I don't think you have to be a criminal to be in some sort of police database. And even if it did mean that, it should make no difference as to how their privacy is treated. If anything, a police database should have higher bars to third party access on privacy grounds than almost any other kind of database. The only thing that should be public are court records.
Furthermore, I firmly believe court records should not be public en masse but rather only individually. It should not be trivial to just check a name and see if they've been convicted of something. Sentence served should mean you don't have lingering repercussions.
There's a balance there - the court records need to be public so that the justice system can be held accountable by the public in some way, and records need to be available to inform precedent for future decisions. That needs to be weighed against what you mentioned, the impact of the availability of those records on the people they are about.
>If the grass pasture is already there in cycle, it's not being used for anything else. Might as well put cattle on it.
This is true, technically speaking. Practically, you couldn't produce even a fraction of the amount of meat that the market wants using this way. If all meat was grass fed meat, it would be a luxury good. I don't think that would be too bad to be honest, it would lead to much less meat consumption overall.
Basically, "just eat grass fed meat" = "everyone must eat a lot less meat, unless they're rich I guess"
This discussion is about how producing meat requires tons and tons of land in the form of soy bean fields that feed the animals, which indirectly and directly contributes to deforestation. Now you come along and say, just eat meat produced using this other method which takes a lot MORE land for the same amount of meat production?
No they're not, at least they're not pasture. They're either already farmed fields or they're wild meadows. Putting meadows to intense use would destroy whole ecosystems that may look like "just grass" from afar, and farmed fields are obviously already in use.
And why do you think this should be strictly a "government bill"? I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. One perspective would be to say this is a cost all of society needs to pay as a whole (in which case everyone simply pays it in taxes at the end) or you could say "we just require your business to behave in such a way that it doesn't end up killing people, you pay the cost for it". These are the extremes of course, but we need to figure out where we fall on that spectrum.
Because the government is the party deciding on the restrictions. If the government has to pay the price there’s a chance they’ll keep that part of the equation in mind.
If they can just brush it off by having others foot the bill, they’ll simply make the choice which minimizes the impact that can be directly attributed to them. Which definitely is not always the right choice.
It’s just so much easier to chant for safety whatever the costs if you don’t have to pay the bill.
Just to be clear, I think it's within the responsibility of the government to pay for much of the hardship incurred by lockdowns to help get society and the economy as a whole through it halfway intact; but I do not think that applies to _everything_.
Two examples: If a Business is closed due to lockdown - there should be government assistance to compensate. Buying masks for employees and changing interior layouts to allow for safer interactions, to comply with new regulations - cost of doing business.
This alone:
>Because the government is the party deciding on the restrictions.
is not a valid reason to me. We don't (or at least I don't) expect the government to pay for every impact of new environmental legislation either even though they ultimately pass the legislation.
Have you read the link? This is not about dismissing the genuine plight of people affected by the lockdown. This is about actual, literal, disinformation being spread.
We need to weigh the consequences of restrictions against the consequences of not having those restrictions, and this kind of disinformation is simply trying to tip the scales by diluting the factual basis on which we all make that assessment with lies.
Vitamins are a totally different area, this is just about minerals, so basically salts of different types. Sodium, Potassium, Calcium and Magnesium salts are the most relevant ones as far as I know.
Any time you drink water that contains lower concentrations of these than your body, you will lose some, as the concentrations equalize. Same thing, just more pronounced. If you drink very large amounts of water in a short time, that can be a serious health hazard, it can lead to hyponatraemia [1]. Distilled water works exactly the same here, but it is more hypotonic, so the required amount to get into problematic areas is probably lower.
Short version: Don't drink huge amounts of water (think upwards of 5l) in a short amount of time without replenishing electrolytes, it could kill you. Applies to both "normal" and distilled water, but probably to a slightly lower amount of distilled water.
Quick comparison:
Peloton bike EUR 2145 + EUR 39/month - gets you courses and indoor riding
or:
Canyon Endurace AL Disc 6.0 as an example of a very solid entry level road bike - EUR 1299
Kickr Core direct drive turbo trainer (good turbo trainer, there are cheaper ones if you go without direct drive) - EUR 799
Combined EUR 2098 + EUR 15/month for a Zwift membership or something comparable. Gets you excellent indoor training AND now you have a bike you can use when the weather gets better! Spend the rest of the up front money on a big fan for indoor training or clothing for outdoor riding.
I really struggle to justify EUR 1300 as 'entry level'. It might be entry level for being competitive, but if you just want exercise on something decent you can get road bikes for half of that. I have bought (good) cars for less than EUR 1300.
I think that it is more effective to think relative to absolute luxury. The bikes they ride in the Tour de France are $10,000 and so a $1,000 bike is an order of magnitude. Same for cars, and entry level car is like $20,000. An order of magnitude away from Ferraris and Lamborghinis. The $100 bike that most people think are entry level just simply are not worthy of being called exercise/riding material. You will spend more time doing maintenance (fixing the chain and derailleurs) than actually riding the bike. For those that aren’t in the biking world, the components (not the frame) is where most of the money goes. These cheap bikes are only worth it if you never change gears which is ok for the majority of people but then you may as well just get a fixed gear bike.
Very practical solution would be to take the old beater bike and mount it on direct drive or wheel based trainer permanently. Old used bike can be had for close to nothing
Kinda depends on the perspective - if you want to take up road riding as exercise somewhat seriously, it's the price point where the component quality levels off.
Above that price point, component quality goes up in terms of performance, weight, etc, below that price point it requires compromise you notice even when just riding for exercise (lower durability, bad shifts, sluggish ride feel and so on).
In the world of road bikes, I'd propose roughly these categories:
100-400: bad cheapo bikes. Will ride, but no fun and will break and give you headaches soon.
700-1000: Decent bikes, but you have to make some compromises. Fun can be had, will not randomly break because of bad quality components.
1000-1400: Good stuff, not extravagant. Won't have to compromise on much, you can be satisfied with this forever unless you want to be competitive, and even then it'll do fine.
Huh, never would have guessed, I suppose sarcasm really doesn't translate well in text form. There are just too many actual crazy viewpoints around to be sure which ones are actually just satirical/sarcastic.
> Either fix everything at once, or don't. There's zero point in making small incremental changes that do not benefit everyone
Have you ever had any look at how laws actually get passed in the US and pretty much any country with some sort of democratically legitimized government?
Your demand in any of these systems would simply lead to no laws getting passed at all, most of the time, total legislative gridlock. Legislature is an incremental process by nature, and especially so in systems of government where the interests of more than one side are represented, so compromises have to be made at every step of the way.
I mean, I've run into situations where GATs would have been a good solution before and had to find a clumsier workaround using boxing or other solutions until now.
So I don't really know what to say to your initial question, except "this feature is useful", and that the question (and especially your answer to it) may be a bit overly reductionist.
