randoomed

I suspect this fear of guns largly explains the additional risks police face.

assuming everyone has a gun and is willing to use it, raises the stakes of every encounter. so instead of a police encounter starting at a very low risk level (casual conversation), it starts a very close to deadly force risk.

This causes both sides to be a lot more tense, with a lot less room for mistakes. It also makes any encounter feel very risky.

I don't think people having a gun prevents police from starting an encounter at a casual level. But the assumption everyone is out to harm them, and has the means to do so, does.

Jill Bearup posted a video about this a while ago, showing a short and the original side by side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd692naF-Cc (note the short is shown at 0:31)

Edit: The changes made by the ai are a lot more vissible in the higher quality video uploaded to patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/136994036 (this was also linked in the pinned comment on the youtube video)

The main reason is a combination of negligence by the owner of the plant and not enough enforcement of standards. The fukushima powerplant was known to have sea wall lower then required and as such was vulnerable to a tsunami (this was known for quite a long time) Combined with backup power in the basement (also against standards)

For an example of what happens to a reactor build according to safety requirements see the onagawa nuclear powerplant

i hope that situation (with iDeal) will soon apply to the entirety of europe. Wero rolling out this system to all countries in the EU.

If we want to go that route, any conflict would be a kind of combat.

As a conflict has multiple parties trying to reach their own goal which doesn't completely overlap with the others.

i think this would rule out nearly all games (including most non violent ones)

That is one possible explanation. However i have a different theory why difficult games like this can help.

I notice that when i get in a bad head space, i trend to become less active. It then becomes more difficult to start doing anything.

Playing a game like dark souls gives you two things: 1. Its stimulating, and gives you instant feedback. 2. It allows you to fail, and have to retry.

So instead of passively drowning my self in algorithmic content, im actively working towards a goal. This then makes it easier to actually pick something up in the real word.

breaking out of the initial cycle of running away from the world is the most difficult part of getting out of a bad headspace (for me). So anything that breaks open those initial steps can be very helpful.

Unfortunately if this was the plan it massively backfired. By imposing a global tariff the US also hit its allies in the region. This in turn causes these allies to look for trade deals with others in the region, like China.

We have already seen South Korea and Japan announce new trade deals with China. So the US is actually pushing away its allies in the region (which doesn't sound ideal when trying to start a war).

ESA is actively trying to reduce the amount of debris in orbit. To this end all missions have to actively clean them self's up at end of life. See https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/ESA_s_Zero_Debr... and https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/Mitigating_spa...

Yes and no. Cars are indeed the fastest way to travel, if we disregard some aspects like the time needed to park and throughput limits. (also disregarding very large distances where high speed trains and airplanes out compete them)

So for spread out places with lost of space cars will usually be the fastest.

However if we look at dense city centres you have a lot of people competing for parking and a lot of people competing for road throughput.

Say we want to move from A to B, assuming infinite throughput the car is fastest. Take the same route, but it can handle only 200 cars/hour and 10000 people want to take it, we end up with a lot of cars waiting for each other. In this case, slower but more efficient modes of travel will be faster at getting all these people to their destination.

This leads us nicely to the Downs–Thomson paradox. When people in the above scenario start to take other modes of transport it reduces the load on our bottleneck. Eventually reaching an equilibrium where the speed of different modes of transport balances out (as people stop switching from one mode to the other)

The hate for traffic calming is an interesting point, as it assumes cars are the only thing that exists. Unfortunately our cars don't exist in a vacuum, but interact with other object in the world like buildings, and people. The goal of traffic calming is to make it so that other things are protected from cars. (mainly by lowering speed in places where there is lots of other stuff, you wont see traffic calming on a highway)

There needs to be some kind of punishment for failing to take basic security practise into account. A system where a simple disclosure is enough will probably result in company ignoring security, then when there is a problem they disclose and go on without change.

But, it is also important for the fines to be reduced when taking the right steps to improve. Balancing this will probably be quite difficult.

Unfortunately that (quoted) line is incorrect see this page by the dutch privacy authority: https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/themes/internet... It is based on this 2019 ruling also by this same authority (unfortunately only available in dutch) https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/documenten/normuit...

While this ruling does not specifically only use the ePrivacy directive (it is instead based in GDPR), laws do not exist in a vacuum.