How do you put a case on a foldable phone? Or do you not put one on, rely on the ceramic to protect the screen, and pay for Apple Care for cheap replacement screens?
They had two. One it appears to snap on magnetically, I think the other might have had too small hinges on it, but I didn’t look very hard, and it wasn’t on screen long.
There’s likely some information on there that some people must want to share if services like Xcancel and Nitter exist and allow you to share it without being on X itself.
FTA: 'The largest estimate for any single facility ever.'
From the researcher: 'We estimated between $53 million and $99 million in annual health damages from associated air pollution — among the largest health-damage estimates produced for a single facility to date.' [0]
Still enormous, but there is a significant difference between being 'THE X of all time, and being 'among the X of all time'.
Regarding 'minor source', in this case the expected additional premature deaths in the research range from 3.4 to 6.5 annually. [1] At the same time, air pollution leads to about 100,000 deaths a year in the US. While tragic at an individual level, adding 0.006% to the annual premature death count is fairly minor, just as reducing the deaths to 999,994 would be considered a pretty minor fix to the issue.
> Regarding 'minor source', in this case the expected additional premature deaths in the research range from 3.4 to 6.5 annually. [1] At the same time, air pollution leads to about 100,000 deaths a year in the US. While tragic at an individual level, adding 0.006% to the annual premature death count is fairly minor, just as reducing the deaths to 999,994 would be considered a pretty minor fix to the issue.
I just love the irony of being absurdly callous and dismissive of human life while also getting the basic math wrong.
Nevermind that the 100,000 figure is across the nation of 300 million and includes things like automotive exhaust, while the other number is likely to be borne by that one specific community. Indeed, if you look at the study[0] your article cites -- which is looking at what we should be working on reducing -- industrial deaths are under 30,000, and electrical are around 10,000. So below half of your figure.
I think you're getting a lot of unfair pushback on this, when you're making some excellent points. Just to clarify, I think you're making these points:
- Existing air pollution causes a ton of harm.
- Realistically, the optimal amount of air pollution is probably not zero.
- Logically, we should treat the cost/benefit of adding this "new" air pollution the same as the cost/benefit of removing existing air pollution.
- As an absolute number, the harm caused by this facility is very large, but as a percentage it is tiny.
People seem to be interpreting your conclusion as, "therefore it's completely fine to build this facility because only percentages matter, not absolute numbers." But I think your conclusion is more like, "our society has a complex relationship with air pollution and our existing choices reveal that we are willing to accept some air pollution sometimes, so you have to do a cost/benefit analysis, not just look at costs."
Some of these residents will die, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.
How many deaths would go from minor to major? How much impact to quality of life that isn't death would there be?
There is already very little to make these projects pay the externality costs; at this point paying enough remediation costs to reduce additional deaths should be the minimum.
Its a reference to the first Shrek movie, where Lord Farquaad (yes, word play on fuckwad) says "Some of you may die... but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make"
> How many deaths would go from minor to major? How much impact to quality of life that isn't death would there be?
That’s a good question. It seems in this case that 3 to 6 deaths a year qualifies as ‘minor’ for the government. I don’t know where the line should be but, based on the number of people that suffer and die from air pollution related causes in the US each year, I thought that 6 additional deaths probably meant it qualified as minor. I’d be just as interested as you to know what the answer is.
Edit to add: ‘minor’ in this case doesn’t mean people deserve to die or that we should be happy they are suffering, just that compared to some other even worse projects, this one is less important.
60 people over a decade dying is not minor. If a school killed two entire classes of kids over their k-12 education, that'd be a shocking amount of death. If a sports team lost 6 players every year we'd shut down the team instantly. Treating 6 deaths as minor is absurd and callous.
It only feels ok because it's so abstractly connected to pollution.
If this data center killed 6 people every year on site due to industrial accidents, we'd almost certainly close it. What Amazon warehouse kills half a dozen people on site every year?
Health costs don't matter, because someone else is paying them. We handwave them with "well only 3-4 additional people die after paying that cost.
The air pollution does not matter, because global warming already exists and air is already polluted. And making all that worst also does not matter, because who cares about anything but what AI companies want.
For context, a US coal plant on average causes 3 deaths per year due to air quality. If we're not calling a coal plant a major source, wtf would we refer to as a major source?
It doesn't matter that the aggregate air pollution of the entire country far exceeds any individual source, the point of the major/minor distinction is to compare individual sources.
AFP is where France24 got their information, and both AFP and France24 are reliable sources of news. Maybe you had an issue with the source AFP relied on?
The times is not really the same newspaper anymore.
Fun and eye opening thought experiments:
1)find an recent article you are an expert on and critically analyze it’s content from correctness and accuracy. (Gell man amnesia effect).
2) pick a common article (crime or accident) from recently, go back 30+ years and find another similar article. The compare the content for content, style, and tone.
I mean, Raymond Chen has been writing The Old New Thing consistently for over 20 years. Nearly every single entry is interesting, informative, and illuminating, aimed at every facet of software engineering, old and new, over the decades. He may be part of the final bastion of quality and care for detail at MS, dwindling and faint as it is.
Windows doesn't need or deserve defending. It's atrocious. But this is a silly comment.
Not an American but, if I had to guess, it would be 'Black' with a capital letter (as in the list of words) and not 'black' all in lowercase. It is likely to align the use of capital letters with other races in the US (white and black, for example, instead of white and Black).
Black is also a last name, so the uppercase is not a great distinction. It's more likely about calling black people African-$DEMONYM. Black people have no problem calling themselves negros in Mexico, but this is so horrible to Americans that Mexican media has been pressured to normalize mexico-africano instead.
Edit. Actually opened the list, and it is incredibly stupid to say the least. Words like "measles", "vaccine", "solar power", "sustainability/sustainable", "elderly", "electric vehicle", etc. It's not a serious writing guide, it's a blatant propaganda tool.
Does not matter; these people Trump/PG/dang/Gary Tan etc... have a goal - they simply want people of a certain color to not exist. All the rest is just semantics.
A business can call another business it there’s an existing relationship. This means you can introduce an upgrade, a new product line, or something unrelated to their current contract - but the contract needs to be there first.
Other than that, the business needs the call receipient to opt in. They can dop this on a webform, a physical form, or by initiating the contact and, say, leaving a message for the vendor asking to be called back. It means the business needs to concetrate on avenues other than cold calling for getting themselves in front of a prospect.
The point is more that you should not blame the user (why didn't you set up sandbox instead of directly using the tool of big corp) if a tool does something unexpected. If your Dropbox client would suddenly just upload your home directory instead of it's folder you configured you'd also not blame the user that they use Dropbox, you'd blame Dropbox for not doing their job correctly or being user hostile.
Agreed. You can still encourage people to use defense in depth without actively blaming them for not having the deepest moat imaginable. Software creators still have some responsibility
reply