grapehut

I'm not familiar with that area, but considering it's not coastal it seems hard to believe the water is simply wasted once it goes into the ground in the lower Colorado basin.

It depends a lot on where the farm is, how much they irrigate, and when they irrigate. But often something like >90% of the water goes back into the ground, where it will eventually make its way back into the aquifers and rivers.

It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow

I think it would require pretty exceptional circumstances to make any sense to try counter-sue.

Like in my case I have pretty conclusive proof that part of her allegation is a lie. And that makes her look sufficiently bad that she's wiling to drop the whole thing.

But if I now tried to sue her, she'd naturally have to revert to asserting her allegations were true in the first place. But only she made some mistakes when remembering the details (oh sorry, wrong event! Trauma!). And I believe I would look vindictive and aggressive, and my real concrete proof is that one part of her allegation is a lie.

For me, it's 10000x easier to just count my blessings than personally consider anything of the sort. I only once briefly entertained the idea just to tarnish her own reputation to the point she would never be able to falsely accuse anyone again.

You've made the wrong takeaway. I was falsely accused of sexual assault by a woman. It has nothing to do with gender. It definitely can cut both ways.

We had a gaming party at work on a Friday afternoon, and I happened to have recorded my games. Reviewing it, I found I did play against her (and 2 others) in a free-for all. But it was clear she just fabricated the events. Funnily enough while I was playing her, I didn't even know it was her (it was a woman I barely knew and only had spoken to a couple of times).

Anyway, presented with the actual recording she dropped the entire thing and yet managed to have absolutely zero personal or professional repercussions.

These stories leave a bad taste in my mouth. It hasn't yet gone to court, so the guys allegations could be really be anything from the God's honest truth all the way to a complete fabrication. Yet there is a huge amount of irreparable damage by public stories like this.

I was once personally on the receiving end of a complete false sexual harassment allegation from a coworker almost at random (someone I had almost no interactions with, ever). There wasn't even a sprinkle of truth in the whole thing. I was saved by pure dumb luck, where against all odds just happened to have irrefutable proof one of their claims was impossible which led to her dropping the whole thing. I'm still a bit jaded that there are absolutely zero repercussions of making false claims.

I guess I feel like "Innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty good model and running a story just amplifying one persons unproven claims kind of goes against that.

I think what's not discussed is that most of this water ends up back into the ground and eventually back into a river. In some ways it even helps regulate river flow. Perhaps one improvement could not not allowing irrigation during from 8am to 4pm or something to reduce the amount of evaporation

This is a particularly egregious case, I've never seen a fake domain slip through like that before.

However, I have reported dozens of phishing sites for the company I worked for. The phisher would simply buy ads for $BRANDNAME and create a convincingly similar site and phish users. I would report the website to "safebrowsing" and report the ad. Typically it would take 1 to 3 days for the website and/or ad to be removed, which would give them enough time to do countless damage. Then they would simply register a new domain, and repeat.

At some point the only thing you can do is outbid phishing sites for your own brandname?!

It's a shame google can not self-regulate such evil behavior, but it's clear that it should be illegal for google to allow people to buy ads on brandname searches.

It is brutally unfair to hire by one standard and then suddenly hold them to a higher one. And fairness aside, if you do not look through an anti-racist/anti-oppression lens you would destroy years of work of improving company diversity.

The issue is that it becomes necessary as marginalized candidates are given preferences during the hiring phase. So if the same privilege is not extended during layoffs it will unfairly impact them.