This proposal doesn't either. Unless you are at a strait less than 200km wide. You could hop over the English channel, but if you want to go LA to London you have to take the long way around over the Bering strait.
The Apple Watch has best in class health sensors + fitness monitoring. Cycle tracking, blood O2 sensing, ecg function are all truly valuable.
I bought a watch for myself, my parents and my girlfriend. The prompting and social aspects of the “close your rings” exercise tracking have already led to a ~10 bpm decrease in my girlfriend’s resting heart rate, suggesting a marked improvement in her cardiovascular health.
Personally, I find the Apple Watch somewhat ugly, but the fitness features are worth the sartorial limitations!
That "best in class" is only true if you listen to Apple's marketing.
The sensors in Garmin, Suunto, Samsung, and many others are equally as good, plus Garmin and Suunto have significantly better battery life than Apple too.
> as well as chassis stamped by its die casting machines with a clamping force of 9,100 tons — beating that of Tesla's apparently.
This seems incoherent to me? Metal stamping is a process, and die casting is a separate process, from what I understand. Is there any reason to die cast a chassis? Does the press strength around the casting molds matter? I’d assume chassis parts would be built out of stamped and bent sheet metal?
Tesla has switched their newer lines to casting. It seems like it's mostly about manufacturing efficiency rather than strength -- they can cast the whole underbody of the vehicle as a single piece rather than having dozens of stamped pieces that need to be welded or riveted together. Initially they were doing the front half as one piece and the back half as another, but they've needed to get bigger and bigger (higher- and higher-force) machines as they've gone from two-piece to single-piece construction.
When die casting, you inject semi-molten metal into a cold mould.
The mould must be held closed while metal is being injected. The "9100 tons" refers to the force keeping the mould closed. That force is approximately proportional to the surface area of the object being cast.
phosphoric acid is particularly bad because it yanks all the free calcium in any solution it comes in contact with (e.g. saliva). Calcium phosphate is then insoluble in water, so it then larglely flows right through you.
Bank runs are always caused by memes -- the change is bank runs powered by image macros, but memetic spread of the idea "this bank may fail" is always what causes a run.
200k for the salary part might be the highest salary they offer.
Often bonuses can be >100% of the salary. Bonuses vary based on firm performance. The advice is typically "Live within your salary, don't let your lifestyle creep up to demand your full total compensation". HR typically emphasizes that the bonus is not guaranteed (unless you negotiate a guaranteed bonus for some number of years [1-2] after hiring).
Also, salaries/TC have gone up in the last 10 years.
To get the aforementioned $500K it would need to be an average of 150% bonus. And that’s just to equal the FANG equivalent plus some extra for the added intensity. The firm should be able to give historical averages. And I was given the distinct impression that the developers were last in line for the bonus pool, which may have changed in the intervening 10 years, but they should advertise that.
Yes, that seems to be a consideration. From the article:
In a report peer reviewed and distributed by the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) in September 2022, Gill and colleagues detailed the statistical missteps in past medical murder trials and made recommendations for how legal systems can do better. Gill hopes the report will help with the case of another British nurse, Lucy Letby, who is now on trial for the alleged murder of seven babies and attempted murder of 10 more in a neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
How tragic would it be if someone’s deep empathic nature made them feel personally responsible for a death beyond their control – to the point of suicidal ideation - and was then imprisoned for it?
The Australian case mentioned in the article had a similar theme. Kathleen Folbigg wrote diary entries blaming herself for her kids' deaths, and these were interpreted as admissions of guilt (in fairness they could definitely be read that way). She had four of her own children die of undetermined causes and was basically convicted on the diary entries and the improbability of them all dying. Has been a long and ongoing public debate here (she's still in jail).
Good investigators withhold details about a crime from the public mostly to filter out false confessions. This speaks to the fact that false confessions are common enough to make filtering techniques common practice.
That's not the only goal. This also reduces the effectiveness of copycat crimes, and differentiates any would-be copycats from the original. Also, it enhances the ability of authorities to receive and authenticate tips from the general public. In fact, in a high-profile case, it's common practice to deliberately plant misinformation in the form of slight immaterial errors, for many of the same purposes.
I think you're talking about Lucia de B. The first sentence of the article :
When a Dutch nurse named Lucia de Berk...
In fact, she never confessed. As per her Wikipedia page:
Important evidence at the appeal was to be the statement of a detainee in the Pieter Baan Center, a criminal psychological observation unit, where de Berk had said during outdoor exercise, "I released these 13 people from their suffering". However, during the appeal, the man withdrew his statement and stated that he had made it up.
> How tragic would it be if someone’s deep empathic nature made them feel personally responsible for a death beyond their control – to the point of suicidal ideation - and was then imprisoned for it?
I haven't, but I think, outside of fiction, history is littered with examples of these kinds of witch hunts happening. What bothers me is that now, more than ever, we know about these outcomes – and as you point out there's even neo-folklore about them – and yet we haven't progressed enough as a species to stop them happening.
That sounds like a troubled, mentally unwell person?
Let’s say someone who’s mentally unwell wrote notes to confess to crimes, is it enough to convict them based on that evidence alone? And if so, should it be?
In the US, at least, a confession is always considered sufficient evidence. It probably shouldn't be, since interrogators have managed to get people to confess to crimes that evidence was later found to exonerate.
This is not true. Many states have what is called a corpus delicti rule, which requires that a confession be corroborated by other evidence in order to sustain a conviction. I am inclined to assert that this is actually the law in most US states, but I haven't researched it.
IANAL, but I thought corpus delicti only means there needs to be evidence that the crime has been committed, not that the crime has been committed by the person confessing to it.
So if they find a body with multiple stab wounds and I go in and say I stabbed the person, I can be convicted. If I say I murdered Audrey Farber, and the police can't even find a record of an Audrey Farber gone missing, then I can't be convicted because there's no evidence than an Audrey Farber was murdered at all.
> That sounds like a troubled, mentally unwell person?
You mean you don't know for sure? Do you want the investigators to stop investigating if a suspect "sounds" mentally unwell? Should prosecutors refuse to prosecute if the suspect "sounds" mentally unwell?
What I'm saying is ... why, in this particular case, should that make any difference to the prosecution or investigation? We already find mentally troubled people guilty, we just sentence them differently.
So, yeah, the sanity/insanity of an individual makes no difference to whether they are guilty or not, it only changes the specific nature of the charge (i.e. premeditated vs culpable) and the sentencing (asylum or prison).
Someone is is genuinely mentally unwell in a way that results in them harming other people must still be kept away from society!
IOW, people who are dangerous to others need to be locked up. Whether they are insane or not is not relevant to keeping them locked up, it is only relevant to where they are locked up, and how they may be rehabilitated.
> Let’s say someone who’s mentally unwell wrote notes to confess to crimes, is it enough to convict them based on that evidence alone?
No one is currently convicted on the basis of a confession alone[1]. Normally a confession just means that the investigation into the confessor is more thorough than it would ordinarily be.
Is it perfect? No, but it is a lot better than you appear to believe.
I think if you thought about it for more than a few seconds, you'd realise the questions you are asking have obvious answers.
[1] Have you any idea how many people claimed to be famous serial killers? it happens more often than you think. It's also why specifics of a crime may not make it to the news, because the police use those specific details to identify those confessors who are not the perpetrator.
I think that point is it should be taken into account.
> Someone is is genuinely mentally unwell in a way that results in them harming other people must still be kept away from society!
That is extremely poor and dangerous argument for putting them in jail in bad evidence. But yeah, when innocent people get into jail, it is fairly often on arguments like this.
> No one is currently convicted on the basis of a confession alone[1]. Normally a confession just means that the investigation into the confessor is more thorough than it would ordinarily be
Bases in innocence project, people who were provably not guilty were sentenced to death on confessions. And there is literally zero reason to think it is stopped happening.
>> Someone is is genuinely mentally unwell in a way that results in them harming other people must still be kept away from society!
> That is extremely poor and dangerous argument for putting them in jail in bad evidence.
Who made that argument?
Here's what I said:
>> the sanity/insanity of an individual makes no difference to whether they are guilty or not, it only changes the specific nature of the charge (i.e. premeditated vs culpable) and the sentencing (asylum or prison). Someone is is genuinely mentally unwell in a way that results in them harming other people must still be kept away from society!
Why on earth would you snip away my text about ASYLUM, and instead warble on about putting those people in JAIL?
I'm genuinely curious about the motivation to pretend that my argument is different to what I said, and then argue against your pretend version of my argument.
This is something like a "culture" article, answering not "what does a Reactor Operator do?" (operate the reactor, duh), but "what is a Reactor Operator like?".
Describing them in this joking, colorful way give readers more of a feel of the Reactor Operator archetype than a bland "they were the people who scored highest on the standardized test for the navy". It's trying to convey the feeling that "these are the nerdiest people on boat full of nerdy people".
MAD still applies, disincentivizing a direct war between the US and Russia. US nuclear policy is unspecified, Russian policy explicitly calls for the use of nuclear weapons if the survival of the Russian state is on the line. Direct war with the US could very easily lead to the Russian state fearing for its future.
These categories are collected by a US credit score:
* BASIC IDENTITY INFORMATION
* FINANCIAL INFORMATION
These categories are collected by a US background check:
* EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION
* LEGAL HISTORY
* REGULATORY AND LEGAL VIOLATIONS
These categories are unique to the Social Credit Score system:
* POLITICAL DATA
* CIVIC BEHAVIOR
* OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT RECORDS
So, about 2/3rds of the data is very similar to the data that employers gather about their employees, and 1/3rd is the overbearing Chinese state. To me, the political stuff seems to make the economic usefulness of the score weaker -- does being a member of the CPC really reduce your default risk on your credit card?
Looking at the list of infractions that reduce points, it seems that China is trying to systematize punishment for social problems by restricting access to credit. I went into this comment thinking that the US credit score system and the SCS system were similar, but I leave thinking that the Chinese one is the same as the US one, with a bolt on authoritarian layer.
Civic behavior, and political data are encapsulated in the US by criminal record (unequal enforcement of laws based on demographic and political alignment), 'basic identity information' (primarily location which is used as a proxy for demographic and socio economic status)
also all of those last categories are monotored by US employers and used to make hiring and firing decisions (which affect your credit score)
adding a single layer of indirection at each end doesn't fundamentally change anything
