That link isn't showing most of the options. I believe there were at least 10 above him. Just individually look at the lines for Zuppi, Pizzaballa, Sarah, etc.
This is interesting - though I suspect the net effect in the US is opposite? I believe the energy needed heat a building from 0F to 70F is much more then the energy needed to cool it from 95F to 70F.
And its still the case that the northeast has a disproportinate amount of people live in areas where the average temperature is less than 70F.
It also seems possible that students do better on tests when the air is cleaner, but that doesn't necessarily mean the students learned more.
Imagine if some schools installed air conditioning in their gym one year. Running times around an indoor track would improve considerably, but mostly because conditions at the point of testing improved. Not necessarily because the air conditioning made the students actually improve their stamina or speed.
If I went to the store to grab a bottle of water, and they were selling fluoridated water and fluoridated water, I would choose the non-fluoridated water.
I drink tap water now with fluoride so its not like I care strongly, but its a bit weird that many people buy only non-fluoridated water themselves and are confused when other people show a preference for non-fluoridated water in their own taps.
I don't see how this would necessarily apply to every scenario. Transmission is expensive and storage is still not ideal.
Briefly reading the article it seems like the author is assuming there is like a 1:1 global marketplace where any energy produced in one area can replace energy demand in another. That's just not the case.
It seems as if the group targeted trans member in their recruitment - and then used evidence of general marginalization to justify their crimes.
If you look up old reddit threads about the murder of the landlord, you can see many people defending the crime as the landlord was transphobic. It's not just a random detail like freckles, it seems like the identity shaped the way this group interacted with the world.
The murders are very sad but the pseudo science here has some humor to it.
Like they take the fact that the brain really has two hemispheres, and make some wildly unscientific claim that this means each person has two beings within it that can be shut off at different times (one side may be good and the other bad, one side may be female and the other male).
I honestly don't see how anyone can into this stuff unless they are on drugs or malnourished.
Mostly unrelated, but I don't think SawStop is releasing its patent anytime soon like the article states. That SawStop press release was the CEO saying they would do so if the CPSC rule was passed, but the rule wasn't voted on. And even then they were only releasing one of their hundreds of patents.
They've pretty explicitly been willing to release all of the relevant patents.
The truth is it was always a red herring for their competitors.
The major players all have systems that don't rely on these patents.
Lawsuit discovery showed all of them had developed their own technology that was fine, patent wise. But it would have eaten into their profit.
Personally, I have an altendorf handguard sliding table saw, which will stop as fast as the sawstop, but not destroy the blade.
That table saw looks very nice, but also $7,000? That's not the same market that people are talking about.
I'm not so sure if other companies have the ability at a sub $2000 price point! Bosch came out with their own system that they thought was different. The product was on shelves for a year and then SawStop successfully sued. If a major company like that is unable to do it even after their lawyers gave them the clearance, I'm a bit dubious it's that easy.
I think free access to use the patented tech is only a part of the answer to building such a mechanism, and definitely a good first step. Looks to me like the build quality would make an even larger difference to the success of the device. For example:
> The fuse wire is designed to be stable enough to resist stretching or thinning over time despite the intense repeated vibrations from the saw use, ensuring it doesn’t prematurely release the spring.
"Just" some bad QA and the wire releasing the mechanism breaks too early needlessly destroying the saw, or too late needlessly destroying the hand. A patent won't fix that for the manufacturer.
I agree on all of this. But the others had already done the r&d. Take a look at the documents in the Massachusetts table saw injury lawsuit, from 2006, an example.
I recall reading that the majority of their patents were expiring in the next few years and the one that they’ve offered to not enforce (rather than release) is the important one that doesn’t expire until the 2030s.
> Despite previous litigation against would-be imitators of their safety brake, SawStop has committed to dedicating its original patent to the public when these new regulations go into effect.
Since this article is just a list of thoughts, a few other ideas:
- Dual incomes. It was easier to move when only the father worked.
- In the 1960s (which this article uses as a baseline) 70% of households had cars and this number was growing. It is 90% now and is stable. Everyone getting a car made previously unlivable spots livable (and cheap), but there haven't been as many innovations since.
- Laws like prop 13 in California gave people incentive to stay in their abode or face rising tax rates. In California that was passed in 1978, but other states have similar laws.
- Measurement error. The stat of Americans "living at home" includes students who live in dorms 6 months a year. 50 years ago these young people maybe moved to a city and waited tables. I'd argue that going to college could at least sorta count as moving. At the very least, more people going to college skews the results.
> Dual incomes. It was easier to move when only the father worked.
This is the biggest one. IBM, for example, used to be a moniker for "I've Been Moved". What the wife did simply wasn't considered.
> In the 1960s (which this article uses as a baseline) 70% of households had cars and this number was growing
70% of households had a single car. People have forgotten what a pain coordinating around that was.
> Laws like prop 13 in California gave people incentive to stay in their abode or face rising tax rates.
Not really. A person only lives so long. In addition, houses were turning over at a decent rate in California as people tended to use the previous house to afford the next house.
The real problem with Prop 13 is on commercial real estate because ownership can outlast human lifespan. When I was in the Bay Area, commercial real estate would have something like 15+ layers of subleases in order to get around Prop 13.
Home prices have almost quadrupled in California since 2000.
If you bought a house in California in 2000 for $250,000 you are only paying taxes on it as if it is worth $360,000, due to prop 13, even though it may be worth closer 1M.
If you want to move to a different equivalent house that is the same market value, your monthly tax payment would triple so you probably just dont move. If you want to downsize your tax rate would still likely go up.
Even if you bought a house five or ten years ago the same general pattern disincentivizes moving quite a bit.
This lock in effect was not present in California in the 1960s.
Another big thing was "industry towns" - if you wanted to build cars, you moved to Detroit. If you wanted to do "that computer thing" you moved to silly valley, etc.
There's still some of that, but everything is much more mixed - you can get a quite decent "tech job" in almost any city now, and that's not even counting remote work.
> In California that was passed in 1978, but other states have similar laws.
California is pretty unique with prop 13. No other state will as drastically limit property tax increases except maybe in very niche cases (eg elderly who are not rich).
reply