a truck pulled out in front of them illegally.
Without knowing any real details, this is a type of accident where the perpetrator may not be held liable (because accident), and there’s really no technical solution (except maybe self-driving). Pulling out without seeing traffic is far too easy for a human to do by mistake, and no amount of road engineering or stop signs can change that
(Certainly roundabouts can help, and getting rid of stroads, but there’s still “pulling out”)
It’s also critical to understand the datasource. If we’re computing average by crash data, I’m sure I’m not average, but also “know” more people who have died than I am aware of
If their data was from personal surveys, my answer might be 2. The real number is likely higher, and the average is not predictive
Same definition. While i didn’t see a definition, they talked about each person knowing an average 611 people.
The first one that I was aware of, was in high school. The father of one of my friends did not wear a seatbelt while driving in an open jeep … until he no longer was in the jeep
The second was a few years later in college. My middle school bully was driving his motorcycle at ridiculous speeds through town and missed the road. I was not upset
To speculate further, the stated reason for attacking Iran was nuclear weapon development. Perhaps there are sensors to track that, that can’t operate from satellite
During the Cold War, it had to overfly Russian airspace to be able to see far enough. They were within their rights to shoot at unauthorized aircraft in their airspace.
However, it could see a lot higher percentage of Iran without overflying, and Iran can’t legally shoot at something in international airspace
We know that NASA is doing research on both supersonic and hypersonic airflow. There are extremely few existing aircraft they could use for hypersonic testing
It’s fun speculation to assume this is for military reasons but remember nasa s a civilian agency. Perhaps it’s connected to their research on supersonic and hypersonic flights
Satellites are too predictable, plus too infrequent. If there are two spy satellites that cover Iran, for example, Iran can easily know when and what direction, then presumably take some effort to cover whatever they want to hide.
A reconnaissance plane can show up without warning, any time, loiter for at least minutes, take pictures from different angles, in addition to sharper imaging. We can speculate they may also have sharper non-optical imaging, such as thermal or radar
My bachelor slop today was sort of similar but much less photogenic
Throw in the crock pot
Then eat with butter bread to sop up the sauce
I see it as the invite was deleted because I resolved it by accepting or rejecting. While I admit I occasionally wish I had the invite back, I am almost always happier that something is deleted from my inbox
You have a good point that there needs to be a way to set priorities. For people with many meetings, responding as accept, reject, or tentative is not enough choices
Don’t you check upcoming meetings? Such as at the beginning of the day?
Once accepted, why would you care when any specific meeting is, just which ones are coming soon?
Granted I track things requiring significant effort through other mechanisms, so my meeting prep is more typically checking statuses and collecting data/summaries
I don’t know what to say: I can’t believe it either. Granted this is from a white male perspective and I realize I’ll never even notice most of it, but wtf?
I used to believe conservatives were just people with different ideas how to make things work better for all of us, but wtf? How did this happen?
I was going to smugly reply “not in Massachusetts”, but “….EVEN IN MASSACHUSETTS?”
I got one that’s a true fiasco of twisted incentives.
And this guy has the nerve to keep asking me if I’m taking my medicine regularly. No, bitch, not unless you can prescribe refills regularly
It’s usually done under the guise of reducing taxes or reducing the size of government.
Usually done by our Republican (Conservative) Party spouting generalities like “taxes are too high”, “government is wasteful”, “private company could do better”. Somehow they always skip the part where the functionality is important and the private alternative is worse and costlier (but at least their buddies get to profit)
Apparently voters fall for it, without consideration for what is being cut or whether it really needs to be
And somehow we also keep falling for “reduce taxes” even when that only benefits the wealthy, and when that’s actually the biggest source of debt
I’m jealous of more than two parties (while technically we do as well, in practice they are zero impact)
For-profit healthcare has an incentive to minimize costs
Public healthcare can have incentives like less wait time …. As long as we decide to pay for it
—-
Edit: maybe I assumed too much context since everyone is reading the opposite of my intended meaning
For-profit healthcare has an incentive to [maximize profit, typically by] minimize costs [to them].
They will pay medical providers as little as they can, which increases wait times. They do not have incentives to reduce wait times
Public healthcare can have incentives like less wait time …. As long as we decide to pay for it
Without the profit motive, public healthcare can choose to pay for better service , reducing wait times. Typical approaches for similar services would be setting standards on things like the max number of patients a physician can support. They probably won’t, because Conservatives, but they could
Going by the way my brother describes his company’s products …. They start by defining the labor costs and profit: those don’t really change regardless of the product quality. The price is already mostly defined. Ingredients are dirt cheap, so they’ll add just enough ingredients of just enough quality so you’ll buy it