pranjalv123

I have never had my ID checked at the gate on a domestic flight, only by TSA at security or at the ticketing counter when checking bags.

254nm UV is harmful to human eyes and skin, and shouldn't be directly exposed to people. 222nm UV is safe for humans, since the wavelength can't penetrate the outermost layer of skin/cornea.

This is discussed at length in the article, so I'm surprised to see this top of the comment page. I suppose it flatters HN readers' view of themselves as smarter than journalists.

> “Upper room” UV, the primary form of UV disease control tested to date, is a kind of compromise. The primary wavelength it uses, 254 nanometers, is dangerous to human skin and eyes if directly blasted at them. So, well, you don’t blast it directly at them. The next best thing is to put the lamps high up in a room, where they can kill pathogens at that height and spare the humans.

> The problem is that you can’t safely shine conventional 254 nm light at humans, much less at the wounds of humans who are recuperating from surgery. So Brenner and his colleagues, thinking about the donor’s challenge, arrived at the idea of trying out shorter wavelengths, 207 nm or 222 nm far-UV. Those wavelengths penetrate far less than conventional UV, and because of that, far-UV seemed much less likely to damage human skin or eye cells, while still being strong enough to kill viruses and bacteria.

If they were "due to die", you'd see negative excess mortality in future years because the people who were going to die in those years already died. And excess mortality has continued to be positive and high.

They're also being admitted for their actions as children. By the logic of "they're just kids", you shouldn't have a college admissions process at all!

Paper ballots have a much more visible chain of custody than paperless ballots. In my county, from the time voting starts to the time votes are counted, ballots must either be in a locked closet with tamper-evident seals (for example, at night during early voting) or simultaneously in view of both Democratic and Republican election judges.

It might still be possible to interfere with those, but it's much more difficult than electronic voting machines, which can in some cases be manipulated over the internet, or very quickly by a voter who exchanges memory storage units.

Why would Comcast do that? Wouldn't they want you to pay more for faster internet service (when you're almost never going to be maxing out your bandwidth)?

No teenager has been to jail for smoking a cigarette. Underage possession laws have penalties like (usually small) fines. People might go to jail for selling tobacco to minors, but that is different!

Canola oil (and all plant products) have no cholesterol; red meat is high in cholesterol.

Shared libraries also reduce RAM usage; multiple executables that use the same shared library can load it into memory just once.

Denisovan and Neanderthal admixture predates the events predicted by this article by tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

It's also irrelevant to the MRCA of extant humans.

$4M in wealth is certainly enough to get a lawmaker to pass a "pet law" - some minor change to a zoning code or regulatory infrastructure that matters for your business. At least, if there's no concerted opposition to your pet law.

There's a place for both kinds of explanations. This is a good way of explaining what a Kalman filter is to someone who has a mathematical background, just like if you go look up a woodworking video, it might show an interesting way for someone who is familiar with woodworking to build a chair.

Neither is useful to the novice, but an article like this going out of its way to explain, say, matrix notation, or a video about building chairs that spends the first ten minutes explaining how to use a table saw, is less useful and interesting to the experienced reader or viewer.

I suppose I agree that articles like this shouldn't be presented as easy, or for the beginner, but there's a difference between "simple" and "easy".

The argument here is "I shouldn't avoid emotionally traumatizing you because at some point, someone else in the future may emotionally traumatize you".

Perhaps there's a case to be made for exposing people to controversial or offensive ideas in a controlled environment to prepare for encountering them in an uncontrolled environment - in fact, this is frequently called a "safe space" and ridiculed by people who believe that modern societies are too "snow-flakey"!

But that's certainly not what internet trolls are doing.