You've been around HN a long time. You know that responding to tone is frowned upon here. If there are statements in those links you think were twisted just say how.
"ALSO EVERY AIRPORT SHOULD HAVE MOCK EMERGENCY AIRPLANE DOORS FOR PEOPLE TO TRY OUT."
I would pay money for this in the safety amusement park, but in real life way more people would get hurt operating the fake one at the airport than we'd help in real emergencies. Plane crashes where the emergency exit gets operated are so rare they effectively don't happen.
I had the opportunity to deploy (and use!) a slide at a Lufthansa event, super cool experience but given that just the slide deployment probably cost them over $30k I can’t really see it being a common thing.
Of course just opening an exit door replica you could do for ~free
I think mock slide deployment could be made much cheaper than 30k - e. g. high-volume compressors can be used instead of gas canisters, the materials can be cheaper because there is no weight or temperature requirements, etc.
To clarify, these are percentages for the sample of students taking the remedial Math 2 class, not generally. Two percent is still crazy low though, that's practically nothing.
What is the correct order of operations there? I'm treating both representations of division as equivalent, so just running the whole thing from left to right. But there's no reason that because both operators indicate division, that they must have the same precedence.
> Levels of asthma in London are highest among kids in the vacinity of the docks where cruise and container ships and moor.
Wait, what? There are no container docks in London. The nearest container port serving London is Tilbury, near the coast. Occasionally a single cruise ship moors in the Pool of London against the HMS Belfast, but that's happening only one this month, for 12 hours on April 7, according to the Tower Bridge lift schedule: https://www.towerbridge.org.uk/lift-times
Cruise ships certainly used to moore up in the Greenwich stretch of the river at the and a few years ago there was quite a lot of coverage of the issue around it. Cruise ships require a lot of power while docked, and unless they connect to the grid they used to create a lot of air quality issues.
Still it's 3 to 4 cruise ships a month according to that article and, while probably hugely dirty, I would be surprised if the asthma rates of kids in affluent Greenwich and Blackheath are among "the highest in London" because of this.
It's a big issue there but it's very localised to that specific area (which is itself in the bottom 25% of areas in the UK). They are like having a whole load of idling lorries sat near your house all at the same time, normally for several days at a time. And all of that is on top of the general level of pollution from being in the centre of London. I'm going from a documentary and a couple of article from a few years ago, which I should try and find.
Hopefully with all the work on both improving the fuel used, and providing grid hookups so they can turn their engines off, that will have made a big difference. Hopefully the effects of the congestion charges have made a big difference too. A lot of the kids featured in the documentary had a really crap life because of it all.
> The researchers estimate that for every 10,000 people treated in a year, between 1.5 and 2.5 _extra_ cases will be seen.
The existing rate is about 2 per 10,000 people per year:
> Both Danish studies show that the risk of developing NAION for the individual patient receiving treatment with Ozempic is only 0.2 per thousand per year, which is fortunately significantly lower than in the American study. NAION is a relatively rare condition, and the extra risk is therefore low.
This is a press release, though. Whether or not Ofcom is independent, their press release writers are not independent, they are part of Ofcom's PR team, a team that absolutely exists.
It's also an activist short seller. They make money by publishing negative research reports on companies they've shorted. It's a valuable service.
The disclaimer amounts to "we're not insider trading and we really believe this stuff" many different ways. Insider trading is illegal so they are scrupulously careful to stay away from MNPI (and want you to know that). Really believing this stuff is important because if they turn out to be wrong, it's sort of ok to be honestly wrong, it's not okay to be knowingly wrong and put out the report anyway to manipulate the stock.
And so paragraphs and paragraphs of
>"Reports are based on generally available information, field research, inferences and deductions"
We're not insider trading
>"Our opinions are held in good faith, and we have based them upon publicly available facts and evidence"
We really believe this stuff, also we're really not insider trading.
> "We conducted research and analysis based on public information in a manner that any person could have done if they had been interested in doing so."
Well perhaps if these companies didn’t all have skeletons in their closets, they may be able to avoid the bad press, lawsuits, stock prices issues, etc. That is probably the best way to avoid all this
Essentially, one mitigates the financial risks through tax credits, grants, and labor subsidy programs. i.e. the initial cash burn is money you would have paid in taxes anyway, or simply not purely your own capital.
YMMV depending where you live, and your groups financial situation.
You would be mistaken if you think only "small" firms operate this way... =)
You're saying that if you as an employer find out that someone you hired lied to induce you to hire them, you should be legally required to continue employing them, as some kind of karmic balancing thing?
I assume you’re referring to the offer letter?
Companies extend offer letters only to retract them before the agreed starting date. (Maybe since the offer they found a better candidate)
That should be punishable.
Hiring someone who lied on their resume and is unable to perform their work duties should be fired.
If lying about you employment history is a protected activity, then if a pre-employment background check catches you lying about your employment history, and you say "no I am salting," that also is protection from having your offer rescinded?
In court it would be tested whether your deceit is actually relevant to the salting. Faking an entire resume to get into a place where you can't do the work isn't likely to fly, hiding your time working for a union by claiming you did first line customer support might.
