bratgpttamer

In the medical world, this is typically quantified by the Therapeutic Index[1], which is basically how much margin there is between an effective (therapeutic) dose and a lethal dose. (Fentanyl and heroin have notoriously thin margins, while cannabis is famously wide.)

It's a big consideration in what's OTC vs Rx, and what guardrails (inpatient only, regular blood draws, etc) are needed.

There was a good "magic quadrant"-style plot of this against addictive potential, but I can't seem to find it just yet. (This [2] is close.)

It doesn't consider externalities, so it's not great for the "do drugs and you'll end up unemployed, and if you're unemployed you'll end up homeless, and homeless people are a cost on the community" class of arguments.

  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_index

  [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg

I wonder how much fuel a white hard hat, safety vest, and clipboard could net one with a service truck/van.

This is SOP among most chain stores' loss prevention policies.

Sub out "not worth an employees' life" with "not worth an expensive assault/false imprisonment lawsuit" if you're extra cynical.

Another key problem is that the subject of Scientific investigation (The Truth) is only of secondary concern to our j̶u̶s̶t̶i̶c̶e̶ legal system.

I think the 5s (SE?) is an exception to the rule

This may be true in some situations, but in others, it can result in automatic suspension of your license, and/or they can just get a warrant for a blood test.

I've also seen people convicted because, despite several hours' delay in obtaining a BAC, they were able to extrapolate back to the time of the accident. (There is apparently some dispute among forensic professionals on the validity of this, which implies the extrapolated value could be higher than actual)

To speak only culturally (and not legally), the rationale is roughly parallel to the Federal-State relationship set out by the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.")

I've spent most of my life in "commonwealth" states (PA, MA, VA), which (legend has it) are founded on a similar principle: the local governments can do what they want unless the state explicitly decides it's a state-level responsibility.

It's supposed to be a bottom-up structure, where middle tiers (Counties) are more a pooling of resources for the towns than a middle-manager for the State. There's often lots of "regional councils" or associations rather than "branch offices" of state agencies you'd see in a top-down structure. There may also be a County-level government with more or less power, depending on the state and specific topic.

They often have jurisdictional lines that reflect their pooling of grant-writing resources rather than simple geographic regions (like FEMAs) [1,2]. In the absence of statewide guidelines, these organizations often set the standards (often because the state can't or won't).

That is, the intermediate jurisdiction is often a voluntary collaboration - usually among the more progressive/better-funded townships/departments - and it's often the small-town departments that don't participate in these councils that have this "leave us alone" attitude and especially lax standards.

  [1] https://www.shacog.com/SystemImages/SHACOGCommunities.png

  [2] http://www.nemlec.com/img/NEMLEC-mapcompress.png

How many Bitcoin networks' worth of energy are required to train the models that generate these silly JPEGs?

Reminds me of an interview I sat in on in Cambridge a few years back.

Manager: "So, why should we hire you?"

Guy: "I have a Masters in CS from [University next door]"

Manager: "You and everyone else in this town. So, why should we hire you?"

This has been my experience, too, as well as people who understood The Science perfectly and that the authorities were just taking a best guess early on, which set them further against any kind of mandate. (Mostly older, conservative physicians with an "it'll be fine" attitude)

The Science didn't change that much (viz: masks in healthcare since forever), but the flip-flopping with messages ("don't horde masks; they won't save you!", "wait, no - everyone needs a mask!"), which was really less about The Science than about different concerns (mask effectiveness, availability) were just the "I told you so" they were looking for.

> We find a nonlinear relationship between knowledge and confidence, with overconfidence (the confidence gap) peaking at intermediate levels of actual scientific knowledge.

Dunning-Kruger isn't real.

Dunning-Kruger isn't real.

Dunning-Kruger isn't real.

It retains that meaning in 99.98% of political discourse: "[topic] is something I dislike and/or reminds me of something/someone I dislike, and it's the only way for me to express that my enemy is subhuman without sounding like a psycho fascist myself"

My cynicism encourages me to agree with you; however, I think it's worth considering how much political capital is created or conserved by 1) protecting the five-member police force and some random local magistrate vs. 2) taking a hardline stance against Corruption by sending the feds in and prosecuting everybody involved (even/especially if charges are dropped in a couple months)