There's a reason every nuclear weapon on the planet requires two people to turn two separate keys at the same time, after validating two messages from two other humans.
Do you know that? It's a Hollywood cliche, sure, but there are nine countries with nuclear weapons on the planet, and they don't disclose their safety protocols.
How does one get a "false positive" from DNA? This isn't a yes or no test. Do you mean contamination from a third party?
DNA testing is a statistical test. There is always the possibility of a false positive.
I don't want to comment on exactly what got cut or how, but it's not a surprise to me that an evaluation of a government department would find significant numbers of positions/employees that don't add enough value to justify staying employed. Actually I'm just surprised it's as low as about 20%.
You do know that the DOGE cuts didn't even look at what the cut employees did or whether they "added value." The cuts were done with a chainsaw,
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/1...
It's a double-edged sword. You're in effect bribing your enemies to divulge their secrets, which is good... but
And also, as in this case, you're in effect bribing your employees to divulge your secrets.
Secondly, this appears to be a case of discrimination. It's almost like racism.
AI is not a real person. AI has no rights. It is not possible to discriminate against it or be racist against it.
Discrimination means treating differently. It is possible to treat the AI differently from humans, so, yes, you can discriminate against it.
AIs don't have race, so it's not possible to be racist against it. But... the original post didn't say it was racism, it said it was almost like racism. Discriminating against AI could reasonably be thought to be almost like racism.
I assume probably the one that says you got no privacy and if you post opinions ruled to be anti-Soviet (oops, I mean anti-Russian) you get jailed, but the summary should say so.
Most particle accelerators are unable to steer two particle beams to crash head-on into one another. This is not a hard fact to understand, and you actually point it out that several times, but somehow the simple statement in so many words triggers outrage from you. Selected quotes from you:
Probably by count most accelerators were either not intended to generate collisions at all or were fixed target accelerator
Right there you just agreed that by count, most particle accelerators are unable to steer two particle beams to crash head-on into one another. End of story: you already agreed with the statement you were disagreeing with.
In either case there was only a single beam so talk about steering two beams is foolish.
And, since most particle accelerators are single beam, they are unable to steer two particle beams to crash head-on into one another. Given that you just gave explanations for why most particle accelerators are unable to steer two particle beams to crash head-on into one another, I can't see why you are vehemently objecting to the statement.
The summary:
Wait, between who??? This is an agreement between the data companies and Donald Trump, personally?
Ah.
Neither of your conjectured meanings is correct. The correct meaning of that sentence is that most particle accelerators are unable to steer two particle beams to crash head-on into one another. CERN is one of the ones that can.
In the world’s “Blue Zones” — Sardinia, Italy; Okinawa, Japan; Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica; Ikaria, Greece; Loma Linda, California — a disproportionate number of people live to be 100 and beyond. Scientists aren’t certain why, but they’ve proposed several reasons...
Not mentioned is that one of these reasons that regions with large numbers people recorded as having ages over 100 years is that these are region with poor or even non-existent birth records from 100 years ago.
(Doesn't really affect the main conclusions here-- the bit about the "Blue Zones" is just a little side anecdote the writer put in to make the article interesting-- but it's worth keeping this in mind when you hear hype about Blue Zones. One-quarter to one-third of the civilian population of Okinawa died in the battle of Okinawa in 1945, and records were destroyed in the bombings. You can't use Okinawa as a reference point for lifespan!)
More information here https://www.epa.gov/newsreleas... and here https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/l...
In the US, statistics say the death penalty has very little effect. Among other things, states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than those that have abolished it.
You could state the exact same statistic in the opposite order: states with higher homicide rates are more likely to have the death penalty than those with lower homicide rates. Not to say that the conclusion is wrong, just that this particular statistic is hard to interpret.
But, the wild card is that homicide rates are decreasing in all states, with or without the death penalty.
In most criminal acts, people only think about whether or not they will be caught; the severity of the penalty is not a significant part of the equation. There have been many studies of this: search?q=death+penalty+deterrence+facts+united+states
I don't understand why we can't have transparency on how Epstein made his money, and how it was spent.
By definition, the way he made his money wasn't transparent. So it will be hard to investigate and provide that transparency.
As far as I know there isn't any mystery about how Epstein made his money. He was a finance guy. He was in fact a pretty shady finance guy, but that's not the thing that people are upset about.
There must be a money trail. Seems like the odds are good that he got a hundred thousand here, another hundred thousand there, and that the people giving him that money most likely paid for unsavory services.
He wasn't charging money.
The wages of sin are high but you get your money's worth.
