Interesting, that makes sense. I thought I’d heard about individual ballots being challenged in all the 2020 bs, but I just looked it up and it looks like ballots can only be challenged before they’re counted, which matches with what you just said. So probably what I’d heard is either challenges that came in before that point, or it was republican nonsense that was presumably shot down.

But yeah, verifying -> anonymizing -> counting and they can’t go backwards makes a lot of sense, and that would fundamentally prevent removing dead people. Thanks for explaining

Ignore me, sounds like he’s probably right

~~I really don’t think this is true, ballots get pulled out all the time if they’re found to be invalid. If there’s an issue with how it’s filled out, like bubbling multiple entries or signature issues, stuff like that, if there’s an issue with their registration or the incredibly rare instances of actual voter fraud, all those ballots get pulled out unless they get corrected.

I guess I can kinda see your point about how if an individual ballot gets challenged and removed, and you see the overall vote count change by one you’d obviously know who that ballot was cast for. But in order for that to happen it would have to be an invalid ballot, so I’m not sure it’s really that important to keep a vote that didn’t count secret. Also in this particular case the person’s dead.

I’m certainly not advocating a law like this be passed, and maybe there’s some federal policy that would prevent it from being enforced, but logistically speaking I don’t see the problem.~~

What Is A Focus definitely, but also sometimes it’s How Do I Stop Focus?

According to that article, this only covers donations to other organizations who then distribute the donated food. It doesn’t cover anyone directly donating food to individuals.

So for a restaurant, they would need to donate food to a food bank or something, and that would mean food that isn’t immediately going bad. And if that’s the case they’re probably just going to keep it and try to use it later. If they want to donate the leftover food at the end of the day they can’t use anymore, there probably isn’t any time left other than to just give it to some homeless people outside the restaurant, which this act doesn’t protect against.

Which then just raises the question for me, why isn’t this also protected against? The act already states that the food has to be seemingly good condition, so you can’t just serve mold and say it was a gift. What’s the harm in feeding homeless people?

This is potentially more specific to the US, but I imagine even if that is the case it probably affects everyone else by proxy at a minimum.

One of the big problems with trucks and SUVs is that they are not subjected to the same safety regulations as cars. They have high ground clearances, high noses, stiff suspensions and frames, and so on, and these things make them extraordinarily dangerous in a collision. That being said though, they might be necessary in very specific circumstances, for example if you are going off road and/or towing very heavy loads. If this applies to you regularly, like for work, buy a truck and drive it in good conscience. It is a tool fit for your purpose.

But if you are like most people, you don’t regularly tow heavy loads for work, and you don’t regularly drive off road, but maybe you do need to carry around lots of stuff and/or people, and spacious van might be more suitable. And with that comes a softer suspension, lower ground clearance, and a sloped nose that will make the van much less likely to kill people in a collision

This is potentially more specific to the US, but I imagine even if that is the case it probably affects everyone else by proxy at a minimum.

One of the big problems with trucks and SUVs is that they are not subjected to the same safety regulations as cars. They have high ground clearances, high noses, stiff suspensions and frames, and so on, and these things make them extraordinarily dangerous in a collision. That being said though, they might be necessary in very specific circumstances, for example if you are going off road and/or towing very heavy loads. If this applies to you regularly, like for work, buy a truck and drive it in good conscience. It is a tool fit for your purpose.

But if you are like most people, you don’t regularly tow heavy loads for work, and you don’t regularly drive off road, but maybe you do need to carry around lots of stuff and/or people, and spacious van might be more suitable. And with that comes a softer suspension, lower ground clearance, and a sloped nose that will make the van much less likely to kill people in a collision

At least according to the article, there seems to be some evidence that shorter wavelength UV can’t penetrate deep enough to cause those issues. It gets absorbed by the outer dead skin layer and liquid layer around your eyes.

From what they’re saying, it sounds like the biggest issue now is that UV light creates ozone and smog, which are obviously toxic. And that doesn’t seem to have an obvious solution, in the article they’re basically discussing how much smog is an acceptable trade off

This title is a bit misleading, this isn’t the Washington post saying this, they are just reporting a hog farm manager having said this in 1976

From a physics perspective, yes it does. Not much, but yes it does do something.

In order for a crumple zone to work, the material must be at least slightly softer than the rest of the structure. When you have a collision, both the strong structure and the relatively weak crumple zones will flex, but the crumple zones will flex more. In a big collision, like with another car, they might flex so much they have permanent damage (the crumple), but even with a pedestrian they will flex a little. The more they flex, the more it cushions the impact for both the pedestrian and the occupants of the car.

As I said, the amount of cushion for the two parties is massively skewed in favor of the car, and crumple zones alone are not anywhere near enough to make cars safe for pedestrians. But objectively, yes they do slightly cushion the impact for a pedestrian, and in the perfect edge case collision it might mean the difference between life and death.

To an extent it’s both. I mean intent-wise it’s all about the occupants of the car, but as a side effect it also slightly reduces the impact on the pedestrian. The way I would think about it is that crumple zones on their own aren’t nearly enough to protect pedestrians, but removing them would be going completely in the wrong direction

I want to preface this by saying that while I have done some undergraduate work in this area, I am by no means an expert on this topic. If I’m wrong or missing some context, hopefully someone with more knowledge than me can comment and correct me.

This doesn’t really seem like much to me. The major quantum threat is Shor’s algorithm, which gives an attacker with access to a sufficiently powerful quantum computer the ability to easily solve the discrete log problem. This new protocol still relies on the discrete log problem, and is therefore still vulnerable to the same threat. I don’t understand everything in the paper, but from what I can tell I think they just made DH a little more robust in general, rather than actually providing a long-term quantum solution.

Facebook did the same thing years ago, it’s part of the enshittification cycle. When you post a link to another site, you’re directing traffic away from twitter and it’s advertisers, so Elon would much prefer that you be forced to post the entire article so that no one ever has to leave twitter and give their ad revenue to anyone else.

Obviously no one would agree to this if it was happening from the start, but once your platform has a stranglehold on everyone, you can start tightening the noose like this. Everyone hates it, but people feel like they have nowhere else to go, so they put up with it. Or at least that’s what twitter’s betting on

“This public service is too effective and is apparently something a huge number of people are interested in using. Gotta put an end to that.”

Akthually, Betamax and betacam were completely unrelated standards. Betamax was the failed vhs competitor, with good quality but an unusably short recording length, and betacam was the unrelated standard that enjoyed a long and successful run in the professional world.

Technology connections has a few videos on the subject, but this one is probably the most relevant: https://youtu.be/hGVVAQVdEOs