Readit News"All measurements were performed at 20° ± 0.2°C maintained by an air circulation system unless otherwise noted. The temperature of the films was controlled using a heating/cooling unit (THMS350V, Linkam Scientific Instruments, Salfords, UK) when necessary."
So the latent heat is conducted away by the cooling apparatus, it's just not explicitly stated, to sound more sensational.
Let's assume a $40 bag fee: $25 cost to handle the bag, $3 tax, $12 profit.
If people pay for the bags separately, in addition to their $220 ticket, they will only pay for utilized bags, so for 1 bag, the profit will be $12.
If the $300 ticket bundle includes 2 allowed bags, but people only check 1 bag, then the profit is: $80 - 2$6 (tax) - 1$25 (cost) = $49 profit, more than 4 times bigger!
The real reason is the comparison sites as the HN commenters pointed out, but the result is not always bad, because the savings is real in many cases as people indeed would only pay for one bag on average ($220+$40 = $260) instead of $300.
I think airlines are much less happy with the separated fees than consumers, but once one airline does it, the others are forced to do it. The same happened with the international trips, which clearly has no tax reason. Many years ago it included 2 pieces of 70-pound bags, then 2 50-pound bags, then 1 50-pound bag, and now in many cases, on basic tickets, nothing at all.
I have a cousin who's doing his residency right now and he has an interesting take on this.
You don't want to have a 21 year old in a cancer ward directly treating patients. They may lack the personal skills and life experience needed to convey empathy. In addition, they will not be taken seriously by patients due to their youth.
He is speaking from experience as someone who is doing his residency at a slightly younger age than average.
One would assume they would not want to pay for unnecessary tests for healthy people.
So either their own research shows they save money with annual checkups in spite of what the article says, or more sinisterly, they do want to spend money to be able to justify higher premiums, because in several states they are required to spend around 80% of the premiums, and this is one easily plannable way.
Does anyone know? Perhaps someone working for an insurance company?
That said, I've got no idea if they actually do anything actionable with this data. It certainly doesn't seem to have reduced my spam volume. Now I just let Android Messages filter the spam out.
Most likely they just use the reported message to train their spam filter, not to block the particular sender number of that message.
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/contract-summa...
- Tons of popular and legal products/chemicals are "endocrine disruptors"[1] (fancy term for mess with hormones).
- The FDA/EPA doesn't deny that, they don't themselves even really require tests for long-term health effects in humans (too difficult). Instead they give animals a 1000x+ dose and look for immediate drastic effects (this is abbreviated "LOAEL"). That's the reason we have a xenoestrogen in the lining of soda cans (BPA), because we're trusting that tiny doses must be negligible, which isn't necessarily a valid assumption [2].
- The attitude on a lot of chemicals is "Safe until proven guilty," but when some of these chemicals are suspect (e.g. pesticides) instead of a public announcement they are pulled from public use quietly prior to the point of definitive evidence. New/similar ones can be introduced with presumption of safe until proven guilty. (Search PFOAs if you want to get a sense of how ineffective our protection mechanisms are)
I came to the conclusion a radically new model is necessary, the EPA/FDA need to design models to test for fertility effects, perhaps multigenerationally, in their studies (fruit flies?) quickly.
My bet is within 20 years we'll see it as the more immediate problem than global warming.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor
[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.2203/dose-response....
On the other hand, people in more industrial countries are exposed to different chemicals (BPA, FPOAs, flame retardants, food additives, etc.), than people in more agrarian countries (field chemicals, like fertilizers and pesticides). These chemicals are all harmful, but it's hard to blame a single class of them for a global problem.
If I had to pick a truly universal issue, I would say childhood and young adult obesity. Surprisingly, obesity is growing rapidly even in countries where hunger is also a problem.
Python3 is up and coming, and eventually it will get there, but old machines must die before it can reach ubiquity.
And sure enough, my reading of it left the impression the OAI conditions were basically "DoW won't do anything which violates the rules DoW sets for itself."
Verification requires access to classified logs. These logs would attract the spies of the whole world. Even if these logs are in principle for "past actions", in practice past logs (for war games, for example) would compromise future strategy.
Since these manual audits are too risky, the only alternative is to hard-code limits into the AI. But are we ready trust an AI to "judge" a mission and refuse to execute during a crisis?
Anthropic wanted technical enforcement, the Pentagon wanted trust.
It’s a choice between two bad options: an unaccountable military and an unreliable AI kill switch. They are both very dangerous, just in different ways.