nonwifehaver3

Some of the water is believed to be deposited by glaciers in the Last Glacial Maximum, which didn't include any of these areas. But some of it is connected to onshore aquifers. It still has to be desalinated to drink, but it would be cheaper as it's less salty than ocean water.

In the course of attempting to fraudulently claim asylum in the US ("fleeing poverty" is not a valid reason for asylum under international treaties, and even if they had a valid reason such as political persecution they already had a Mexican humanitarian visa and therefore had no need to seek asylum in the US), parents try to swim a 1-year old across a huge river, killing her and one of themselves in the process. It does put attention on immigration.

What exactly is the US supposed to do? If they don't "meter" the asylum processing facilities, the facilities will become overcrowded and be dubbed "concentration camps". If they do meter them, they "cause" people to do deadly things with their children in tow, according to people quoted in this article.

My Duolingo ads disagree.

Yes, out of sheer necessity. Search results have become either a crapshoot when looking for commercially adjacent content due to SEO, or “gentrified” when looking for anything even remotely political, obscure, or controversial. Google used to feel like doing a text search of the internet, but it sometimes acts like an apathetic airport newsstand shopkeeper now (& with access to only the same books and magazines).

Due to this I think people will have to use site-specific searches, directories, friend recommendations, and personal knowledge-bases to discover and connect things instead of search engines.

That chart is already in Deaths per 100,000 people, so it does indeed show the white and Native American suicide rates to be significantly higher than black and Asian rates.

It's been ~4x since 1999. If whatever "it" is were only affecting males, the ratio would have changed. But female suicide is also going up. The article shows a spike for 15-19 females around 2012. 20-24 females have been steadily going up since 1999 but no similar 2012 spike. I don't think this study and the New Scientist article are using the exact same data, but the drift is similar (US young people are killing themselves more).

I genuinely don't understand how an average Facebook user would encounter videos like those described in the article. Is it some recommender system gone awry?

How can kiddie porn, gore and animal cruelty "flood the network" for people using Facebook? Don't you normally just see things from your friends, ads, and groups that you are a part of? If they post that, either call the cops, block them on Facebook, don't hang out with them irl, or leave the group as appropriate. Problem solved? I haven't used Facebook in 5+ years so maybe this is no longer accurate.

I haven't used Facebook since 2012 so maybe I'm missing something. When someone posts a video of them torturing a dog under their own name, or some other sick thing, does that not cause some sort of problem with their friends and local community? Many would permanently block and ostracize an acquaintance for such a thing. Why does nobody call the police on someone like that, especially when they know their work/address/etc in real life?

I guess I don't understand the key change in the medium or the culture that requires Facebook's ponderous rule tome and 10000 anonymous content moderators in Manila or Phoenix. Is this just about the risk of some corporate ad being next to some undesired content for a few page views?

I looked into some recent disease-related misinformation (re Zika) and honestly it would be hard for many people to look at it and immediately say why it was wrong (it was extremely wrong). It wasn't like "putting Vaseline under your nose stops you from getting the flu". So I don't think people can really be prepared for everything ahead of time & there has to be some authority.

I still think that the key problem is that people distrust health and government institutions, not that they're allowed (for now) to post quackery or misinformation. I don't really understand how one gets that way. There are perceptions that public health institutions are politicized. Maybe they've never been friends with a doctor or a health official. Maybe their trust has been broken re health or even some other part of government. You can delete someone's posts pretty easily, but you can't force someone to trust the CDC or whoever. It needs to be built over time.

In other words, as long as nobody ever puts ideology, religion, or just power over money, we don't have to worry about what's going to happen with the data.

When I saw the title, I was expecting an article about how we need to: educate citizens ahead of time about the different ways that disease can spread ensuring they don't fall prey to misinformation, fund more research for monitoring and mitigation, invest in stuff like "you need to let your employees work from home if there's a pandemic if possible, you need to emphasize to healthcare and transportation workers that in an emergency they are going to be needed the way that soldiers are needed in wartime and pay them extra".

But, it's just another demand for everyone to build a permanent apparatus to censor every communication that doesn't come from a very official and accurate source such as the publisher or the author's employer. This line of thinking is basically saying that democracy is a failure -- that most people are a bunch of easily deluded simpletons who have to be herded around for their own good, and they can't even learn ahead of time what they might need to know in a pandemic. Maybe that's part of the answer to a very important question behind all this, which is "why are people losing trust in society's most basic institutions, even when they're right?"

The dragon with its hoard of gold (private user data) is a great description of Facebook and Google's regulatory goals. As Maciej has also put it, "privacy is an essential right — your most intimate moments should be kept strictly between you and Google".

The terror that could be unleashed by their already existing hoard is almost unimaginable. For all the concern about rising authoritarian politics, few have figured out how bad it would be for the future equivalent of the Gestapo or the Red Guard (pick your country) to get a hold of a decades long dump of medical and financial data, metadata on relationships, posting history, browsing and location history, behavioral fingerprints, stylometry, device IDs, reading history, private photos, and on and on. The tech industry's "vow" to not create a Muslim registry for the US government had a touch of absurdity to it, since there are already companies that could plausibly give you a list of almost all Muslims in the US with a few queries, along with far more personal information than any census or registry has ever asked for.