He looks more like he’s thinking “Really? It got this far? Enough people thought this was a good idea that we’re all here doing this photo shoot for the promotional image?”
(I think the only part that looks like he’s on the verge of crying is the reflection of the studio lights in his eyes look like extra moisture.)
“Almost half a dozen times” seems like a weird way to say 5.
This is great, but the devil’s in the details. What’s covered and what’s excluded?
I’m afraid there’s a typo in your title. It’s “a two-hoo.”
The article talks about “Ultraviolet (UV) light boxes, which emit only a narrow bandwidth of light that is not linked to skin cancer,” so it’s possible the UV treatment and the drugs can be combined.
According to Hui’s attorney, she hoped to gain permanent resident status in the U.S. after paying “an American citizen $2,000 to enter into a sham marriage.”
She needs to get a new attorney.
Appeasing authoritarians only delays the inevitable, if it even delays it at all. Trump wants direct control over the Fed to enrich himself. Killing useful groups over the culture war issues he uses as a (weak) cover for his actions doesn’t solve this core problem.
Somewhere there’s a quality control engineer with tritanopia who got assigned this job one day without warning and is desperately employing the “fake it until you make it” strategy.
Even more surprising: the droplets didn’t evaporate quickly, as thermodynamics would predict.
“According to the curvature and size of the droplets, they should have been evaporating,” says Patel. “But they were not; they remained stable for extended periods.”
With a material that could potentially defy the laws of physics on their hands, Lee and Patel sent their design off to a collaborator to see if their results were replicable.
I really don’t like the repeated use of the phrase “defy the laws of physics.” That’s an extraordinary claim, and it needs extraordinary proof, and the researchers already propose a mechanism by which the droplets remained stable under existing physical laws, namely that they were getting replenished from the nanopores inside the material as fast as evaporation was pulling water out of the droplets.
I recognize the researchers themselves aren’t using the phrase, it’s the Penn press release organization trying to further drum up interest in the research. But it’s a bad framing. You can make it sound interesting without resorting to clickbait techniques like “did our awesome engineers just break the laws of physics??” Hell, the research is interesting enough on its own; passive water collection from the air is revolutionary! No need for editorializing!
The use of “quantum leap” isn’t about comparing the absolute size of the change to quantum phenomena. It’s about the lack of a smooth transition. Quantum leaps in physics are instantaneous transitions between states with no intermediate. That’s the idea with the colloquialism: a sudden shift from one state to another without a smooth transitional period.
Health regulations and agencies exist because before them people died. The US has always put businesses first, so when regulations did happen, they were written in blood. With them gone, guess what’s going to happen? I wonder how long the population can put up with this when people start dying again from problems that were solved.
France, for instance, has a national policy against the recognition of domestic minority languages like Basque, Breton and Corsican.
Trying to give France the benefit of the doubt, but this just sounds like oppression. Is there a good reason France doesn’t recognize minority languages in its territory?
The main issue is that nobody is going to want to create new content when they get paid nothing or almost nothing for doing so.
This is the whole reason copyright is supposed to exist. Content creators get exclusive control over the content they create for the duration of the copyright, so they can make a living off of work that then enriches society. And for the further benefit of society, after 14 years this copyright ends and the works become public domain, where anyone can create derivative works that will have copyright on them going to their own creators and the cycle continues, further enriching society.
Large companies first perverted this by getting Congress to extend the duration of copyright to truly absurd levels so they could continue to extract wealth from works they had to spend very little to maintain (mostly lawyers to enforce their copyrights). Since only they could create derivative works for 100(!) years, they did not have to compete with other creators in society, giving themselves a monopoly on what become cultural icons. Now corporate America has found a way to subvert creation itself, but it requires access to effectively all copyrighted works everywhere simultaneously. So now they just ignore the copyright, since it is impeding their wealth accumulation.
And so now the creative engine copyright is supposed to foster dies, taking the social enrichment it was designed to facilitate with it. People won’t stop making art or generating what’s supposed to be copyrighted works, but when they can’t making a living on it, they have to turn it into a hobby and spend the bulk of their time and energy on work that will put food on the table.
Campaign promises from fascist populists are always made in a superposition of joke and serious. They only resolve to one or the other when they get in office, and most of the time as a supposed “joke” to humiliate the opposition or an exaggeration to “make a point” because on the campaign trail they say whatever they think will get them votes, not what they plan to do or even think is possible.
The most frustrating of the unkept promises are those that are logistically and practically possible, but never happen because the now-leader is a fascist and doesn’t do anything without personal gain, and they can’t figure out how to exploit the implementation for themselves. Not what’s happening in this case (there was never an actual path for peace with Russia, regardless of timeline), but has happened with other Trump promises.
Intent matters, and methods matter. But I think what the friend is missing is that the methods aren’t bad; op is using methods developed from scientific analysis of abused animals with the intent to ethically care for them. Coming back to intent, she clearly wants to help this guy who her training is identifying as having some kind of background of abuse. The methods might be a little crude in the sense that they were developed for animals and not for people (who are animals, but animals with several distinct qualities from other animals, like the ability to communicate complex ideas), and there are different, more well-adapted methods for people, but they’re only crude in comparison to those modern human-focused methods. They’re still quite effective, and I would still consider them ethical for use on humans when paired with an altruistic intent, which she seems to be conveying. As long as she still views the guy as fully a person, a peer, then I see nothing wrong here.
The size of the cut is what they use for the appeal to the public to build their social narrative, but legally/economically speaking it’s not really the problem. The problem is that Apple effectively forbids developers from having any other mechanism to transact with customers except through their marketplace where they take the 30% cut, hence the lawsuit being about monopolistic practices, not the amount they’re charging.
Valve handles things completely differently. Sure, listing on the Steam store requires giving Valve a 30% cut of the purchase price, but Steam doesn’t demand a 30% cut of any and all transactions that happen within or related to the game like Apple does. You also don’t have to buy a game from the Steam store to load it and launch it from the Steam client. And Proton works with a lot more games and applications than just those on the Steam store.
The fact that the two companies charge a similar price for a single relatively similar business case oversimplifies a lot of how the two companies operate.