Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Does it need to be condemned? Is Hamas a legitimate, recognised state and member of the UN? Israel is a sovereign state and member of the UN; it is therefore subject to higher standards. It should leave the UN or withdraw its staff, incl. its ambassador, if it does not like the UN.
In Metro Vancouver, Los Angeles and the state of Washington, my experience with Apple Maps has been far better than Google Maps; the latter seems to have stagnated completely.
Apple Maps provides me with more accessible info. e.g. "turn right at the next traffic light", "stay in the second lane from the left" vs. "In 200 metres, turn right onto 1st Avenue" (where it's always off by 50m) and nothing about lanes
"Western morals"?! Those same western morals which awarded the recent soccer world cup to Qatar in spite of pre-existing, regular, un-changed trend of deaths of labour workers? The entire Gulf Arabia has had a long-established culture where labourers, "… workers or nannies are treated like literal slaves, sanctioned or not…"
Thousands died over the course of the construction of the entire infrastructure for the World Cup. Every country that participated in the World Cup played on the graves of the dead.
Is it "western morals" to patronise death by physical abuse, to play on the graves of the dead?
By the way, many countries and peoples are still waiting for the "western morals" to bear forth apologies and compensation for the African/Atlantic slave trade.
Calm down your righteous emotions by few notches, few corrupt (technically or morally) people in places like FIFA et al don't represent western overall values. The fact you can freely bash them without consequences like lashing to death or public beheading (or just cut to pieces when renewing your passport) is a testament to this.
I thought this was fairly obvious. Imperfections would only compound over time. Does anyone remember recursively inter-translating between two languages?
Why should they make any assumptions? If no 'statistical' increment can be detected, and "statistics" is still science, then doesn't this resolve the matter?
No, it doesn't resolve the matter, since the lower bound on detectability is still a very large number of cancers (most of which will not have occurred yet).
Understand that regulation is not like criminal law. Radiation does not have to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
That's such a strange thing to say; no-one is suggesting that radiation gets a presumption of innocence. As far as I understand it, there's no generally agreed viewpoint on the expected effect size for exposure to low levels of radiation. In this case, there was discovered to be no statistically meaningful effect. This is now something that new that we know.
The question becomes: how should low doses of radiation be regulated?
One approach would be unless you can prove the radiation is having an effect, it gets a free pass. This would likely result in substantially larger population exposures. If enough individual sources are given free passes, eventually the dose accumulates to something that would have an obviously visible effect.
Another approach would be precautionary: assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence. This would result in much stricter control than current regulation, which assumes the effect is linear down to zero dose. Some anti-nuclear activists have objected to LNT because they think it's underestimating the effect of radiation (not that they have good evidence for that.)
Current regulation is between these, assuming linear effect. This is a biologically reasonable assumption, since at low doses the number of affected cells is proportional to dose, and it's unlikely any single cell is directly affected more than once. It also takes into account the cumulative, additive effect of radiation exposures from multiple sources.
That's not the way statistics work. You won't be able to definitively state there was an increase in the number of cancers based on statistics if the actual increase was smaller than the uncertainty in the number of cancers you would expect. That doesn't mean the increase was zero.
Except it's not "we really don't know", it's "after looking at thousands upon thousands of cases over many decades, there do not appear to be any statistically relevant effects".
But that's not how that works? If there is no statistically significant effect, then whatever effect there might be is so small that it's part of the background noise: we have a complete enough answer to say "there is nothing that can be attributed to just this thing". And we can say that with certainty because of the statistics.
From this specific accident. However, the evidence from radiation biology in general is that there should be a certain number of cancers (and no, don't feed me anti-LNT BS.)
But, you know, probably fewer than accounted for natural variations in the background level caused by different rock types in the area or exposure to residual fly ash from thermal power plants, right?
It seems fairly obvious that if the influence of a nuclear accident on cancer rates is dominated by other factors, one should look to mitigate those other factors before worrying about the nuclear accident as a contributor.
While having a Customer Service Rep tell you you're shit out of luck if you can't remember your master password may suck, it's pretty much the only way to actually be some semblance of safe.
The Mud-puddle test is to demonstrate that only you can access your services. If you can call and go "hey can I get back into my vault" so can anyone that convincingly can make the same call on your behalf.
It has been the same for me. A small but noteworthy fraction of legitimate emails go to Spam and illegitimate emails come into Inbox; in spite of marking "spam" or "not spam" multiple times.
Delhi is a separate state* from Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh (states where stubble burning is very common). Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh's politicans won't piss off the farmer bloc to help Delhi. It's the equivalent of the political battles all the western states are fighting over the Colorado River.
* yes it's technically a Union Territory but it's functionally a state
But many cities from these states also face high pollution.
Noida, Ghaziabad (UP), Gurugram (Haryana) are a few examples which are highly populated. Noida is slowly growing as UP's manufactoring hub, already being its IT hub. Gurugram is another IT hub.
A lot of this problem is also because of the apathy of the working class who reside in these cities.
How many votes can Gurgaon's urban population bring? Not as much as Kisan Sabhas in Sohna, Pataudi, Farrukhnagar, and Manesar. How many votes can urban NOIDA or Ghaziabad voters bring to UP Legislative elections? Almost nothing compared to farmers outside of either. Activism is strong in India - the kind of person who lives in a Housing Society in Noida, Gurgaon, or Ghaziabad doesn't know or care to partake in Gheraos, Bandhs, or Dharns to push their point through.
These are IT and manufacturing hubs and the respective State governments and the Centre gives them special attention because they want industries and jobs.
Maybe if the elites start taking their lives more seriously and threaten to move away from these cities we might start seeing some action.
> the kind of person who lives in a Housing Society in Noida, Gurgaon, or Ghaziabad doesn't know or care to partake in Gheraos, Bandhs, or Dharns to push their point through.
That's what I wanted to say with my earlier comment.
Yep, but Gurgaon's urban voters don't impact Haryana Vidhan Sabha elections. If I wanna become CM of Haryana, do I want to make 1 MLA's constituent's happy or 3 MLA's constituent's happy. All farmers know burning stubble is bad, but no government (Punjab, Haryana, UP) is providing the money to get rotavators. The only way this solution is solved is by including the majority in the conversation. And if they aren't, well that's Indian politics as you know.
Accountability, responsibility and minimum standards. Hotels provide these, Airbnb does not. Hotels are direct service providers; Airbnb is a middle-man which does not assume responsibility nor enforces minimum standards effectively.
These are the reasons I have also long since returned to use of hotels.
