2.03 fatal injuries per 1,000 starts compared with 1.47 per 1,000 on synthetic tracks
So with every race the horse has a 0.5% chance of dying, that's a horrifically high probability.
Math fail.
True, I think I got 1/2 in my head at some point.
0.2% is still pretty brutal though.
...cruelty is OK so long as it's an old tradition!
I didn't actually realize it was that bad, from one of the articles:
Mary Scollay, an associate veterinarian at Gulfstream Park Racing & Casino and at Calder Race Course, both in south Florida, who coordinates the on-track project, reported at the March 17 Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit that dirt tracks such as Churchill Downs had seen 2.03 fatal injuries per 1,000 starts compared with 1.47 per 1,000 on synthetic tracks. Scollay cautions that the number reflects less than a year's worth of data so it should not be taken as definitive.
So with every race the horse has a 0.5% chance of dying, that's a horrifically high probability.
All measurements systems are arbitrary.
the advantage of metric is that it is a global standard and the units are all divisible by ten.
That's it.
Third... and this can't be stressed enough... I feel like the metric advocates really don't get this... Americans don't care about joining a global standard. At all. Not even a little.
Actually that is a big advantage. It means a ridiculous amount of resources being spent supporting and converting between two measurement systems. Industrial scenarios might be a legitimate worry but for everyday usage people would be just as happy with it within a year.
I'm curious to see if any economists have done an analysis on how long it would take for a conversion to pay off.
Even in Metric countries like Canada, many people still use imperial units for a lot of things. Go to the lumber store and you can get a 2x4, and they are sold in 6, 8, 10, and 12 foot lengths. Plywood is sold in 4x4 foot sheets.
That's due to matching industry standards, I'm not sure how that stuff gets switched over.
Just about everybody I know refers to their weight in pounds and their height in feet and inches. Almost nobody can tell you the metric equivalent without a calculator. We order a pint of beer at the pub, and most people still refer to a block of butter as a "pound of butter". . British people still use "stone" to express their body weight, and they are supposed to be metric as well.
You can standardize all you want, and print whatever you want on the packaging, but people are still going to use whatever they are used to. You could have the US go metric tomorrow, but people will still use Imperial measurements for another century
I don't know about Britain but for Canada I think it's due to sports. That's one place we're regularly exposed to height and weight measurements and virtually all the major sports here are big in the US, and the size of the US media market means we're going to be flooded with whatever measurements they use to measure athletes.
But if you start talking about smaller items like things from the grocery store I think we're a lot more comfortable thinking in grams.
The fact they were working at CMU suggests they were already paying them market value.
The fact they aren't working there anymore suggest they weren't.
Depends on your definition of market value. If they went to multiple companies I'd say CMU was paying below, but the fact they all went to Uber suggests that Uber paid well above market value to make sure they accepted the offers.
What I think actually happened is that Uber treated the Robotics Engineering Center as a startup with a set of internal working relationships and expertise that they wanted. Since they couldn't actually buy the Center they just hired away all the researchers.
So the employees rather than shareholders, managers or the CEO got a fat paycheck for being good at their jobs. That's communism!
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing but it's different from how we usually evaluate market value for employees.
How loathsome that CMU will have to pay their researchers MARKET VALUE to keep them!
The fact they were working at CMU suggests they were already paying them market value.
What I think actually happened is that Uber treated the Robotics Engineering Center as a startup with a set of internal working relationships and expertise that they wanted. Since they couldn't actually buy the Center they just hired away all the researchers.
you are aware that affordability is sort of a huge part of mass market appeal, right? When I go out shopping for a new car, Tesla is not on the radar as it doesn't appeal to me because it costs way too much. Similar to how Ferrari doesn't really appeal to me, awesome products, but way too expensive.
Partially.
Tesla costs too much because the tech is new and somewhat experimental, but if rich people keep buying them the tech will mature and costs will come down until it's mass market.
Ferrari is different in that it's a luxury brand, so it will always be good quality but more expensive. I'm sure it drives technology forward as well, particularly is design and manufacturing, but maybe not to the extent of a Tesla.
I don't agree at all. Until one of his products becomes a mass market conusmer item and not a niche play, then I'll come to your opinion. But so far none of his products have shown any mass market appeal and can't even compete in their niche without government subsidies.
So it goes for virtually any new product.
That's one thing the rich are actually good for, buying the sometimes dubious new inventions and supporting product development until things are mature enough for mass market.
I thought that Putin most likely would not waste money on such nonsense, but I did find the comments humorous.
But now I am starting to think that these... "people" aren't just utterly delusional Internet users from Russia, but actual, paid-for, managed and directed sockpuppets.
I think it's a bit of both.
There are wildly delusional advocates for almost any position, I don't see why Russian foreign policy would be any different. Especially when you consider that Russia does have some legitimate grievances against the West (I get why people wanted the NATO expansion, but expanding an anti-Russia alliance into the former USSR was more than a bit provocative).
At the end of the day Russians are just like anyone else, and they'll be willing to swallow a boat-load of BS so they can cheer for Russia. Some of them will go online and undergo crazy rationalizations on comment boards to convince people why Russia is in the right. They're largely following the same pool of newspapers, blogs, and pundits, so they'll all repeat the same arguments and crazy theories.
I have no idea how to differentiate these people from the actual trolls.
Sure, it's HBO, and sure they have some stellar in-house programming; but it's one channel. People who are dumping their $60/month (and up!) cable TV plans aren't likely to pay $15 for one channel. Heck, Netflix is under $10. Even the old baboons that run Hulu don't try to charge that much for Plus...
If you're on Comcast's lowest tier TV-included package - "Internet Plus" - HBO is a free add-on. Right now we're paying ~ $70/month total for internet plus Cable TV (The TV channels include HD and are basically a throw-in, it's how Comcast tries to hide how many of its customers don't want cable TV anymore). I can't imagine paying $15 for any single channel.
Maybe, though I'm guessing a lot of people only watch shows from 3-4 channels on a regular basis and watch only a very small amount of programming for the rest. HBO is a very exclusive channel, but even if you did that for all those 3-4 channels you'd pay $45-$60 for almost all the programming you get currently, but commercial free and on-demand with a back catalog.
There are exactly 0 valid reasons why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, that's it, zero reasons, as in absolutely none.
I happened to be in Ireland the day before the vote and asked several of the No campaigners why they thought gay marriage should be banned. They ranged from adoption scenarios that already existed, a weird insistence that equality meant two things were IDENTICAL making gay marriage a contradiction, and the innovative approach of comparing gay marriage to global warming (because even though no one has had any problems so far that doesn't mean things won't go bad in the future for unknown reasons).
In short every argument was absolutely terrible and I had an absolute blast listening to them.
The article labels them "anti-terrorism experts" but the mere fact that they even considered this long enough for there to have been a written record belies that title and proves instead that they are "anti-terrorism idiots".
They were idiots if they acted on those suspicions and started spying on Comic Con or individual geeks, but to have never researched them at all would have been stupider by far.
Geeks are a major cultural force and a lot of those shows have their own utopian ideology mixed in, the 20th century is basically a story of different ideologies fighting it out, Democracy, Communism, Fascism, etc. Almost certainly nothing sinister would ever emerge from Trekkies, but when you have a national law enforcement agency those threats that almost certainly won't happen can be worth checking out.
I think an unbiased system would be female skewed since mothers tend to be more dedicated than fathers but I don't know if the system is in fact unbiased.
You talk about an unbiased system while in the same breath making an incredibly biased statement. Interesting.
So sex differences only exist when they benefit men?
That mothers would be more invested in their offspring is easily predicted by that fact that they have a massive biological investments in their offspring that men lack, it's one of those things that I'll simply cite as obvious.
But the strength difference between men and women is pretty drastic
And irrelevant. Abuse isn't about who's stronger, it's about....abusing your partner. You could be a 400 lbs benchpressing linebacker, but it's not going to protect you from being hit with a frying pan while you're sleeping. There's also the heavy societal condition that men should never hit women, even if it's in self-defense.
Unless you bring a weapon into the equation strength becomes relevant because it creates a power imbalance. I don't deny that female physical abuse exists, it might even be at similar levels to male abuse, but I'm very skeptical that it's as harmful.
Men's rights and white power groups and other groups that "fight" for the rights of an already empowered majority exist only because they choose to ignore history.
There are no such thing as "group" rights. If a man is denied custody of his children during a divorce procedure, that isn't some how okay because his grandmother was denied a job.
I think an unbiased system would be female skewed since mothers tend to be more dedicated than fathers but I don't know if the system is in fact unbiased. (And yes, I'm sure there exists seemingly unjust anecdotes on both sides).
Whining about a movie is silly, but MRAs have some valid points about discrimination against men in family law. For instance, most domestic violence laws are written as if men are the sole abusers, when most DV is actually perpetrated by women. In California, the police can only arrest the "dominant" (physically stronger) partner, regardless of who was the initiator or the aggressor. So a woman can attack her husband, and he goes to jail.
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie.
Is that an actual policy or are you making a generalization.
Certainly DV by women exists, perhaps it's even the case that incidents the could be classified as DV are more commonly done by women.
But the strength difference between men and women is pretty drastic, I have little doubt that the most severe abuse is overwhelmingly committed by men.
If you consider for a split moment that he is not a human but a vicious predator animal, you might be able to draw your conclusions differently. Humans are not known for intentionally putting backbacks with explosives next to preschool kids so as to kill them.
You're kind of proving my point.
To justify killing him you're literally dehumanizing him. I think that's an extremely dangerous road to go down, to justify treatment of others by denying their humanity. He might be a fundamentally evil person, taking pleasure in the death and pain of others. He might be a good, though horribly deluded person, convincing himself he would do the most good by committing a terrible act. But either way he's a human.
Accept that by executing him you're executing a person.
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood
