Requiring log in to view tweets makes the platform utterly useless as a forward facing communication tool for organisations and corporations. I’d wager that it probably makes it actively illegal for many government orgs to even use for official communication, as I suspect that many countries have laws about official government communications needing to be freely and publicly accessible.
It’s basically just another version of Goodharts Law:
When a measure (in this case “the amount of rubbish the crow brings”) becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
See also: The NYT best seller list. Once that became popular, publishers started buying their own books during certain times, to make the list. Now basically every book in existence is a “NYT best seller” and the metric has become effectively worthless.
The issue is the crows are going to learn about this, and start just fishing rubbish out of bins, because it’s the easiest way to get their reward.
There was once a Parisian dog who kept trying to push children into the Seine, because he had learned that if he ha saved a drowning child he gets tons of rewards.
Who is the target audience for that ? Who the fuck even neds instructions to verify a damn email address, much less a whole ass youtube video ?
Because fat and sugar are drugs. People don’t usually think of them like drugs, because of the widely accepted, but very wrong, attitude that only illegal substances can be drugs. Sugar, fat, caffeine, alcohol or tobacco are all drugs. They all trigger a desirable chemical reaction in your brain, and all have addictive potential. At least 2 or 3 of them are also significantly more harmful to you than several types of actually illegal drugs.
And in general, though perhaps most strongly for drugs, many people suffer from the cognitive bias of “illegal=bad & legal=good. Automatically and by default”
Yes it should change sentencing, because the primary goal of the justice system should be rehabilitation, not punishment, and there are absolutely people who have commited murder and are capable of being fully rehabilitated, and those that can’t, and they should not be sentenced the same.
Or do you seriously think, for example, people who end up murdering their abusers out of revenge or desperation should actually receive the same punishment as someone who murders a random person purely because they hate something about their identity, or an abuser who murder their victim ?
It’s a way to take the severity of the motivation into account when sentencing.
Someone who committed murder could have done so under all sorts of mitigating circumstances, classifying the crime as a hate crime speaks to the horrificly unjustifiable motivation, and is indicative of someone who should be less likely, or ineligible for parole.
Sure, we could just keep calling it murder, and take those things into account anyway, but I think it’s ultimately good to have these distinctions, and there’s plenty of other similar cases where we do distinguish between crimes based on intent, rather than outcome, particularly for crimes against people (you may, for example, apply your exact logic to the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder, or even murder and manslaughter. It’s not like a murder 1 victim is any better off for their killers crime being called murder instead of manslaughter)
Given how famously unreliable AI detectors are, and how often they FP, I’d say there’s a decent chance a few students just lied, and falsely “admitted” to using AI, because they didn’t want to risk flunking the class over a FP.
Weighing the benefits of an action vs its effort is a bizzare way to look at things for you ? Interesting stance to have, I’m curious how you decide if something is worth it or not.
And the goal of my comment was obviously not to make or save money, so that’s a shit comparison. If you take an action with the explicit and singular goal of saving money, I do think it’s absolutely worth it to consider if you even save enough money to be worth the bother. Yes switching on and off an outlet is only a tiny effort, but you’re literally doing it JUST to save money, and the amount of money you save is EVEN MORE tiny and miniscule.
The plug contacts are basically never the limiting factor current wise. They are massive solid metal prongs, they can easily handle 20-30 Amps without getting too hot. The cable will always be limiting factor for current.
a 110/220 auto sensing plug
There’s no real need for a plug to be able to sense what voltage it’s plugged into. That would be handled device side, not plug side. And for devices for which handling both 110 and 220 makes sense, well those pretty much universally already have a switch mode power supply that does so automatically, or at least a dip switch with which a user can manually select their grid voltage (check your phone or laptop charger, I can virtually guarantee it already supports both).
And the issue with devices that don’t already do this, is generally that they are basic resistive or inductive loads (anything along the lines of heaters or motors), with little to nothing in the way of digital control electronics, which need to be designed for a specific input voltage in order to achieve a specific power output. Making these devices both 110V and 220V compatible would require either giving every single one of them a voltage transformer, or to include a 110V motor/heating coil, and a 220V one, that can be switched between. Both of which would massively increase the price of these devices.
I’m not being hostile, I just fail to understand how your point with multi phase standards has anything whatsoever to do with safety. Multiphase standards, and standard intercompatability are convenience issues, not safety issues, and therfore irrelevant to the discussion.
And other standards notably, explicitly do NOT include all those safety standards. For example, the ground pin on UK plugs is longer than the L and N, which A) can be used to place child safety shutters in every single outlet, that are lifted out of the way when the ground pin is inserted and B) in the same vein ensure that GND is always the first prong to make contact. The wiring of UK plugs also requires a some slack in the L and GND wires, so that if the cable is yankes so hard the wires tear out of the plug, L is always the first to go.
The internal fuse also allows you to safely use super thin gauge wiring on low power appliances, and allows you to create cheap, low power extension cords, that are still safe because they have a fuse in the plug (yes, in theory any country could do that, but resetable breakers are expensive, and replaceble fuses are inconvenient for the user, unless the contry already has a decades old standard surrounding them, and they’re already available for sale basically everywhere).
If other plugs provide safe alternatives for the issues I’ve reiterated, shouldn’t we be looking at those plugs as safer alternatives?
No. Not unless the current plug is outright dangerous. Rewriting an entire countries electric code, and introducing an entirely new type of plug, especially one which would be neither forward nor backward compatable with the old one, costs billions, and is a major nuisance for consumers in the transition phase. It’s simply not worth it, unless it’s necessary for fundamental safety.
Rule of thumb: If a small electronic appliance (e.g. phone charger, power brick etc…) isn’t warm to the touch, it’s using less than 1 Watt of power, which at UK electric prices, is less than half a penny per 24 hours. If you value your own time at UK minimum wage, and it takes you 3 seconds to switch off, and 3 seconds to switch back on, you won’t break even unless you keep it switched off for at least 4 days. So maybe worth it if you’re going on holiday. As an everyday thing, unplugging/switching off idle electronics to save power is a complete waste of time.
There’s also no real reason to unplug something, even if the plug isn’t switched. Modern electrical appliances have idle power draws of less than a watt.
Rule of thumb: If a small electronic appliance (e.g. phone charger, power brick etc…) isn’t warm to the touch, it’s using less than 1 Watt of power, which at UK electric prices, is less than half a penny per 24 hours.
If you value your own time at UK minimum wage, and it takes you 5 seconds to unplug, and 5 seconds to replug, you won’t break even unless you keep it unplugged for at least 7 days. So maybe worth it if you’re going on holiday. As an everyday thing, unplugging idle electronics to save power is a complete waste of time.
As for electrical safety, generally speaking if something is unsafe whilst plugged in but switched off, it’s typically not legal to sell in countries with properly enforced standards anyway. And with whole house RCD protection being relatively universal in western europe, even if something were to go wrong, chances are the RCD, or AFCI if the breaker panel is real fancy, will stop the bad thing happening real quick.
Oh and quick PSA: Regardless of it’s whole house protection, or individual socket protection, you should test the function of your RCDs every now and again. Officially at least once a month. Every RCD breaker has a little button somewhere labeled “test”, that connects L to GND across a resistor, to check if the breaker actually does it’s job. If you’ve never done this (and haven’t recently had the RCD trip for an actual fault) GO DO IT NOW. THOSE THINGS ARE LITERALLY LIFE SAVERS AND IT’S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THEY’RE ACTUALLY WORKING.
And who gets to decide who gets killed ? Who is infallible, incorruptible and flawless enough to decide who gets executed ?
And if you cannot name them, then tell me: How many innocent people are you willing to murder, per 100 executions. If you cannot name a flawless judge, then innocents will be executed. That is a fact. So tell me: How many innocents are you willing to murder, for heinous criminals to be executed instead of getting life without parole ?
This dude was literally currently at trial for murder. That argument might apply AFTER someone has been wrongly acquitted.
This logic is literally NEVER applicable inside a court room, before the verdict has been read.
So you’re saying the victim of a crime should get to act as judge jury and executioner ?
Like I’m sorry you had to go through that, but how would you feel it your child was falsely accused of murder, and then revenge killed by a family member of a victim at trial.
There’s a reason we don’t allow vigilante justice.
Ah yes. Classic “Everyone deserves a fair trial, until I think they’ve done a bad enough crime, in which case I’ll activately cheer for that right being taken away”.
Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.
You people cheering this on, and encouraging have on your hands the blood of every single innocent person who was ever killed or assaulted by a vigilante.
No, the topic is the UK electric code not being safe.
You’re literally arguing that merely BECUSE the code needs safety devices it is therefore unsafe, which is utter nonsense.
But the daily mail said it, it must be correct if the daily mail said it, they’re such a reputable and neutral news organisation, they would never just make up wildly misleading, fear mongering click bait headlines.
Honestly, how anyone who can string more than two thoughts together would ever think the DM is a reputable source for a claim is a mystery to me.