Looks interesting, I currently use Obsidian for personal planning in a similar way and am happy with it, and Asana for the team. How would you pitch the product compared to Obsidian?
If the police were able to close the bridge just in time, that's a pretty spectacular response. There were only ~5 minutes between the ship loosing power initially and the impact. The police saved lives, and it's only a shame that the construction crew wasn't evacuated in time.
* There was a request to close the bridge when the ship lost power, which went over police dispatch about a minute before the bridge collapse (the bridge collapse is reported at timestamp 1:09 in the audio).
* Someone was able to hold the outer loop traffic at ~0:20 in the audio, as they reported they were already driving along at the time.
* Inner loop traffic is reported stopped at ~0:56 in the audio. I suspect there may already have been a police car there because of the construction on the bridge.
* Between 0:20 and 0:56, the conversation is about pulling the workcrew off the bridge. The police officer blocking inner loop traffic, after reporting stopping traffic, is indicating that he's waiting for a second unit to arrive before going onto the bridge to collect them.
* At 1:09, the bridge is reported collapsed, and multiple officers confirm. There is a question as to which traffic is stopped--the people blocking inner loop traffic are unable to confirm outer loop stoppage, but the person holding outer loop informs them of the stoppage at the end of the recording.
So traffic seems to have been stopped for about 10-50 seconds before the bridge collapse, depending on the exact length of time between someone stopping traffic and radioing in that they did so. From what I can tell, it sounds like outer loop traffic was stopped in time solely by sheer coincidence, while the inner loop traffic may have been existing police presence (for the construction zone) changing posture to a full closure.
Do you know what inner loop and outer loop traffic means here? Are they different sides/directions of the bridge?
And it is tragic how close the police were to evacuating the work crews. I interpret that the officer blocking one entry intended to go on to the bridge but was waiting for another cruiser to block the bridge before he left. A few more minutes and the bridge might have collapsed with no casualties. Though at least an officer attempting a rescue wasn't hurt.
The bridge is part of I-695, which is a beltway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_695_(Maryland). Inner loop refers to the inner lanes (traveling clockwise), outer loop the outer lanes (traveling counterclockwise).
Further clarification: because it is a loop, you can't use cardinal directions ("East bound I695" for instance) to indicate which lane you are talking about.
Cost/benefit analyses are just a fact of life. I see your point, but without really considering the question we don't know what the proper response is. It is not obvious to me that we need to mandate backup power systems, there are an awful lot of ships entering ports around the world each day and very few bridge collapses.
The problem is that the bridge collapses that do happen are just catastrophic. The economic impact alone will be massive for Baltimore. But will the responsible parties pay out that damage in full? Unlikely.
Cost-benefit analyses aren't designed to evaluate the total risk a business venture presents to everyone who could possibly be involved; they're designed to evaluate the risk posed by a problem that will launch lawsuits that will play out in courts for years, if not decades. Meanwhile, some injured parties settle for pennies on the dollar, laws change, and in the absolute worst-case scenario, major shareholders draw down their positions in the corporate venture that caused the problem. The world keeps on spinning, and just maybe some regulatory agency will pay attention to the report issued by the likes of the NTSB and USCG.
The process does not adequately protect the public.
Regulations are written in blood, because trying to make everything safe pre-emptively is impossible economically for a number of reasons. Primarily being, you can’t (usually) realistically force people to spend the money on something that isn’t clearly an actual problem.
And that fundamentally means until someone ‘bleeds’/a big enough disaster happens, some things won’t get fixed.
See the triangle shirt waist factory for an example of what it took to be able to force people to pay for certain kinds of fixes.
Since folks aren’t currently burning down the NTSB’s offices or the like, it also seems like your opinion that the public is not currently adequately protected isn’t a majority one?
The only way we’ll ever hit zero accidents is if we are all dead, it’s impossible to do anything without some risk.
Are you opposing the divestment law? If so, and you think TikTok is a real security threat, what is the alternative measure?
I don't agree that this is security theater. Divestment will put the entity which controls TikTok under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, and no, it isn't obvious that the company would still legally be able to export data to the CCP. I also don't understand arguing against a measure on the basis that it won't work well enough - you have to argue that the measure itself is bad.
Yes, and Americans will continue to have access to propaganda of foreign adversaries after this bill passes. The ownership restrictions on broadcast media that OP mentions don't stop Americans from going to the Chinese state news agencies website (https://english.news.cn/). These measures limit the ability of foreign corporations to control American news distribution platforms, not the ability of Americans who want to read Chinese propaganda to do so.
ByteDance is a Chinese corporation. The US federal government does not govern it and has no responsibility to allow a Chinese corporation to express itself in the US by publishing propaganda.
Here is a study which compares the prevalence of topics on Instagram with the prevalence of topics on TikTok, and shows that topics which are sensitive to the CCP (Tibet, Hong Kong) occur 5-10x less frequently than comparable topics which are not sensitive to the CCP
What a strange study... They seem to just count the number of videos on certain hashtags. The huge discrepancy would require a very large fraction (but not all) of videos under certain hashtags to be banned/removed entirely. That would be immediately obvious when just uploading videos under that hashtags (which they don't do)
They simply dismiss the alternate explanation .. that it's a demographic difference or a time difference. Uygher stuff was a hot topic before Tiktok became popular. And people that are super pumped about that issue and are posting about Chinese political issues probably are I'm guessing not the kind of people to be using Tiktok. Those are just wild guesses.. but there are a lot of ways to explain the difference observed here.
In any case.. just mildly muting topics is pretty benign.. I was expecting promoting conspiracy theories or bots posting AI generated videos. The stuff the Russians (and I think Chinese as well?) botfarms do on Facebook is way crazier
That's only true if those 10 additional reservoirs are capturing water that the original 10 were not capturing. You could also end up with 20 1/4 full reservoirs.
The underlying problem in California is that not enough rain is falling within the state's watersheds for everything people want to use it for. Adding more capacity won't double the amount of water available.
Adding more storage can help if it means less dumping at peaks or if they capture water in other areas. But reservoirs have been running half full for years before the heavy rains this year and last. The root of the problem is not enough water for too much demand.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics literally publishes six different unemployment rates, each of which includes different combinations of unemployed, discouraged people who are not job searching, "marginally attached workers", and people working part time who want to be full time.
Here is the table of 2023 averages by state for each of these six rates:
The "True unemployment rate" from the link is basically U-6, except they use $25k as a cutoff to define marginally attached workers. It isn't immediately obvious how BLS defines marginally attached workers, so that might be different. It's not some government secret!
