Poor road design is mainly a political problem. We know how to make good roads, on the technical side it is a "solved problem", but we lack the political will to do it. So setting the proper framing did solve the root problem
Then target leadership. They're the ones responsible for building better roads (which is the whole advertised purpose of this project!).
Writing an NLP bot that rewords articles to blame the driver 100% of the time is nothing but an exercise in getting a nice revenge dopamine rush. But drivers aren't the ones building roads.
Leadership (politicians) respond to public sentiment and attitudes held by their constituents. They're not going to build safer streets, despite the benefits and means to do so, without the political will of citizens. Shifting the way the public perceives fatal car crashes would compel more people to bring up the issue with their local leaders and gather the momentum needed for such changes.
> But the solution that comes out of that framing is to somehow shame drivers into being better, as opposed to making roads better.
This tool actually includes a recommendation called "framing" which asks writers to incorporate sentences specifically to highlight the systemic nature of the problem as opposed to blaming individual drivers. Click on one of the examples to see, explained at https://visionzeroreporting.com/issues#framing:
Article lacks thematic framing. Readers who encounter episodic frames tend to hold individuals responsible for negative outcomes and put less pressure on public leaders to make changes. [Learn more about framing]
"We need to limit speed and the amount of interactions between cars and pedestrians" doesn't sound to me like relying on shaming (which never works). Rather, it evokes like building e.g. walkways and bike paths that are physically separated from roads with cars. That is much more effective.
The title made me think of my final first year chemistry lab where we made dye-sensitized solar cells from raspberries. It was an incredibly low-tech process aside from the conductive oxide-coated glass slides used as the electrodes. I'd love to see an in-depth guide on this solar panel design.
No, not if you "loaded in the past". But if you have recently engaged positively with it, sure.
Plus that's kind of two degrees removed from the original comment. If someone who does a horrible thing cites a community as a motivation/inspiration, yeah that group should absolutely at least think about what that says about them. It's not an immediate condemnation of guilt, but if there's strong evidence that that community's behaviour or ideology provided motivation, or if there's a repeated pattern, then it's a problem. The alternative is to say there's nothing wrong with white supremacists because all those people who commit racial violence citing white supremacy are just incidentally related, or that there's nothing wrong with gangs because we should avoid "linking" people who commit gang violence to their associates.
> No, not if you "loaded in the past". But if you have recently engaged positively with it, sure.
There was a lady who used YouTube in April 2018 who went to Google and shot three people. I recently engaged positively with YouTube. I also engaged positively with YouTube in April 2018.
Am I linked to a shooter simply because we used and enjoyed the same content on the same website?
Citation for knowing it isn't true for ionizing radiation? LNT is supported by the US NRC, the EPA, and UNSCEAR. Not saying that it supports the papers on EM radiation, but it's definitely not crazy to assume LNT in your research (and given we don't know much about the effects of low radiation doses, it's definitely the more precautionary option).
To give you an intuition though, LNT would suggest that the body has no repair mechanism for healing damage from radiation (should be suspicious about this) and that all effects are accumulative (which makes sense if there is no repair, but doesn't if there is repair). We can heal from other things and have demonstrated in the lab that cells can repair from low radiation dosages.
Basically the thing is that measuring is incredibly difficult because there's a temporal component and effects are very different depending on where that dosage is received (eg. your eyes vs your hands. See equivalent dosage). So what do you do? You overestimate on the side of safety. Failure of modeling is built into the safety standards (I used to work on radiation shielding devices and I fully support the use of the LNT model in practice. Better safe than sorry).
I haven't read all of these and didn't archive what I have read so these are what I came up with quickly (I did read abstracts, of course)
(Short end is that it isn't clear how much cancer risk increases for dosages <100mSv -i.e. "low dosages" -, which is WELL above occupational standards - 5x actually)
Isn't the answer "Denver"? The city has a higher radiation dosage than average yet no more medical issues. Or at least that's something I heard once. A quick google brought up this site (which I have no idea who is sponcering)
Even better if it just says "your password does not fit our requirements" :)
I was signing up for a bank account and had to make a password for my online account in the branch. Turns out my 16-character randomly generated password made the system unhappy. Tried 6 more times with newly generated passwords (character-only, alphanumeric only, alphanumeric and "#" or "$" only) and it just said the password was not acceptable. So in the end I used my probably ~15 bits of entropy super easy to crack password from when I was 10, with a few randomly generated characters on the end (because more than a few would make the system complain again).
The pervasiveness of poor UI and security design baffles me. You would've thought that one of the largest banks in the world would have a little more competency but nope.
