HN user
Maybe you should be, but if they are in bad shape, the 100% figure will apply to many diseases. On a long enough time line, they will of course die, just like you and everyone else.
The possible long term side effects of the vaccine are unknown.
What constitutes a small margin?
I'm sure that within the context of the discussion and the number of votes cast, you can come up with a meaningful number.
Fraudulently casting that many votes undetected would be a non-trivial task.
Non-trivial is a low barrier.
The first conclusion has to be that I found no evidence of fraud in any of these elections.
Given that people have been convicted of fraud and invalid votes are found, we have learned that either (1) this technique does not find evidence of fraud even when it happens or (2) the fraud that happens is marginal.
(2) seems likely, but given the small margins in some swing states, even a relatively small numbers of fraudulent votes could determine the election.
Pretty much everybody loses their life somehow.
Everyone. Everyone dies. That includes you and me. The question is not if but how and what you do with the time you have.
Try cycling across LA...
"BBC's specialist disinformation reporter"
Well that sounds ominous.
Well.... this works because Amsterdam is a small city.
Indeed. Seems what's lacking is political will.
Almost no bikes actually go that fast, while the scooters practically always do, which is they they drive in the middle of the lanes or into oncoming traffic. Thus head on collisions etc.
All I can say is that the reality is that they come right at me on the bike path on the wrong side of the rode at 16+ mph. Every single time I go biking.
Whatever rules exists here exist on paper only.
A little folding 2 wheel platform vehicle going 16kph is certainly no worse than a large Dutchman riding the same speed on a 35kg omafiets
A light bike doing 16 kph will knock you down but not seriously injure you unless you're unlucky.
Mopeds are doing more like 16 mph (25kmh) and easily weigh 70+ kg. That's a fast and heavy chunk of metal. If that hits you, you will be badly injured or killed. That changes the stakes of the bike paths from scraped knees to death or brain injury.
Do you believe in just banning things because people use them irresponsibly?
No, I believe in banning things when the vast majority use them irresponsibly.
That demonstrates that it's just not something we're capable of handling.
Depends where you live I suppose. Some areas are perfectly fine. Mine unfortunately has a lot of social issues.
There are three clearly distinct paths practically everywhere in the Netherlands: roads, bike paths and sidewalks.
That means the bikes, cars and pedestrians are already separated.
The mopeds/scooters (who go up to 45kmh / ~28 mph) are the only ones who don't fit in. That why they're constantly switching between roads, bike paths and sidewalks.
you can't drive these on bike paths
But everyone does.
Unfortunately there is zero enforcement. Either there would have to be a massive amount of police controlling how people drive, or they have to be banned.
They should be banned.
The vast majority of them drive completely irresponsibly. They go at least twice as fast as the bikes on the bike lanes so they're constantly going in the middle of the lane into oncoming traffic. I've lost track of how many times I've had to swerve on my bike because someone comes right towards me.
The Netherlands does not actually have bike lanes. It has shared moped/scooter/bike lanes.
Spreading information: news.
Trying to affect peoples views and behavior: propaganda.
Let's not lose focus of what really matters here: money.
Oh come on, any answer but 'no' is yes. Also 'no' is yes.
Like journalists at the guardian...
As proof, consider that we are having this conversation right now, about an article that was published and is freely, legally available online to anyone with a web browser.
As long as you control what a large segment of the population sees, you can orchestrate peoples actions. Censorship has never been absolute or complete and doesn't need to be in order to be effective.
I believe you've answered your own question.
two party system != there are two parties
the system != the current situation
I keep trying to shut low quality news out, but it's pushed practically everywhere. Front page of reddit, tech sites... people even stuff my mail box.
I'm sure Brexit is going to be a cautionary tale for decades to come on the risks of exiting a well-established union in favor of sticking out on your own.
not being part of the Union != not cooperating
(although currently the EU is attempting to block all cooperation outside the bounds of the Union in an effort to keep the UK practically a member, but without voting rights)
I think this is a good argument. Any large nation has come together due to some sort of central leadership and not due to everyone getting things their way.
Is it really a two party system though? There are two major parties, but afaik anyone can start a party. This means two parties dominate, but that's actually the same in most countries in Europe. There are many parties but for most of the 1900s you'd get two large parties and a large number of very small ones. In more recent times some of the smaller parties have grown large enough that parties group together in order to secure a majority. But this means that although there are many parties, there are still only two sides (practically) to chose from.
But given the multitude of parties, they tend to work together in groups (blocks), right?
So in the end, there are fewer sides/groups/blocks than parties and people tend to switch between parties within a block, but rarely between blocks.
He deserves it.