LOL. The figurative meaning of literal has been around since the EIGHTEENTH CENTURY! OMG...languages evolve! How many other words are you in an uproar about that have a different meaning than they did 200+ years ago?

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

It was a joke about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I had not heard of this before. Thanks for the heads up. For anyone else curious, here's a link:
https://ramboll.com/projects/r...

It looks like Denmark is also doing some experiments lately with shorter term (a few days) storage by heating stones to 600 degrees C. (There's a ton of recent articles if you google: denmark store heat stone)

I think you are missing a few key things though

1) Before vaccinations, Marek's disease disease was a HUGE problem, killing (or damaging to the point of making them unviable) a significant number of chickens. These days, with vaccination it is pretty much a non issue as long as you vaccinate for it. So it's a HUGE net gain

2) It would be ideal if we could've wiped out Marek's instead, but that didn't seem to be happening. The vaccine was created in the 1970, but the disease was named after a guy who first described the symptoms of it in 1907. After 63 years, it was still killing chicken...but maybe if we had just waited a few more years?

3) I'm not clear if you are aware of this or not, but FYI...the nasty version of the virus was not created because of the vaccine. It had existed before the vaccine, but it killed the chicken before they reached the contagious stage. The vaccine allowed it to spread more easily and helped select it.

4) In light of #3 above, this is what makes the whole Marek's disease discussion irrelevant to any form of covid we currently know. None of them kill before being contagious. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, the most highly contagious phase is over before serious illness begins to set in (which is generally a few weeks after the host became contagious). People bringing this up are merely grasping onto something that is slightly tangentially related and acting like it's vitally relevant. I see a lot of that from the anti-vax crowd these days.

And according to your link:

"Even if he turns out to be right, the study offers no support whatsoever for those who oppose vaccination, Read stresses. If "leaky" vaccines are proven safe and effective, they should be used, he says, but perhaps with closer monitoring and additional measures to reduce transmission"

So even according to the scientist that came up with the theory, the theory does not support the arguments of anti-vaxxers or anti-maskers. I love when morons shoot themselves in the foot by accidentally providing the evidence to discredit their own crap theories.

Please point me to the violent rioters in the first 28 minutes of this video before the police just suddenly rushed the crowd and fired tear gas. I'm not seeing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I wonder how long ago this was that you tried it. I'm thinking there had to have been some massive improvements on this front over the years. Aren't the accelerometers used these days to detect if the phone is face down (for DND mode) or when the phone is picked up (for face unlock)? So they pretty much have to be running full time these days.

Checking every minute isn't so useful since google is trying to get a response time of seconds.

That's interesting. Lets see what your link says

Well, there's your problem. Their system gives information minutes later, for coordinating things after the fact. The system google is working on will give alerts in just a few seconds, so you can coordinate things BEFORE the earthquake hits. If you RTFA it's all explained in great details (you have to go down like 8 or 10 paragraphs before you start hitting the real meat of why this makes sense). Now manybe ANSS can improve their response times to do what google wants to do, but I'd guess that's out of Googles control, and maybe not even possible with what ANSS works with. Either way, Google can work on their system, and if someone else can step up and do it better, so be it. At least they're getting the ball rolling.

You don't need a reference. Just logout and try submitting a reply:

"Sorry, anonymous posting has been turned off. Please register and log in."

If you login but click the Post Anonymously box, it just says "You can't post to this page."

How about a nice game of chess?

Because if the show is at all popular, you risk bumping into spoilers. If you don't think that's a problem, then I would suggest you just save up all the episodes week by week and binge them when the season is over.

You can say the same thing about attaching a GPS tracker to a car. A cop could just sit there and follow you all the time. Yet the supreme court ruled that the GPS tracker (without a warrant) is in violation of the 4th amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I get that you are (correctly) saying this is not currently what is being advocated. Unfortunately, you know that's where it will end up, given enough time. People will cooperate, but there will be that guy that won't. Cops will really want that footage because of what they believe it contains, but not have sufficient cause for a warrant. So instead they're resort to bullying.

If cops can (and do) bully innocent people into confessing to crimes they didn't commit (because they just want the bullying to end, or think confessing to a smaller crime is better than the chance they might get wrongly convicted of the more extreme crime), then they can certainly bully someone into handing over video footage. If you don't think it will happen, you are naive.

The ends will justify the means in their mind. At first it will just happen with some more extreme open-and-shut sort of case, where it's hard to see the harm. But given time, those tactics will start to be used in more and more case, and in more questionable circumstances.

So how exactly do we make use of this data? Presumably the idea is that we can then more closely monitor those particular areas for any small, easily overlooked early signs of fire to put out the fire earlier, or maybe even preemptively scramble fire control teams before we even know if there is a fire.

That's great, except we know that fires also perform a critical role in forest management, and that stopping smaller fires now generally results in larger fires later. We don't have the manpower to perform enough controlled burns (or rake the forest floor) as it is. So this is really just kicking the can down the road. What's the long term plan to offset this?