3c here as well. The doctors were surprised that it had spread to my bones, and it didn’t show up on the CT scans that they were using for surveillance.
People have spent some time entering programming languages, their publication/release dates, and their relationships (e.g. "influenced by", "based on") in Wikipedia and Wikidata. I like the latter, because it makes it easier to keep track of specific claims and their references. If people did more work on that, those relationships could be used to generate larger diagrams/histories like this and keep them up to date.
There's a strong implication that Sesame Credit and the Social Credit System idea follow the example of FICO scores. Has anybody in the Chinese government explicitly stated this?
Why would the Chinese government need to explicitly state this? The parallels are clear. The inventors of Sesame Credit and the Social Credit System have access to the same history we do about the FICO system.
Everytown is funded by wealthy people like Michael Bloomberg and Warren Buffett. If there aren't enough other donors to give them the resources that the NRA has, it might be that there aren't enough people who support their agenda enough to donate. They are not "the little guy".
This article seems to be missing something important: the postal service is still subsidized by the federal government, even if there isn't a direct transfer of taxpayer money.
The mail I receive through USPS is ~90% unwanted (maybe more, if you go by weight), despite my ongoing efforts to "go paperless" and opt out of marketing mail. If I could stop this constant flow of junk, I would gladly pay UPS/FedEx twice as much money to deliver the small amount of mail that I actually care about.
The USPS is greatly subsidized because of these print advertisements. If they did not exist, you would not get your mail, or it would cost like 10 bucks to send a letter. Priority Mail for 5.95? Try 25.95.
There's a reason why it costs 11 dollars and some change to ship a small box with UPS/FedEx -- that's just the cost of shipping.
We are so blind to the true cost of shipping. What would be better is if we got rid of UPS and FedEx, in my opinion.
I was with you until the last sentence. Why on earth would we want to get rid of competition that has driven a lot of the innovation in the shipping/logistics space?
Well, I will preface and just say it's my own opinion, and I don't know too much, but my thinking goes something like this -- as you said, the innovation has already happened. There's really nothing left to innovate. As far as I see, FedEx and UPS aren't working on driverless technologies or drone delivery, that would be Google, Amazon, etc. Also, because we have 3 or 4 select giant online retailers, and then the giant big box stores that have the onus to pressure the USPS to innovate. It would drive down costs for everyone on a whole, as well as the retailers. Anywhere up to 80% of the cost of physical goods is transportation, and about half of that is on that last mile. The added benefit of the USPS being a federal agency (well maybe not so much with Trump), we could pressure the politicians to ensure customers are getting good service.
"The added benefit of the USPS being a federal agency (well maybe not so much with Trump), we could pressure the politicians to ensure customers are getting good service."
No, the innovation hasn't already happened. Just because UPS and FedEx aren't doing PR stunts like Amazon's 60 minutes advertorial built around drone delivery the day before Cyber Monday doesn't mean they're just sitting still.
As for autonomous vehicles. Lots of people are working on the tech and once it becomes interesting for last 100 feet delivery in a few decades UPS and FedEx will have plenty of options to deploy it.
>The added benefit of the USPS being a federal agency (well maybe not so much with Trump), we could pressure the politicians to ensure customers are getting good service.
When you start being cynical and think democratic processes are a joke, then yes, they won't work. But I refuse to give in to cynicism. These agencies are to operate for the public benefit.
To make a different argument - because Fedex and UPS cherry-pick the profitable routes and leave USPS to handle the undesirable markets they are required by law to serve. This would be highly problematic if the USPS didn't exist on those routes as a very subsidized backstop.
That's about the only argument you can make, and I'm not certain it's a great one. Additionally one giant national parcel company in theory should have scale working for them and thus lower per unit costs - in practice I think the opposite holds true for large monopolies. But reasonable minds could disagree here.
Impairment should be the focus, rather than the amount of any substance in anybody's bloodstream. Why not a general test of perception and reaction time?
How do you figure out what is normal for that person, though? Or what is normal to society? How do we set up a test that is fair to most folks? Can we rely on police training to be able to make accomidations (quickly) for those that are disabled, etc?
It's not per-person. There's ONE standard for driving. If for any reason (weakness, blindness, lack of reflexes, impairment, age, etc) you can't reach that bar, then in reality you can't safely drive and so you shouldn't.
It really doesn't matter the age, ability, or whatever - as long as a person CAN reach the minimum requirements to drive on the road, they should be allowed to chose to do so. I don't see a need to discriminate by any means other than performance.
Is there a standard? What standards body has decided it and where can I see it's tests enumerated?
Or do you mean the quick and dirty 'field sobriety tests' that many police offers use? I'm not aware of those being actual standards or tests so much as quick and dirty tools to justify the effort of /actual/ standards tests (BTW, I recall hearing that you should always demand the blood test over the breath tests).
Yes, many states in the US (and I presume other governments at some level around the world) have BAC level tests that are a legal limit which has a strong scientific correlation to of resulting in impaired driving and decision making.
I think there might be some debate over variance of correlation among different ethnicity and experience level of particular users, but I cannot recall any actual disagreement about the current legal BAC limits being close enough for the general population.
However that is the point being made by the parent article; that while presence of alcohol in someone's blood does have that strong scientific correlation there is as yet no strong scientific correlation for any of the legal limits currently in place.
It's an informative answer in terms of what current policy is, but "it may be" is not a good justification for legal restriction on what people can do with government inventions.
"The NFA proved very effective at reducing (eliminating, actually) murders committed with automatic weapons on the registry"
That might be a bit too optimistic about the NFA. The NFA likely did reduce the possession and use of machine guns, but one reason for that is that people could just buy semi-automatics instead without dealing with the NFA-related headache, which suited most people just fine. Also, a lot of the crimes committed with NFA-regulated weapons prior to passage of the NFA were related to Prohibition, weren't they?
