newsyyswen

The article also points out that only 1/4 of the classrooms are A/V-equipped. It might be a cost thing.

But it's only dangerous to be a carrier when you are amongst the unvaccinated, and those people have now made a conscious choice to expose themselves to the virus. At what point do we stop being responsible for other peoples' choices?

The exception is obviously the immunocompromised, but hopefully the booster shots will help to provide that group with some lasting immunity.

Have you considered drip irrigation? It was designed with desert agriculture in mind. Shade can also make a big difference.

Requiring a human being to be on the public record as personally and financially responsible for an AI's decisions would be a good start.

We might be seeing less of that subgenre these days because the general public is starting to realize that genetic engineering is sort of like AI/ML.

It takes a lot of effort and expense to achieve mildly promising results, and any given project is much more likely to break out in tumors or be outcompeted by existing strains than it is to evolve into something unexpectedly fit. Yes, poorly-engineered plants can grow tumors...or at least odd growths that sap their energy and nutrients.

Is this by the same people who made LÖVE? The naming and use of LuaJIT suggest it.

I love LÖVE. It's a great way to throw together rapid prototypes, and Lua is a joy to work with. Exciting to see a 3D framework along the same lines, hope it can work well for non-VR apps.

The park services have a similar problem, but the solution is simple:

* No permanent structures.

* You need to move every X days.

* You cannot stay in the park/forest/etc for more than Y days/month.

Cities could forbid tents and count hours rather than days. Criminalizing the act of napping in a park seems like a huge overreaction to peoples' fear of tent cities. If you've never taken an afternoon siesta along a local greenway, you should try it sometime. Bring a blanket and a book, but don't forget to check for sharps before you lie down.

Couldn't you make a case that grades should reflect how people will actually be evaluated in their adult lives?

I.e. capriciously, arbitrarily, and often based on a random person's mood at some random time?

You can't use Facebook to destroy Facebook.

Their terms of service are not immutable laws. If the status quo stops working for them, they can restore old data and alter the bargain further.

I wonder when the change happened. It seems like there's a fairly broad consensus now, but different people seem to cite different time periods for when things took a bad turn.

I had consistently great experiences ~3-8 years ago, but I remember needing to be careful about 3rd party sellers towards the end of that time period.

Thing is, I stopped ordering online about a year before the pandemic started. When I returned to Amazon 18 months ago, it felt like the balance had shifted towards the majority of listings being fraud/low quality/unexpectedly comingled/etc.

Personally, I blame a shift in perspective. It feels like their retail teams' views on who "The Customer" was shifted from the person placing the order, to the 3rd-party sellers.

When do y'all think that happened? 2015? 2017? 2019?

This does not jive with my experience at all.

Maybe it's because my age bracket still remembers flip phones. Maybe it's because I'm upfront about my own tech habits. Maybe it's because I swipe left on profiles that have linked IG accounts.

Whatever the reason(s), you don't need to be as interesting as an app, because you are not an app. Plenty of people just want to connect and relate with someone else, and there's nothing more relatable than not being able to live up to the standards of a glossy influencer ad campaign.

Chin up, mate. In the US, I'm starting to hear a lot more "I wish I did that", and a lot less "that's weird what are you hiding?"

People are starting to come around as they and their family members start to have more acutely negative experiences with social media.

There are no conclusive numbers on how long they last, because there has not been a significant drop-off in efficacy yet.

There is some evidence that booster shots after 6 months can provide better even better protection than the second shot after 3-4 weeks, but it's not clear whether they will be necessary yet, especially when so much of the world is still desperate to get the first two shots in peoples' arms.