The Fairness Doctrine has become an urban legend among the left with a regrettable amount of built-up legends of its power.
Whatever you think it did, it almost certainly did not do that. In practice it meant that J. Random Crazypants would be allowed to give an editorial -- sometimes in the middle of the night, and sometimes as 60 second after the news. Additionally the Doctrine never applied to Cable TV for obvious First Amendment reasons.
ACE Rail (from Stockton to San Jose) has an absolutely wonderful network of eight shuttle buses that meet the train when it arrives at the Great America station[1]. They fan out across most of the Silicon Valley so that there's no need to wait for a bus or make connections between buses.
Every commuter rail line really should do this. Obviously Caltrain could not do this for every train, but how about some trains?
>When FileVault is enabled, the data volume is locked and unavailable during and after booting
This is incorrect. Macs do only a tiny partial boot before showing the login. The real work is done after the machine is unlocked.
When using OpenCore on a Hackintosh, the unlock login is almost instantly presented after OpenCore completes its part of startup. Only after the unlock does MacOS startup really do anything.
It's awesome that someone has managed to get ssh to do the unlock, but saying the data volume is "locked... after booting" is going too far.
In the past it used to work the way the parent comment is describing. The confusion is understandable. Apple basically got rid of macos and replaced most of it with things from ios in 2020, a lot changed.
Your comment is overbroad as written, but it is close to true about the boot chain. The Apple Platform Security Guide [1] says: “When a Mac with Apple silicon is turned on, it performs a boot process much like that of iPhone and iPad.”
First, ICE should be competent. There's a long history of them being the dumbest and most thug-like people to hold a badge. Compare this to the US Postal Inspectors, who are the most competent. Reform has long been needed from top to bottom. Consider that they basically use skin color as probable cause, which is enraging and lazy.
Second, the silly quotas focus on the wrong issue. The government, being incompetent, is meeting quota by voiding valid permission-to-stay because they know where those people live. They are manufacturing people to deport because they are not competent to find people who can be legally deported.
Third, this is a case of supply and demand. The system is focused on the supply side composed of desperate workers rather than demand side of people who hired them for personal profit. This is silly: come down hard on one meatpacking plant and you "solve" the problem of hundreds of illegal immigrants with a single criminal charge. Trying to stamp out the immigrants one-by-one is inefficient and unjust.
Lastly, this is pretty much all the fault of the Republican Party. George W Bush wanted to make a grand compromise where sufficient barriers to entry were erected in exchange for amnesty. The nativist wing of the Republican Party went apoplectic at compromise and killed any practical solution for decades. There will never be a solution so long as one side wants to deport law-abiding hardworking taxpayers whose parents brought them here as children.
> Third, this is a case of supply and demand. The system is focused on the supply side composed of desperate workers rather than demand side of people who hired them for personal profit. This is silly: come down hard on one meatpacking plant and you "solve" the problem of hundreds of illegal immigrants with a single criminal charge. Trying to stamp out the immigrants one-by-one is inefficient and unjust.
A major reason ICE and a strict border exist is to depress wages and enable employer abuse. That's why this is never the approach to solve immigration problems.
Being able to say "behave or we'll deport you" is exactly the point. If you flip it around you'll quickly find a bunch of employers that cry about how wonderful these workers are and that we need to "have a heart".
Undocumented workers won't, for example, form a union or make complaints to OSHA.
The tollhouse recipe is amazingly fragile. Slight variations in temperature can make the cookies "go flat" or end up with a thick skin. No surprise there is a variation of outcomes using older ovens that were very imprecise.
Yes! I like to vacation in the summer at Mammoth Lakes (~8000 ft ~2400m) and coffee is a bit of a problem. I like weak coffee and compensate for altitude by adding more grounds, but it's really not the same.
Are you criticizing something other than what is in this article? This article fully rejects the immunity debt hypothesis.
The article suggests that covid infections cause immunity amnesia similar to other known viruses. This is based on shingles and EBV reactivation incidence being higher in people who had covid.
You should read the comment again. It says that this article is debunking something that was never a serious claim. That is the first thing it says, and it says it very directly. It is also set apart as its own paragraph, for emphasis.
And yet was claimed again and again by e.g. pediatrics societies in Switzerland and France to justify ending every restrictions (thereby mass contaminating children before they could be vaccinated, and contributing to more spread and more mutations of the virus)
Yes, and the footnote also says that "this metric is age-standardized". I did not easily find an explanation of what that means, which made me distrustful of the data.
Fortunately, good old Wikipedia has what we are both looking for:
Not sure I completely agree (if the definition of vehicles is cars). That disregards miles travelled by cyclists and pedestrians etc. If 10% of the population switched from driving to cycling to work but the death numbers stayed the same, that metric would go up but really nothing would have changed, either mortality wise or in terms of number of people using the roads.
This would introduce a bias towards countries that are large and have extensive motorway networks. They would appear safer than countries that have a smaller portion of motorway miles.
> If we look at the number of deaths per billion miles driven, we see that motorways are roughly four times safer than urban roads, and more than five times safer than rural roads. This is not specific to the UK: among 24 OECD countries, approximately 5% of road deaths occurred on motorways.5 In almost all countries, it was less than 10%.
I prefer the death per people metric as I am more interested in how likely I am to receive some bad news than some metric based on distance.
Both measures have bias, the "per people" metric doesn't take into account when people are actually driving while the "per kilometer" metric puts too much emphasis on long distance driving, which is usually done on motorways where it is the safest. Maybe the best metric would be "per time spent on the road, including as a pedestrian on the sidewalk", but I guess it is harder to estimate.
Possibly even per trip? I'm confident my bicycle trips to the supermarket in the Netherlands is safer than a trip to Walmart in the US by car, but I spend way fewer kilometres doing the same job. That only makes it even safer, but I think is discounted in per-KM statistics?
Rural roads are far more dangerous than urban roads per mile. Higher speeds (whether by limit or driver disregard), worse infrastructure, and less police and hospitals means that the crashes that do happen are far more likely to kill.
For those unaware, Boston (largest city in Massachusetts) has a reputation for incredibly aggressive drivers (so does New York City). Is Massachusetts relatively safer because it has so few freeways? I find it hard to believe this can be explained by "quality of drivers". Another idea: Maybe local police are very, very strict about drink/driving, thus reducing the number of deaths.
The conduct of the law enforcement professionals and people they associate with leading up to the events relevant to the trail is relevant to a discussion of how seriously they take DUI.
OK, how about this: how would someone who knows nothing about you other than your 2 comments here determine whether you think MA police take DUI seriously enough or whether you think they go too easy on DUI?
Read did drive under the influence and police and prosecutors laid harsh charges against her, but they could've laid those harsh charges (first- and second-degree murder IIRC) against her even if she had been stone sober that night, so it seems to me that the Read case says nothing about how harshly police and prosecutors treat ordinary DUIs.
We put white crosses on the verge, one for every dead person in an accident. I drive past many crosses every time I run to the grocery store. So...not very safe in MT.
