It isn't a thing in the US, unfortunately.

New buildings might have it integrated into their HVAC systems, and older construction might have it retrofitted, but the vast, vast majority of buildings in the US do not have CO2 monitoring. We have CO (monoxide) detectors, but that's an entirely different issue.

Another consideration is that for assessment of infectious disease risk, measurement of CO2 in indoor communal spaces needs to be distributed throughout, as opposed to having a single point of measurement that might only reflect the average air quality for HVAC control purposes. It's the same principle with temperature; multi-room dwellings such as offices will typically have thermostats distributed throughout the building to control each zone. When employees gather in a conference room and close the door, the CO2 level can skyrocket, easily hitting 1800 ppm without ventilation. I believe that CO2 concentrations should be as easy to access as temperature, and that the public could be educated about its meaning.

Regarding VOC versus CO2 monitoring, they both have their use cases, and which one is a more suitable to measure depends on what we are really wanting to know. VOC sensors will detect a wide array of compounds, but not all of them are indicative of human occupancy, whereas CO2 concentration is the direct product of respiratory activity (unless non-biological sources of CO2 are present, such as dry ice). So if we are interested in transmissibility of airborne diseases, I would pick CO2, since you could measure high VOC levels in the air of an unoccupied storage shed or basement that otherwise has virtually no risk of infectious disease. But if we wanted to measure if the air is clean and fresh--i.e., relatively free of pollutants, I pick VOC monitoring over CO2. Both are important because they are meaningful proxies for health risks, but they are proxies for different types of risk.

If they think it's safe, then they should be the first to demonstrate it first hand, using their own bodies.

The issue with PFAS is not necessarily direct product-to-human exposure. The whole problem with this class of molecules is that they are extremely long-lived in the environment, due to their chemical structure. Their persistence is what causes bioaccumulation in ecosystems and food chains. Sure, the farmers might wash off the residue before delivering them to the market, but where does the effluent go? And if the EPA further relaxes the reporting standards, what is the most economically efficient path these agribusinesses will take with respect to these waste products?

So consider the industrial-scale usage of persistent pesticides without adequate reporting and oversight. It'll kill off insect populations (because that's exactly what they are designed to do), which then disrupts the ecosystem. Animals that feed off of these insects will accumulate these chemicals. Fish and amphibians will accumulate them because they're swimming in the polluted water. The whole food web gets tainted.

There is no escaping the conclusion that this decision is based in corruption and absolutely will pollute the environment and kill/injure people.

They are called "religion", "propaganda", "fairy tales", etc.. and they are always used to control people. The only thing that is different now is that we can automatize it. The ones that were not impressed before will continue to be not impressed.

But with about 85% of the human race being religious, there is a rich target field for manipulation. Incidentally, this corresponds nicely with about 15% of the human race being able to fact-check.

The person you answered to clearly things the LLM constructed something and had agency and insight, when in reality it just found everything in its training data and just did a bit of aggregation via correlation (not implication, LLMs cannot do implications) and then presented what it found in a seemingly polished fashion.

If you have no clue how an LLM works and are not very smart (i.e. Dunning-Kruger left-side), you can come to this invalid conclusion.

Excuse me? Are you seriously claiming an LLM is not a statistical engine? If so, you need to have your head examined, because that is the literal, mathematical truth.

Hahaha, no. It is just "clear" to you, because you have no clue how research, or risk management or securing software works.

I, on the other hand, am quite capable of identifying critical parts of a performance landscape and then look into those as a priority.

Or in other words, insightless comment is without insight...

Hell yes! It is the American Way!

Actually, he is relevant in this case.

Indeed. Small? WTF? Cannot have that! We need to take IMMEDIATE steps to make our Ozone-hole the largest and most magnificent!

No argument about that. Applies not only to governments, but to anybody that want power in order to control people (that is why most, but not all people go into politics). Hence religion, cults, company structures, even some people in groups of social media have this. It boils down to dominance in some form and it not a positive personality trait.

True, but measurement is the first step to understanding. Moreover, it is not a foregone conclusion that a building is poorly ventilated or requires costly modification. Quantification is evidence, and evidence is empowerment, and empowerment leads to change. This is how modern epidemiology came into existence, and modern architecture ought to consider CO2 measurement as an integral component of indoor air quality and occupant comfort.

In the past, we did not have a germ theory of disease. People lived amongst open sewers and walked through human and animal waste on the street. We did not have clean municipal water delivery systems. And at the time, the idea that these were problems that needed to be fixed was considered preposterous, heretical, foolish. But to our credit, we have mostly fixed these problems. The global COVID pandemic should have taught us that there is still more to be done with respect to protecting public health. I hope that in the near future, humans will look back on how we live today and think that our attitudes toward communicable diseases is as primitive, barbaric, and disgusting as how we look back on how people lived hundreds of years ago.

For ages, we have had thermostats to tell us the ambient room temperature, and to adjust HVAC settings accordingly. And more recently, they've gone smart--letting us see and control it automatically, or manually with a smartphone interface.

Why not also have this technology for measuring CO2? The sensors are not expensive, they don't need a lot of power, and they are low maintenance. CO2 is a reasonably good proxy for indoor air quality with respect to environments occupied by humans. And you don't need to modify the existing architecture or install ductwork.

The GP is not talking about LTE, they're talking about "voice over LTE" (VoLTE). The Bell compatibility checker they linked to seems like a fairly comprehensive list of phones that support it. Very old phones, like the iPhone 4 or original Pixel don't support it because the standard didn't exist when they were manufactured.

This article almost sounds like an ad to get people to buy things to keep the economy rolling rather than a serious discussion.

You've answered your question. "Productivity" in this case is GDP / capita. If an American buys something with American parts from an American retailer then they increase the GDP, which increases the productivity. It doesn't have to increase their personal productivity.

Yes, very much so. Sometimes it is hard, but the better the rapport you build with the students, the better it works. Talking to them in breaks helps. Showing the occasional weakness helps. If some student know something relevant better than you, let them talk for a few minutes. Of course, some students want the degree, but not do the work (which is really stupid, but it happens) and that is why I have stopped teaching mandatory subjects. If you do not really want to be in my lecture, I do not want you to be there either.