we'll need to treat any Florida resident or business as potentially infectious and something to avoid

Agreed; they need to compare the system with a typical human. Does it exhibit substantive systemic differences of comprehension for specific segments of the population?

I think that the rationale for the MCAS's existence is an admission of potential instability. If the plane wasn't unstable under some circumstances, MCAS would not be needed.

I think that the root of the problem was corporate culture, and there is no sign that that has even been addressed, let alone fixed. Layered above that was the idea that they could build a plane that they knew could be unstable, and 'fix it up in software'. I'm not sure that attitude has gone, either; I think they have merely improved the patch. I am far from convinced.

Yes. Because you are confusing separate things: genitalia, and innate sense of gender identity (there's also sexual preference, and there is societal gender role, as well). You need to imagine how agonizing it would be to be sure your sense of yourself and your body simply don't agree.

It's so easy to argue when you make up your opponent's arguments.
* denying the existence of biological sex
-- no. just treating human sexuality and identification as a matter that is sometimes complex and always involves treating people with respect. I could argue that the right ignore treating people with respect.
* the earth will be destroyed by human activity (when was Peak Oil again? and the extinction of oil and natural gas?)
-- no. But that some of our impacts on the climate and the earth are globally visible and having damaging effects on the entire planet, and are contrary to our own long-term well-being. I could argue that the right thinks that burning our way into the future and trashing the planet for our children is perfectly reasonable and sane.
* guaranteeing equal outcomes is totally realistic
-- no. denying equal opportunity is morally wrong. I could argue that the right thinks that those who are up the slippery ladder are morally OK making sure that others stay down it.
* government intervention can solve all societal problems
-- no. working together as a society, recognizing we have problems, and addressing them through collective rational action. I could argue that the right wing thinks that government is always ineffective, and when elected, do everything they can to prove it.
* Capitalism has been nothing but evil
-- no, but unfettered capitalism has significant problems that are contrary to our values (notably equality before the law, and equal opportunity). In capitalist systems, money flows faster towards those who already have it. I could argue that the right wing has abandoned these values and explicitly believes in oligarchy.
* Socialism would bring about prosperity for all
-- no, we already have some aspects of it, and it makes society into a society, where we try to ensure equality of opportunity, we try to endure mutually beneficial social outcomes (such as, for example, not spreading disease). I could argue that the right wing positions are closer to anarchy than any respectable political system.
* police hunt down black men to kill because Racism
-- some police have been documented doing that, and a few have even been punished. The disparity in policing is profound and well documented; the left believes in equality before the law and in the actions of the forces of government. I could argue that the right wing are currently unashamedly racist.
* Covid is all Trump's fault
-- no, but that we are qualitatively different from other westernized democracies in our response, that we have politicized a public health crisis, and that the Republican party has turned what should have been solved by now into over 200,000 deaths is. I could argue that the right wing thinks killing americans and still failing to revive the economy is OK, and that they don't care any more about older people than they do about those who fought and were wounded or died in military service.
* BLM protests are peaceful
-- no, the left wing condemns violence at the protests, and urges peaceful protest and demonstration in accordance with constitutional rights. I could argue that the right wing's failure to condemn fascist actions reveals that they are, in fact, fascists.

he doesn't *support* abortion. he opposes the banning of it. there is a difference, but I wouldn't expect a catholic to realize it. catholics check their brains and their conscience in.

Heh, they always said that government was ineffective; now they have shown that they meant it as a promise, not a fact. actually, they are worse than ineffective. trying to block state acquisitions and preventive measures is actively trying to increase the death rate. republicans kill americans. >175,000 so far.

you're way off. not thousands, not tens of thousands, closer to multiple hundreds of thousands. face it, the GOP is the party of death and debt and division.

In a full URL that's typeset as free-running text (the normal way), URLs that mix right-to-left and left-to-right can be surprisingly hard to pick apart visually — the hostname can even end up visually split into pieces with bits of the path in there. Makes it hard to abide by the advice "make sure you're on the host you expected to visit". Also, "what host is this page?" is a typical question, whereas "what is the internal folder structure of this site?" or "what bizarre query syntax do they use?" are rather rarer. As long as you can get (copy, for pasting) the full URL, I'm not sure why isn't displaying the important bit — the host — isn't an improvement, myself.

A friend had their link to the WHO itself removed as 'false'; I had a joke (that there is a preventive treatment called wearamaskasshole) removed as 'false'. But there is a lot of outright misinformation around, and a terrible example of spreading it being set by the white house.

hm, but there is a warning list to tell you when the camera is active. and arguably, surreptitiously listening in to my mike would be a larger problem — but there's no warning light, adn (afaik) no-one blocks the mike...odd....

my concern is that tools like this can cause people to exercise less personal care, and actually therefore not result in improved safety. We've seen it with auto-pilots in cars, and previously with anti-lock brakes (studies show some people drive more aggressively)

Market Street was a poor place to run a business. There's not enough room to park — no street-side parking —and it's bleak and uninviting. The long-term plan is to make it a much more pleasant place to be. There are plenty of vacant storefronts, even after the "mid-market revival" caused by Twitter, Uber, Dolby et al. It doesn't help anyone to drive past a business. On a street that's on major transit lines (many buses and underground Muni and Bart), and on the flat and easy to walk, with car parks off the street (e.g. 5th/Mission, one street south), cars just make it unpleasant for others and slow down transit. European cities with pedestrianized centers attract people.

It is truly bizarre that we have greatly raised the spatial resolution, but the temporal resolution has remained stuck at the appallingly juddery 24 fps. I find movies unpleasant because of it. On any reasonable sized screen (and particularly movie theaters), even a slow pan results in the scene moving large distances on the screen every 1/24th of a second. It is ugly, pure and simple; there is no positive aesthetic in visual judder.