby traffic (including foot traffic) instead of reading or composing a message?
Who would ever expect a pedestrian would be in a crosswalk?
In the US, especially in my state, driving your Porsche down an icy freeway at 200 kph (125 mph), wiping out, and injuring yourself, is still covered, AFAICT.
Interestingly, you can get dead drunk, drive, hit another vehicle, kill one of the occupants, seriously injuring the rest, get charged (DUI, vehicular homicide, etc), be found guilty, and your insurance will still cover you for your illegal act (and your insurance rates will spike, but you only have to worry about that after your prison sentence).
The top 200M (roughly) of the open ocean is known as the photic zone - where visible light reaches. Of that, 80% of the light is absorbed by the top 10M of the ocean. Most marine species live in this region. By around 50 - 70M, all green light is absorbed and photosynthesis cannot occur.
The thermocline of the open ocean happens below the photic zone - around 200M deep, temperatures rapidly drop off. Above that, mixing keeps the temperature similar throughout the region. Below that, temperatures plunge rapidly until around 1000M - 1500M.
Looks like we have a problem.
We got a ticketing system, which provided metrics for my boss to work with.
When the ticketing system was communicated to be important, I starting focusing on responding to and closing tickets ASAP and severely curtailed doing things that I thought improved the company but weren't being measured.
Now I don't know what measures of success my boss wants (maybe she needs the metric to prove her worth to her superiors), but I feel like I'm less productive and providing less of a benefit. Personally, I'd rather demote the importance of the ticketing system so I could be more effective. But since trying to communicate this issue has been met with a brick wall, I'm going to do what they want.
This reminds me of the excuse people used to have about not wearing seatbelts because they didn't want to get trapped in a burning car.
Technically, it could happen. It probably has happened in the past. But practically speaking, not wearing a seatbelt is far more dangerous than wearing a seatbelt.
Look closely at those four trucks. Are they the sort of vehicles optimized to make the owners money? Or the sort of vehicle optimized to make the dealer money?
I've lived in the country before, btw. Down a twisty windy dirt road that extended for several miles. Not bad with a FWD and snow tires, even in a car.
Funny enough, I have had more problems in the city, but that's partially because I don't have snow tires anymore, and partially due to record snow fall in February (39").
You could place the motors in the rear and have a short axle shaft, which would also avoid the whole differential and drive shaft clearance issues.
Depending on the design of the vehicle, the axle shafts and rear motors may have their own clearance issues.
But lets be honest - a pickup is a symbol of a certain type of lifestyle, more than it is actually used as a truck by most people. As a cargo hauler, one would want the opposite features of most trucks - lower bed (easier loading/unloading), better gas mileage (cheaper to haul cargo), full 8'+ bed. Lower profile and better gas mileage would also apply to hauling a trailer.
With modern trucks, they are mostly sold to people who don't want to drive a car. They should look big, look like they could go off-road, and sit higher up, because that's what the market wants. It's about as useful as a peacock's tail, and probably serves the same purpose (signalling your fitness by having something impractical that you have to support).
The old banking business of GM is alive and well. It used to be known as GMAC. But you likely have heard of their new name: Ally Financial.
They offer an online only banking system that is known for having really great savings and CD rates (2.20% APR for savings, 2.75% for a 12 month CD).
No. But it will be expensive and disruptive.
Sooner or later we're going to need to pick out what places we'll try to save, and what places aren't worth saving. For the places we are going to try to save, we'll have to invest in infrastructure to mitigate some of the effects of climate change. For the places we aren't going to try to save, individuals can either try to survive with what they have, or move. If they survive, they'll have to invest and make changes in their lifestyle - such as limiting water usage and trucking in water if they are in an area where drought has caused water tables to fall, to raising their houses by the coast in order to survive hurricanes and king tides.
Replying to my own comment, but I checked again.
Now Rotten Tomatoes is listing the number of people who want to see the film - not the percentage.
Just clicking around finds no other movies that shows anybody who wants to see them. Only Captain Marvel. Now perhaps there is a threshhold of votes that have to be met before Rotten Tomatoes will display the numbers. And admittedly, Captain Marvel is part of a franchise that's pretty popular. But what are the odds that people, in reaction to reports of a troll campaign, have been doing a counter-troll campaign to drive up the number of people planning to see the movie? And will Rotten Tomatoes investigate and remove any fraudulent votes for the movie? Or just negative fraudulent votes?
When I checked Rotten Tomatoes last week, I saw no bad reviews.
I did see that about 29% of people planned to see the movie. That isn't a review or a rating.
You don't. But how about your family? If we put the limit at great-great-great-great-grandparents for a shared descent, you have 64 great-great-great-great-grandparents. Assuming they all had two surviving children and all of their descendants had two surviving children (most probably had more), that's over a hundred people in your generation who share roughly a 25 centimorgan match with you. Go back another generation, for an average of a 12.5 centimorgan match, and the number more than doubles. (I believe 10 centimorgan is the cutoff for reliability for DNA genealogists, but forensic DNA genealogists don't follow the genealogical proof standard - they can just find the likely suspect and get the DNA another way, like from trash, then compare that).
Now how many of those people will submit their DNA to databases that will be accessible by law enforcement?
That's why I say the cat's out of the bag. You may have never submitted your DNA, but others related to you almost certainly have.
I hear you. I have started to wonder if our system can be considered truly fair when wealth correlates with outcome in our legal system.
We're to the point these days where we can usually use available DNA databases to narrow down suspects to a small family. If we have an unknown DNA sample, we can sequence it, match it against the genealogy DNA databases out there (usually GEDCOM). We'll find that the unknown DNA matches both the Doe family and the Roe families, leaving us to find the individuals resulting from a marriage between the two families. After that, it's just a matter of some simple deduction (e.g. Jane Doe and Richard Roe had four children, one was male while the suspect's DNA was female, another was living in Alaska at the time, but the third and fourth one was in the area at the time of the murder), some police work to retrieve a sample of DNA (e.g. tail them, wait for them to get a coffee and then fish the empty coffee cup out of the trash), and it's done.
The cat's out of the bag at this point. Assume GEDCOM and the other genealogy databases go defunct. Okay, great, you've just delayed the problem for a few years before some federal contractor builds in the ability to match DNA samples to relatives who have been incarcerated or DNA collected at a crime scene. (The US locks up a lot of people. Countless others (including murder victims) have their DNA collected by the police for the purpose of elimination.)
I think the question we should be asking is what limits should we put on this power? And how do we work on training police and prosecutors in this new era? What instructions do we give to a jury? Because when you can match anyone's DNA that you find at a crime scene, it's going to lead to more random coincidences and mistakes. (A famous one would be the "serial killer" whose DNA was found at multiple crime scenes - but it turned out the "killer" was a factory worker at the place that makes the swabs being used.)
Seems like we already have this in the medical field.
I can get laser eye surgery done. Afterwards, it is likely I won't need their services - I go in, and get it done. Yet laser eye surgery seems to be a business model that's been around for years. Ditto, say, transplant specialists - hopefully most people aren't getting multiple heart transplants in their lives.
By working in the DNA field, do you mean you sweep the floor of the lab?
Because that's poor reasoning. Genes don't "skip" generations and magically reappear. A child has roughly a 50% chance of sharing a SNP with their sibling. Which means the odds of one child not sharing any DNA in a DNA test is roughly 1-(.5^(snips tested)). (It gets more complicated, that's why I say "roughly".)
What's far more likely is lab error, or one of the siblings is biologically unrelated to another, such as adoption.
Grew up poor, am doing well right now.
My success is due to a few things. Hard work helps. Being in the right field helps. Having a partner helps.
But so does luck. Luck in my gender, my height, even my name all have been shown to increase the chance of financial success in life. Luck in where I was born, and in what state, gave my poor family the ability to have state programs that were pretty good, and a local school that was also pretty damn good. Luck in my family, especially my mother, who didn't sabotage my life or my siblings. Luck I didn't make any irreversible mistakes in my teens and young adult hood that would have nailed me with a felony, huge debt, or a kid to support. Luck in my health, which is pretty good.
When we criticize the poor for being poor, we do two things:
The first is to feel better about ourselves - by believing that poverty is within our control, it shields us from it - we won't become poor because we won't make the wrong mistakes.
The second is that we hold the poor up to a standard that we don't require of the middle class. The middle class makes a slew of financial mistakes to screw over their lives, and we don't hold them accountable for it. Why is it that we require the poor to be saints with their meager incomes, while we don't hold the middle class to the same standard. The middle class is burdened with avoidable debt, consuming a ton of crap, underfunding their retirements, and often without an emergency fund. Yet we don't criticize them for buying things they don't need, even if they are making bad financial decisions. We'll even empathize with the middle class for not having enough money to go around.
But buy something nice for yourself as a poor person, and everyone will judge. Even own something nice as a poor person, and people will make assumptions.
It's a double standard, and an unfair one at that.
This is annoying as hell though.
I understand why scientists use high exposures when they want to know if something causes cancer. It's a simple way of determining things - just throw a ton of the stuff at a model organism, and see what results. If it causes cancer, then high concentrations should do the job.
But then the media runs with each and every study and we get headlines that cause us all to be dumber. Red meat causes cancer. BBQ causes cancer. Wood dust causes cancer. House paint causes cancer. Etc.
It's great that scientists are checking in on this. But lets not just yet throw out all our red meat, grills, and wood furniture to live in unpainted houses.
What media fails to report is what levels are needed to increase the cancer risk. Is it an exposure the average person is going to be experience? Or is it a level that you'd have to work in the industry to have an appreciable risk?
It's kind of like California's law labeling all carcinogens. The regulations around that label are so broad that it ends up being useless.
Since I don't know the geography of New York, I looked it up. West Side Highway is Highway 9A. Some parts are elevated, which can be ignored. Other parts seem to be pretty close to the water, and the topographical map indicates it is under 10ft in elevation. Google street view seems to confirm this. Checking other sources, parts of it may be about 1.5M above sea level.
OTOH, it seems like around 560ppm, the current models include that sea level rise, but on a much longer timeframe.
I'm not going to dig deeper, because I don't have the time, but a timeframe of 40 years seems too soon under current models.
Hanson says: "Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."
Reiss says: "When I intervieweÂÂd James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptioÂÂn in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."
Now the original quote apparently doesn't appear to be on tape. But since both people seem to say it is referring to one highway, in NYC, in 40 years, if CO2 was 560ppm. That hasn't happened yet.
One of the older models of the Moto G had a IPX7 rating.
It's been harder to find in the more recent Moto Gs.
Will the G7 have IPX7? If not, can anyone recommend a good budget Android phone without much bloatware that is waterproof?